Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35302235›Full record

ArticleAnaesthesia2022

Five-year audit of adherence to an anaesthesia pre-induction checklist.

A Fuchs, S Frick, M Huber, T Riva, L Theiler, M Kleine-Brueggeney, T H Pedersen, J Berger-Estilita, R Greif

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

A FuchsDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7188-1683
S FrickDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.
M HuberDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.
T RivaDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.
L TheilerDepartment of Anaesthesia, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
M Kleine-BrueggeneyDepartment of Anaesthesia, University Children's Hospital Zurich - Eleonore Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland.
T H PedersenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Nordsjaellands Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hillerød, Denmark.
J Berger-EstilitaDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.
R GreifDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Bern · CHKantonsspital Aarau · CHSigmund Freud Privatuniversität Wien · ATUniversity Children's Hospital Zurich · CHUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although patient safety related to airway management has improved substantially over the last few decades, life-threatening events still occur. Technical skills, clinical expertise and human factors contribute to successful airway management. Checklists aim to improve safety by providing a structured approach to equipment, personnel and decision-making. This audit investigates adherence to our institution's airway checklist from 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2021. Inclusion criteria were procedures requiring airway management and we excluded all procedures performed solely under regional anaesthesia, sedation without airway management or paediatric and cardiovascular surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of wholly performed pre-induction checklists. Secondary outcomes were the pattern of adherence over the 5 years well as details of airway management, including: airway management difficulties; time and location of induction; anaesthesia teams in operating theatres (including teams for different surgical specialities); non-operating theatre and emergency procedures; type of anaesthesia (general or combined); and urgency of the procedure. In total, 95,946 procedures were included. In 57.3%, anaesthesia pre-induction checklists were completed. Over the 5 years after implementation, adherence improved from 48.3% to 66.7% (p < 0.001). Anticipated and unanticipated airway management difficulties (e.g. facemask ventilation, supraglottic airway device or intubation) defined by the handling anaesthetist were encountered in 4.2% of all procedures. Completion of the checklist differed depending on the time of day (61.3% during the day vs. 35.0% during the night, p < 0.001). Completion also differed depending on location (66.8% in operating theatres vs. 41.0% for non-operating theatre anaesthesia, p < 0.001) and urgency of procedure (65.4% in non-emergencies vs. 35.4% in emergencies, p < 0.001). A mixed-effect model indicated that urgency of procedure is a strong predictor for adherence, with emergency cases having lower adherence (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.49-0.68, p < 0.001). In conclusion, over 5 years, a significant increase in adherence to an anaesthesia pre-induction checklist was found, and areas for further improvement (e.g. emergencies, non-operating room procedures, night-time procedures) were identified.

Indexed as

ChecklistEmergenciesAirway ManagementAnesthesia, GeneralChildHumansOperating Roomsairway managementanaesthesiachecklistcommunicationconductionpatient safety

Identifiers

PMID35302235
PMCPMC9314793
OpenAlexW4220734387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.