Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

No abstract

Background: The aim of this post hoc analysis of a large cohort study was to evaluate the association between night-time surgery and the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events (AEs) and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Methods: LAS VEGAS (Local Assessment of Ventilatory Management During General Anesthesia for Surgery) was a prospective international 1-week study that enrolled adult patients undergoing surgical procedures with general anaesthesia and mechanical ventilation in 146 hospitals across 29 countries. Surgeries were defined as occurring during 'daytime' when induction of anaesthesia was between 8:00 AM and 7:59 PM, and as 'night-time' when induction was between 8:00 PM and 7:59 AM. Results: Of 9861 included patients, 555 (5.6%) underwent surgery during night-time. The proportion of patients who developed intraoperative AEs was higher during night-time surgery in unmatched (43.6% vs 34.1%; P<0.001) and propensity-matched analyses (43.7% vs 36.8%; P¼0.029). PPCs also occurred more often in patients who underwent night-time surgery (14% vs 10%; P¼0.004) in an unmatched cohort analysis, although not in a propensity-matched analysis (13.8% vs 11.8%; P¼0.39). In a multivariable regression model, including patient characteristics and types of surgery and anaesthesia, night-time surgery was independently associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative AEs (odds ratio: 1.44; 95% confidence interval: 1.09e1.90; P¼0.01), but not with a higher incidence of PPCs (odds ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 0.89e1.90; P¼0.15). Conclusions: Intraoperative adverse events and postoperative pulmonary complications occurred more often in patients undergoing night-time surgery. Imbalances in patients' clinical characteristics, types of surgery, and intraoperative management at night-time partially explained the higher incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, but not the higher incidence of adverse events. Clinical trial registration: NCT01601223.

Introduction: No definitive answer has been given to the question 'who should teach cardiopulmonary resuscitation?' Healthcare professionals and high school teachers are mostly the trainers, but medical students are increasingly being used for this purpose. Methods: We divided 296 high school students in three groups based on trainer professional level. Medical students, anaesthesia and intensive care residents, and anaesthesia and intensive care specialists provided basic life support training. We tested their theoretical knowledge with the help of a multiple-choice question questionnaire and practical abilities with the help of a medical simulator, recording chest compression frequency as the primary outcome parameter. Results: The study shows comparable results in all groups, with the exception of the chest compression frequency which was higher in the students' and residents' groups (students: 134.7/min ± 14.1; residents: 137.9/min ± 15.9; specialists: 126.3/min ± 19.3). Increased rates were not associated with lower depths (39.0 mm ± 8.2, 40.5 mm ± 9.7, and 38.1 mm ± 8.2), so the quality of compressions provided may be seen as equivalent in all the study groups. Conclusion: Our data suggest that medical students may be as effective as anaesthesia and intensive care specialists and residents in cardiopulmonary resuscitation training.

Professionals support the implementation of an integrated electronic system for large-scale events if outlined requirements are met to maximize user acceptance.