PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9112051

Future areas for recommendations.

J S Gravenstein
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In the future we may anticipate continued efforts to define standards addressing anaesthesia equipment, organization, and the qualification of personnel. Many standards will be revised and/or expanded, as experience with these standards accumulates. In addition to these external standards, we foresee efforts to seek consensus among clinicians on the definition of appropriate clinical patterns. In the long run, these efforts to define practice guidelines may lead to re-assessment of what and how we teach newcomers to anaesthesia, and how to assess the quality of anaesthesia care.

Explore related subjects

AnesthesiologyGuidelines as TopicJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J S Gravenstein. 1993. Future areas for recommendations.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9112051/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2004

Should surgeons take a break after an intraoperative death? Attitude survey and outcome evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate attitudes of cardiac surgeons and anaesthetists towards working immediately after an intraoperative death and to establish whether an intraoperative death affects the outcome of subsequent surgery. DESIGN: Questionnaire on attitudes to working after an intraoperative death and matched cohort study. SETTING: UK adult cardiac surgery centres and regional cardiothoracic surgical centre. PARTICIPANTS: 371 consultant cardiac surgeons and anaesthetists in the United Kingdom were asked to complete a questionnaire, and seven surgeons from one centre who continued to operate after intraoperative death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome for 233 patients operated on by a surgeon who had experienced an intraoperative death within the preceding 48 hours compared with outcome of 932 matched controls. Hospital mortality and length of stay as a surrogate for hospital morbidity. RESULTS: The questionnaire response rate was 76%. Around a quarter of surgeons and anaesthetists thought they should stop work after an intraoperative death and most wanted guidelines on this subject. Overall, there was no increased mortality in patients operated on in the 48 hours after an intraoperative death. However, mortality was higher if the preceding intraoperative death was in an emergency or high risk case. Survivors operated on within 48 hours after an intraoperative death had longer stay in intensive care (odds ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 2.52, P = 0.02) and longer stay in hospital (relative change 1.15, 1.03 to 1.24, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Mortality is not increased in operations performed in the immediate aftermath of an intraoperative death, but survivors have longer stays in intensive care and on the hospital ward.

Anesthesiology↗
PubMed2004

Acute airway management in the emergency department by non-anesthesiologists.

PURPOSE: The responsibility of acute airway management often falls into the hands of non-anesthesiologists. Emergency physicians now routinely use neuromuscular blockade to facilitate intubation. The literature in support of this practice has almost exclusively been published in emergency medicine (EM) journals. This body of literature is presented and issues of educational support are discussed. SOURCE: A narrative review of the literature on the practice of airway management by non-anesthesiologists. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A significant proportion of acute airway management occurring outside the operating room is being performed by non-anesthesiologists. Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is recognized as a core procedure within the domain of EM. RSI is being performed routinely by emergency physicians practicing in larger centres. Anesthesiologist support for the practice of RSI by non-anesthesiologists has been weak. Formal educational support outside of postgraduate training in the form of dedicated programs for advanced airway management are now being offered. The majority of the literature on the use of RSI by non-anesthesiologists represents retrospective case series, observational studies and registry data published in EM journals. The reported success rates for RSI performed by non-anesthesiologists is high. Complication rates are significant, however reporting consistency has been poor. CONCLUSIONS: The role of non-anesthesiologists in acute airway management is significant. Despite shortcomings in methodology, current evidence and practice supports the use of RSI by trained emergency physicians. Constructive collaborative efforts between anesthesiology and EM need to occur to ensure that educational needs are met and that competent airway management is provided.

Anesthesiology↗