PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 868327

[Surgical intensive care].

Abstract

Patients for intensive care in surgery can be divided into 3 groups: 1. Patients in poor preoperative conditions which should be corrected before surgery is performed; 2. Patients with extensive operations and expected or unexpected postoperative complications; 3. Patients with extensive traumas. --In the postwar period medicine developed at a tremendous speed. Modern intensive treatment of those patients with managed by a new group of doctors who had based their primary training in Surgery and continued their professional career in Anaesthesiology. In the last two decades, however, pathophysiologic thinking found its way and a new type of surgeon emerged. Special fields such as cardiovascular-endocrinological-gastroenterological surgery etc, appeared. Nowadays preoperative as well as postoperative treatment is considered to be an important factor in surgery and applied by all specialists. --Anaesthiologists however still play a major role in intensive medicine for surgical patients. But due to the fact that surgical training only plays a little or no part in their professional training, their role is hardly more than that of an important and necessary consultant. A new type of a doctor for surgical intensive medicine may perhaps develop somewhere in the future, but at present successful intensive care in surgical patients can only be achieved by perfect cooperation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Satter. 1977. [Surgical intensive care].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/868327/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Perception of training needs and opportunities in advanced airway skills: a survey of British and Irish trainees.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We surveyed delegates at the Group of Anaesthetists in Training (UK) meeting to investigate evidence of a training-gap (number of fibreoptic intubations believed to bestow competence vs. number actually performed). METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to and collected from delegates in person. Questions covered six areas, including experience of fibreoptic intubation and cricothyrotomy, fibreoptic intubation as a specialist skill and ethical issues. RESULTS: We received 221 replies (76%). All trainees believed competence to be achievable with 10 intubations (interquartile range (IQR) 10-20); the median number performed was 2 (IQR 0-4). This was statistically significant for the groups' senior house officers, 1st and 2nd year registrars and 3rd and 4th year registrars; P < 0.0001. Many final year trainees (12/20, 60%) also failed to achieve their competency target. Few trainees had seen or performed any cricothyrotomies (medians 0, IQRs 0-1 and 0-0). Most (195/208, 94%) believed that fibreoptic intubation was a core skill and 199/212 (94%) believed that all should be competent by completion of training. Ten percent (n = 208) felt it unethical to perform an awake training intubation with full consent and 10% believed it acceptable without explanation. Most (82.7%) would fibreoptically intubate an asleep patient (requiring intubation) without consent. CONCLUSION: Trainees reported a gap between their perception of competence and achievement in awake fibreoptic intubation. Simple and complex simulations and structured training programmes may help. Anaesthetists must address the ethics of clinical training in advanced airway management.

Anesthesiology↗