Interrater reliability of qualitative ultrasound assessment of gastric content in the third trimester of pregnancy

Q1Q11018-1023Background Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents in pregnant women undergoing general anaesthesia is one of the most feared complications in obstetric anaesthesia. Bedside gastric ultrasonography is a feasible imaging tool to assess the gastric content. The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability of qualitative bedside assessment of the gastric content performed by anaesthesiologists on third trimester pregnant women. Methods Pregnant women (≥32 weeks gestational age) were randomized to undergo ultrasound (US) assessments of their stomach in a fasting state (>8 h), or after ingestion of clear fluids only, or solid food. Three anaesthesiologists trained in gastric ultrasonography performed the assessments using a low-frequency curved-array US transducer (5–2 MHz). Primary outcome of the study was the consistency of raters in diagnosing the correct status of the gastric content, which was used to determine the interrater reliability among the three anaesthesiologists. Secondary outcomes were overall proportion of correct and incorrect diagnoses and the specific proportions of correct diagnosis across the three gastric content groups. Results We analysed 32 pregnant women. The interrater reliability displayed a kappa statistic of 0.74 (bias corrected 95% CI: 0.68–0.84). The overall proportion of correct diagnosis was 87.5% (84 of 96). The odds of correct diagnosis for ‘solid contents' were 16.7 times the odds for ‘empty', and 14.3 times for ‘clear fluid'. Conclusions Our results show the consistency of the qualitative US assessment of gastric contents of pregnant women in the third trimester by anaesthesiologists. A kappa of 0.74 suggests substantial agreement in terms of interrater reliability for this diagnostic measurement

Recommendations for effective documentation in regional anesthesia: an expert panel Delphi consensus project

Background and objectives: Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia. Methods: Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement. Results: Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29. Conclusion: By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia