The United Kingdom National Audit Projects: a narrative review

The Royal College of Anaesthetists’ National Audit Project (NAP) programme has been running in its current form since 2006. Since NAP3 was commissioned the NAPs have examined rare but important complications of anaesthesia and related subspecialties. The topics covered include major complications of central neuraxial block (NAP3), major complications of airway management in hospitals (NAP4) and accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (NAP5). NAP6 is currently studying severe perioperative anaphylaxis. The NAPs have shed new light on the major complications of anaesthesia, providing both quantitative (frequencies, prevalence, incidence, risk factors) and qualitative (themes, patient stories, human factors) knowledge that has led to new learning, recommendations and changes in practice. This article describes the background, nature and processes of the NAPs.Keywords: Audit, Anaesthesia, Central neuraxial blockade, Airway, Awareness, Complication

Perioperative anaphylaxis – what’s the risk?

Capturing data about rare, hazardous events in perioperative care is challenging. The United Kingdom’s National Audit Project (NAP) programme, commissioned by the Royal College of Anaesthetists, endeavours to provide practical information for clinicians by systematically examining a large series of such events.1 Each NAP has focused on a different topic, and most recently the Sixth National Audit Project, ‘NAP6’, investigated life-threatening perioperative allergic reactions. A review of the methodology and findings of previous NAPs has previously been published in this journal

Visualizing 1D Regression

Regression is the study of the conditional distribution of the response y given the predictors x. In a 1D regression, y is independent of x given a single linear combination βTx of the predictors. Special cases of 1D regression include multiple linear regression, binary regression and generalized linear models. If a good estimate ˆb of some non-zero multiple cβ of β can be constructed, then the 1D regression can be visualized with a scatterplot of ˆbTx versus y. A resistant method for estimating cβ is presented along with applications

A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design

Acknowledgements JAC held a Medical Research Council UK methodology (G1002292) fellowship, which supported this research. The Health Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences (University of Aberdeen), is core-funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. Views express are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The impact of COVID-19 on anaesthesia and critical care services in the UK: a serial service evaluation

Between October 2020 and January 2021, we conducted three national surveys to track anaesthetic, surgical and critical care activity during the second COVID-19 pandemic wave in the UK. We surveyed all NHS hospitals where surgery is undertaken. Response rates, by round, were 64%, 56% and 51%. Despite important regional variations, the surveys showed increasing systemic pressure on anaesthetic and peri-operative services due to the need to support critical care pandemic demands. During Rounds 1 and 2, approximately one in eight anaesthetic staff were not available for anaesthetic work. Approximately one in five operating theatres were closed and activity fell in those that were open. Some mitigation was achieved by relocation of surgical activity to other locations. Approximately one-quarter of all surgical activity was lost, with paediatric and non-cancer surgery most impacted. During January 2021, the system was largely overwhelmed. Almost one-third of anaesthesia staff were unavailable, 42% of operating theatres were closed, national surgical activity reduced to less than half, including reduced cancer and emergency surgery. Redeployed anaesthesia staff increased the critical care workforce by 125%. Three-quarters of critical care units were so expanded that planned surgery could not be safely resumed. At all times, the greatest resource limitation was staff. Due to lower response rates from the most pressed regions and hospitals, these results may underestimate the true impact. These findings have important implications for understanding what has happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, planning recovery and building a system that will better respond to future waves or new epidemics

Influence of airway management strategy on "no-flow-time" during an "Advanced life support course" for intensive care nurses – A single rescuer resuscitation manikin study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In 1999, the laryngeal tube (VBM Medizintechnik, Sulz, Germany) was introduced as a new supraglottic airway. It was designed to allow either spontaneous breathing or controlled ventilation during anaesthesia; additionally it may serve as an alternative to endotracheal intubation, or bag-mask ventilation during resuscitation. Several variations of this supraglottic airway exist. In our study, we compared ventilation with the laryngeal tube suction for single use (LTS-D) and a bag-mask device. One of the main points of the revised ERC 2005 guidelines is a low no-flow-time (NFT). The NFT is defined as the time during which no chest compression occurs. Traditionally during the first few minutes of resuscitation NFT is very high. We evaluated the hypothesis that utilization of the LTS-D could reduce the NFT compared to bag-mask ventilation (BMV) during simulated cardiac arrest in a single rescuer manikin study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were studied during a one day advanced life support (ALS) course. Two scenarios of arrhythmias requiring defibrillation were simulated in a manikin. One scenario required subjects to establish the airway with a LTS-D; alternatively, the second scenario required them to use BMV. The scenario duration was 430 seconds for the LTS-D scenario, and 420 seconds for the BMV scenario, respectively. Experienced ICU nurses were recruited as study subjects. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two groups first (LTS-D and BMV) to establish the airway. Endpoints were the total NFT during the scenario, the successful airway management using the respective device, and participants' preference of one of the two strategies for airway management.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Utilization of the LTS-D reduced NFT significantly (p < 0.01). Adherence to the time frame of ERC guidelines was 96% in the LTS-D group versus 30% in the BMV group. Two participants in the LTS-D group required more than one attempt to establish the LTS-D correctly. Once established, ventilation was effective in 100%. In a subjective evaluation all participants preferred the LTS-D over BMV to provide ventilation in a cardiac arrest scenario.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In our manikin study, NFT was reduced significantly when using LTS-D compared to BMV. During cardiac arrest, the LTS-D might be a good alternative to BMV for providing and maintaining a patent airway. For personnel not experienced in endotracheal intubation it seems to be a safe airway device in a manikin use.</p