Ergonomics in the anaesthetic workplace: Guideline from the Association of Anaesthetists

Comparing the posture and comfort of anaesthesiologists during laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation in the head-elevated laryngoscopy position in supine position and with a 25° backup: A randomised clinical crossover trial

Background and Aims

The head-elevated laryngoscopy position (HELP) and a 25° backup have been proposed to enhance glottic visualisation, yet concerns about ergonomic discomfort hinder their widespread adoption. This study compares the comfort and posture adopted by anaesthesiologists while performing laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation with patients in HELP while in a supine position or with 25° backup.

Methods

The study included 48 patients aged 18-60 years with normal airways and 12 experienced anaesthesiologists. Patients were randomised into two groups using permuted block randomisation. Anaesthesiologists performed laryngoscopy and intubation in supine HELP and 25° backup HELP positions. Anaesthesiologist's posture was determined by measuring the angles of neck, wrist, elbow, back and knee joints, which were compared using Student's t-test, and subjective comfort assessed on a Likert scale was compared using the Chi-square test. As mentioned by the anaesthesiologist, Cormack- Lehane grading was also noted and compared using a Chi-square test between groups, taking a P value <0.05 as significant.

Results

Both positions demonstrated comparable anaesthesiologist posture (P = 0.919) and comfort (P = 0.644). However, the 25° backup HELP positions significantly improved Cormack-Lehane grades, with 68% achieving grade 1 compared to 31% in the supine HELP group (P = 0.012). Haemodynamic stability and tracheal intubation time showed no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.475 and 0.117, respectively), and no complications were reported in either group.

Conclusion

Anaesthesiologists' posture and comfort during laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation are similar between supine and 25° backup in patients with easy airways.

Physical Ergonomic Assessment in Cleaning Hospital Operating Rooms Based on Inertial Measurement Units

Workers involved in hospital operating room cleaning face numerous constraints that may lead to musculoskeletal disorders. This study aimed to perform physical ergonomic assessments on hospital staff by combining a continuous assessment (RULA) based on inertial measurement units with video coding. Eight participants performed cleaning tasks while wearing IMUs and being video recorded. A subjective evaluation was performed through the Nordic questionnaire. Global RULA scores equaled 4.21 ± 1.15 and 4.19 ± 1.20 for the right and left sides, respectively, spending most of the time in the RULA range of 3-4 (right: 63.54 ± 31.59%; left: 64.33 ± 32.33%). Elbows and lower arms were the most exposed upper body areas with the highest percentages of time spent over a risky threshold (right: 86.69 ± 27.27%; left: 91.70 ± 29.07%). The subtask analysis identified 'operating table moving', 'stretcher moving', and 'trolley moving' as the riskiest subtasks. Thus, this method allowed an extensive ergonomic analysis, highlighting both risky anatomical areas and subtasks that need to be reconsidered.

Work-related musculoskeletal complaints and ergonomic risk factors among Egyptian anesthesiologists: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Anesthesiologists are vulnerable to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) due to sustained repetitive movements and awkward postures. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of WMSDs among anesthesiologists and to evaluate its association with ergonomic risk factors.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 380 Egyptian anesthesiologists were invited to participate in this cross-sectional study through an electronic questionnaire. Data were collected from May to August 2022 and involved questions about participants' demographic, health, and work-related characteristics; the ergonomic risks and perceived hazards; and the musculoskeletal complaints during the past 12 months and 7 days - using Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ). Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate statistical analyses were used to estimate the prevalence of MSD and identify its determinants in the studied sample.

RESULTS

A total of 215 anesthesiologists were included in this study, with a 56.8% response rate, 66% males with an average age of 38 (± 0.7) years. 21% were resident physicians, 47% were specialists, and 32% were consultants. The 12-month prevalence of MSD among anesthesiologists was 71.6% (95% CI: 65.6- 77.7%). Multivariate analysis showed that the main determinants of MSD among the studied sample were age of 45-years and older (OR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.21-8.52, p = 0.018), regular physical exercise (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.10-0.65, p = 0.005), insufficient rest time between procedures (OR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.15-4.41, p = 0.018), and three or more awkward postures of the trunk (OR: 3.55, 95% CI: 1.43-8.82, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights a high prevalence of WMSDs among Egyptian anesthesiologists, linked to advancing age, lack of regular exercise, insufficient rest between procedures, and frequent awkward postures. Addressing these ergonomic risk factors through targeted workplace interventions is crucial for promoting the overall well-being of anesthesiologists and ensuring the provision of safe anesthesia services.

Ergonomics of bronchoscopy: good advice or a pain in the neck?

Interventional pulmonologists require a unique set of skills including precise motor abilities and physical endurance, but surprisingly the application of ergonomic principles in the field of bronchoscopy remains limited. This is particularly intriguing when considering the significant impact that poor ergonomics can have on diagnostic aptitude, income potential and overall health. It is therefore imperative to provide comprehensive education to physicians regarding the significance of ergonomics in their work, especially considering the introduction of advanced diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. By implementing simple yet effective measures (e.g. maintaining neutral positions of the wrist, neck and shoulder; adjusting the height of tables and monitors; incorporating scheduled breaks; and engaging in regular exercises), the risk of injuries can be substantially reduced. Moreover, objective tools are readily available to assess ergonomic postures and estimate the likelihood of work-related musculoskeletal injuries. This review aims to evaluate the current literature on the impact of procedure-related musculoskeletal pain on practising pulmonologists and identify modifiable factors for future research.

Human factors and ergonomics

Human factors and ergonomics in healthcare is an important discipline that considers both the physical and mental characteristics of healthcare workers, as well as the complex interactions within which organisations exist.

Human factors in anaesthesia: a narrative review

Healthcare relies on high levels of human performance, as described by the 'human as the hero' concept. However, human performance varies and is recognised to fall in high-pressure situations, meaning that it is not a reliable method of ensuring safety. Other safety-critical industries embed human factors principles into all aspects of their organisations to improve safety and reduce reliance on exceptional human performance; there is potential to do the same in anaesthesia. Human factors is a broad-based scientific discipline which aims to make it as easy as possible for workers to do things correctly. The human factors strategies most likely to be effective are those which 'design out' the chance of an error or adverse event occurring. When errors or adverse events do happen, barriers are in place to trap them and reduce the risk of progression to patient and/or worker harm. If errors or adverse events are not trapped by these barriers, mitigations are in place to minimise the consequences. Non-technical skills form an important part of human factors barriers and mitigation strategies and include: situation awareness; decision-making; task management; and team working. Human factors principles are not a substitute for proper investment and appropriate staffing levels. Although applying human factors science has the potential to save money in the long term, its proper implementation may require investment before reward can be reaped. This narrative review describes what is known about human factors in anaesthesia to date.

Implementing human factors in anaesthesia: guidance for clinicians, departments and hospitals: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists

Human factors is an evidence-based scientific discipline used in safety critical industries to improve safety and worker well-being. The implementation of human factors strategies in anaesthesia has the potential to reduce the reliance on exceptional personal and team performance to provide safe and high-quality patient care. To encourage the adoption of human factors science in anaesthesia, the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists established a Working Party, including anaesthetists and operating theatre team members with human factors expertise and/or interest, plus a human factors scientist, an industrial psychologist and an experimental psychologist/implementation scientist. A three-stage Delphi process was used to formulate a set of 12 recommendations: these are described using a 'hierarchy of controls' model and classified into design, barriers, mitigations and education and training strategies. Although most anaesthetic knowledge of human factors concerns non-technical skills, such as teamwork and communication, human factors is a broad-based scientific discipline with many other additional aspects that are just as important. Indeed, the human factors strategies most likely to have the greatest impact are those related to the design of safe working environments, equipment and systems. While our recommendations are primarily provided for anaesthetists and the teams they work with, there are likely to be lessons for others working in healthcare beyond the speciality of anaesthesia.

Age and the anaesthetist: considerations for the individual anaesthetist and workforce planning: Guidelines about the ageing anaesthetic workforce from the Association of Anaesthetists: Guidelines for the ageing anaesthetic workforce from the Association of Anaesthetists

There is clear evidence of a growing workforce gap and this is compounded by demographic data that show the current workforce is ageing. Within the current workforce, more doctors are taking voluntary early retirement and the loss of these experienced clinicians from departments can have wide-ranging effects. Older doctors are at risk of age-related health problems (e.g. sight, musculoskeletal, menopause) and are more susceptible to the effects of fatigue, which may increase the risk of error and or complaint. The purpose of this working party and advocacy campaign was to address concerns over the number of consultants retiring at the earliest opportunity and whether a different approach could extend the working career of consultant anaesthetists and SAS doctors. This could be viewed as 'pacing your career'. The earlier this is considered in a clinician's career the greater the potential mitigation on individuals.