We present the main findings of the 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA). Incidences were estimated using reports of accidental awareness as the numerator, and a parallel national anaesthetic activity survey to provide denominator data. The incidence of certain/probable and possible accidental awareness cases was ~1:19,600 anaesthetics (95% confidence interval 1:16,700-23,450). However, there was considerable variation across subtypes of techniques or subspecialities. The incidence with neuromuscular block (NMB) was ~1:8200 (1:7030-9700), and without, it was ~1:135,900 (1:78,600-299,000). The cases of AAGA reported to NAP5 were overwhelmingly cases of unintended awareness during NMB. The incidence of accidental awareness during Caesarean section was ~1:670 (1:380-1300). Two-thirds (82, 66%) of cases of accidental awareness experiences arose in the dynamic phases of anaesthesia, namely induction of and emergence from anaesthesia. During induction of anaesthesia, contributory factors included: use of thiopental, rapid sequence induction, obesity, difficult airway management, NMB, and interruptions of anaesthetic delivery during movement from anaesthetic room to theatre. During emergence from anaesthesia, residual paralysis was perceived by patients as accidental awareness, and commonly related to a failure to ensure full return of motor capacity. One-third (43, 33%) of accidental awareness events arose during the maintenance phase of anaesthesia, mostly due to problems at induction or towards the end of anaesthesia. Factors increasing the risk of accidental awareness included: female sex, age (younger adults, but not children), obesity, anaesthetist seniority (junior trainees), previous awareness, out-of-hours operating, emergencies, type of surgery (obstetric, cardiac, thoracic), and use of NMB. The following factors were not risk factors for accidental awareness: ASA physical status, race, and use or omission of nitrous oxide. We recommend that an anaesthetic checklist, to be an integral part of the World Health Organization Safer Surgery checklist, is introduced as an aid to preventing accidental awareness. This paper is a shortened version describing the main findings from NAP5--the full report can be found at http://www.nationalauditprojects.org.uk/NAP5_home.

The success of incident reporting in improving safety, although obvious in aviation and other high-risk industries, is yet to be seen in health-care systems. An incident reporting system which would improve patient safety would allow front-end clinicians to have easy access for reporting an incident with an understanding that their report will be handled in a non-punitive manner, and that it will lead to enhanced learning regarding the causation of the incident and systemic changes which will prevent it from recurring. At present, significant problems remain with local and national incident reporting systems. These include fear of punitive action, poor safety culture in an organization, lack of understanding among clinicians about what should be reported, lack of awareness of how the reported incidents will be analysed, and how will the reports ultimately lead to changes which will improve patient safety. In particular, lack of systematic analysis of the reports and feedback directly to the clinicians are seen as major barriers to clinical engagement. In this review, robust systematic methodology of analysing incidents is discussed. This methodology is based on human factors model, and the learning paradigm which emphasizes significant shift from traditional judicial approach to understanding how 'latent errors' may play a role in a chain of events which can set up an 'active error' to occur. Feedback directly to the clinicians is extremely important for keeping them 'in the loop' for their continued engagement, and it should target different levels of analyses. In addition to high-level information on the types of incidents, the feedback should incorporate results of the analyses of active and latent factors. Finally, it should inform what actions, and at what level/stage, have been taken in response to the reported incidents. For this, local and national systems will be required to work in close cooperation, so that the lessons can be learnt and actions taken within an organization, and across organizations. In the UK, a recently introduced speciality-specific incident reporting system for anaesthesia aims to incorporate the elements of successful reporting system, as presented in this review, to achieve enhanced clinical engagement and improved patient safety.

No abstract

This is a repository copy of Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH) : a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH) : a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet. ISSN 0140-6736 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32521-2 eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ ReuseThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can't change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Implications of all the available evidenceDespite the success of some smaller projects, there was no survival benefit from a national quality improvement programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. To succeed, large national quality improvement programmes need to allow for differences between hospitals and ensure teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care.