General anaesthesia for obstetric surgery has distinct characteristics that may contribute towards a higher risk of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, experience and psychological implications of unintended conscious awareness during general anaesthesia in obstetric patients. From May 2017 to August 2018, 3115 consenting patients receiving general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals in England were recruited to the study. Patients received three repetitions of standardised questioning over 30 days, with responses indicating memories during general anaesthesia that were verified using interviews and record interrogation. A total of 12 patients had certain/ probable or possible awareness, an incidence of 1 in 256 (95%CI 149-500) for all obstetric surgery. The incidence was 1 in 212 (95%CI 122-417) for caesarean section surgery. Distressing experiences were reported by seven (58.3%) patients, paralysis by five (41.7%) and paralysis with pain by two (16.7%). Accidental awareness occurred during induction and emergence in nine (75%) of the patients who reported awareness. Factors associated with accidental awareness during general anaesthesia were: high BMI (25-30 kg.m -2 ); low BMI (<18.5 kg.m -2 ); out-of-hours surgery; and use of ketamine or thiopental for induction. Standardised psychological impact scores at 30 days were significantly higher in awareness patients (median (IQR [range]) 15 (2.7-52.0 [2-56]) than in patients without awareness 3 (1-9 [0-64]), p = 0.010. Four patients had a provisional diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. We conclude that direct postoperative questioning reveals high rates of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery, which has implications for anaesthetic practice, consent and follow-up.

Pregnant women should receive information about what they might expect to experience during their delivery. Despite this, research shows many women are inadequately prepared for anaesthetic interventions during labour. We surveyed 903 postnatal women across 28 Greater London hospitals about: the analgesic and anaesthetic information that they recalled receiving during pregnancy and delivery; their confidence to make decisions on analgesia; and their satisfaction with the analgesia used. Wide variation was observed between hospitals. Overall, 67 of 749 (9.0%) women recalled receiving antenatal information covering all aspects of labour analgesia, and 108 of 889 (12.1%) covering anaesthesia for caesarean section. Regarding intrapartum information, 256 of 415 (61.7%) respondents recalled receiving thorough information before epidural insertion for labour analgesia, and 102 of 370 (27.6%) before anaesthesia for caesarean section. We found that 620 of 903 (68.7%) women felt well enough informed to be confident in their analgesic choices, and 675 of 903 (74.8%) stated that their analgesia was as expected or better. Receiving information verbally, regardless of provider, was the factor most strongly associated with respondents recalling receiving full information: odds ratio (95%CI) for labour analgesia 20. 66 (8.98-47.53; p < 0.0001); epidural top-up for caesarean section 5. 93 (1.57-22.35; p = 0.01); and general anaesthesia for caesarean section 12. 39 (2.18-70.42; p = 0.01). A large proportion of respondents did not recall being fully informed before an anaesthetic intervention. Collaboration with current antenatal service providers, both in promoting information delivery and providing resources to assist with delivery, could improve the quality of information offered and women's retention of that information.

No abstract

No abstract