Anaesthesia providers' perceptions of system safety and critical incidents in non-operating theatre anaesthesia

Anaesthesia clinicians' perception of safety, workload, anxiety, and stress in a remote hybrid suite compared with the operating room

BACKGROUND

Anaesthesia care outside of the standard operating room (OR) can be challenging. This prospective matched case-pair study describes the difference in anaesthesia clinicians' perception of safety, workload, anxiety, and stress in two settings by comparing similar neurosurgical procedures performed in either the OR or a remote hybrid room with intraoperative MRI (MRI-OR).

METHODS

A visual numeric scale for safety perception and validated instruments for workload, anxiety, and stress were administered to enrolled anaesthesia clinicians after induction of anaesthesia and at the end of eligible cases. The difference in outcomes reported by the same clinician for unique pairs of similar operations performed in both settings (OR vs MRI-OR) was compared using the Student t-test with the general bootstrap algorithm to address the presence of clusters.

RESULTS

Over 15 months, 37 clinicians provided data for 53 case pairs. Working in the remote MRI-OR vs OR was associated with lower perceived safety (7.3 [2.0] vs 8.8 [0.9]; P<0.001), higher scores in the workload subdomains effort and frustration (41.6 [24.1] vs 31.3 [21.6]; P=0.006 and 32.4 [22.9] vs 20.7 [17.2]; P=0.002, respectively), and higher anxiety (33.6 [10.1] vs 28.4 [9.2]; P=0.003) at the end of the case. Stress was rated higher in the MRI-OR after induction of anaesthesia (26.5 [15.5] vs 20.9 [13.4]; P=0.006). Effect sizes (Cohen's D) were moderate to good.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaesthesia clinicians reported lower perceived safety and higher workload, anxiety, and stress in a remote MRI-OR compared with a standard OR. Improving non-standard work settings should benefit clinician well-being and patient safety.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

.

Systems safety in nonoperating room anesthesia locations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) care is an area of rapid growth over the last decade. However, literature describing safety systems in NORA is limited. This review evaluates historical safety models described by Donabedian and Reason, assesses the NORA environment and safety concerns that may contribute to adverse events, and provides potential solutions via a human-centered systems safety design.

RECENT FINDINGS

Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 3.0 provides a framework for quality and patient safety improvement. Although the previous SEIPS 2.0 model has been used to evaluate NORA environments with focus on the case volume, high productivity pressure, and significant physical constraints common to NORA sites, literature describing SEIPS 3.0 in relation to NORA care is sparse. Given the rate of malpractice claims for death in NORA settings, solutions that address the multifactorial nature of adverse events are needed.

SUMMARY

The SEIPS 3.0 model may be applied to NORA care. Changes should focus on staffing ratios, staff/patient education, checklist utilization, burnout prevention, scheduling efficiency, anesthesia workstation standardization, communication improvements, room layout, medication and supply availability and storage, and the global managerial approach. Team members must demonstrate flexibility and a willingness to adapt to successfully implement change.