Case reports: response to a partial power failure in the operating room

Creating a Cognitive Aid for Use During Intraoperative Power Failures

An intraoperative power failure (IOPF) is a complete or partial absence of the electrical power supply with or without the availability of a backup generator system during an operative or other invasive procedure. An IOPF can be stressful for the OR team and puts surgical patients at risk for adverse outcomes. To prepare providers for an IOPF, a CRNA piloted a project to create an evidence-based, facility-specific cognitive aid (CA) to guide decision making and enhance patient management and outcomes during an IOPF. The project team tested the battery-power capabilities of essential anesthesia equipment, including anesthesia gas machines, IV pumps, and vital sign monitors, and included the results in the CA. A needs assessment survey was sent to the anesthesia professionals at the facility to promote clinician buy-in and solicit feedback for creating the CA.

Health care during electricity failure: The hidden costs

Background

Surgery risks increase when electricity is accessible but unreliable. During unreliable electricity events and without data on increased risk to patients, medical professionals base their decisions on anecdotal experience. Decisions should be made based on a cost-benefit analysis, but no methodology exists to quantify these risks, the associated hidden costs, nor risk charts to compare alternatives.

Methods

Two methodologies were created to quantify these hidden costs. In the first methodology through research literature and/or measurements, the authors obtained and analyzed a year’s worth of hour-by-hour energy failures for four energy healthcare system (EHS) types in four regions (SolarPV in Iraq, Hydroelectric in Ghana, SolarPV+Wind in Bangladesh, and Grid+Diesel in Uganda). In the second methodology, additional patient risks were calculated according to time and duration of electricity failure and medical procedure impact type. Combining these methodologies, the cost from the Value of Statistical Lives lost divided by Energy shortage ($/kWh) is calculated for EHS type and region specifically. The authors define hidden costs due to electricity failure as VSL/E ($/kWh) and compare this to traditional electricity costs (always defined in $/kWh units), including Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE also in $/kWh). This is quantified into a fundamentally new energy healthcare system risk chart (EHS-Risk Chart) based on severity of event (probability of deaths) and likelihood of event (probability of electricity failure).

Results

VSL/E costs were found to be 10 to 10,000 times traditional electricity costs (electric utility or LCOE based). The single power source EHS types have higher risks than hybridized EHS types (especially as power loads increase over time), but all EHS types have additional risks to patients due to electricity failure (between 3 to 105 deaths per 1,000 patients).

Conclusions

These electricity failure risks and hidden healthcare costs can now be calculated and charted to make medical decisions based on a risk chart instead of anecdotal experience. This risk chart connects public health and electricity failure using this adaptable, scalable, and verifiable model.

Electricity: How Much for the Contemporary Tertiary Care Operating Room? A Case Report

Surgery requires many electrically driven devices. Three events occurred recently in an operating room (OR) suite circa the 1980s wherein circuit breakers tripped due to overloaded circuits. This led to us to (1) increase OR electric capacity; (2) record each instrument's power requirements, map their OR location, and determine when during surgery they were used; (3) provide users with instruction and diagrams into which outlet to plug each instrument. When introducing surgeries requiring devices, especially with high electrical power (current or amperage) demands, or renovating older or planning new ORs, it is important to provide ORs with sufficient electric current, circuits, and outlets.

Emergency Response in the Ambulatory Surgery Center

As more surgeries are moving out of the hospital setting, effective emergency response in freestanding ambulatory surgery centers requires organized preparedness. Rapid, consistent emergency response can be challenged by their rarity of occurrence, fast-paced environment, and relative lack of resources. Anesthesiologists who practice in these settings must be aware of the differences between the management of an anesthetic emergency in the hospital with virtually unlimited resources and staff, versus an ambulatory surgery center with limited resources and slightly different goal: stabilization and transfer of care. Regular simulation-based training schedules are effective for ambulatory surgery center preparedness for emergency response.

Impact of Surgical Lighting on Intraoperative Safety in Low-Resource Settings: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Surgical Providers

BACKGROUND

Safe surgery requires high-quality, reliable lighting of the surgical field. Little is reported on the quality or potential safety impact of surgical lighting in low-resource settings, where power failures are common and equipment and resources are limited.

METHODS

Members of the Lifebox Foundation created a novel, non-mandatory, 18-item survey tool using an iterative process. This was distributed to surgical providers practicing in low-resource settings through surgical societies and mailing lists.

RESULTS

We received 100 complete responses, representing a range of surgical centres from 39 countries. Poor-quality surgical field lighting was reported by 40% of respondents, with 32% reporting delayed or cancelled operations due to poor lighting and 48% reporting electrical power failures at least once per week. Eighty per cent reported the quality of their surgical lighting presents a patient safety risk with 18% having direct experience of poor-quality lighting leading to negative patient outcomes. When power outages occur, 58% of surgeons rely on a backup generator and 29% operate by mobile phone light. Only 9% of respondents regularly use a surgical headlight, with the most common barriers reported as unaffordability and poor in-country suppliers.

CONCLUSIONS

In our survey of surgeons working in low-resource settings, a majority report poor surgical lighting as a major risk to patient safety and nearly one-third report delayed or cancelled operations due to poor lighting. Developing and distributing robust, affordable, high-quality surgical headlights could provide an ideal solution to this significant surgical safety issue.