ArticleAnaesthesia reports
Moisture ingress in a hospital medical air system secondary to dryer failure leading to service disruption.
Article in Anaesthesia reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical air is essential for the safe delivery of anaesthesia, critical care and emergency care. We report a hospital-wide medical air contamination event caused by failure of ageing desiccant dryers. Water was detected in the intensive care unit medical air outlets, before moisture contamination was confirmed within the medical air pipeline system and operating theatre pendants. This resulted in shutdown of the central medical air plant, suspension of non-urgent surgery, surgical bypass and a 5-day disruption to normal hospital services. The principal clinical challenges were the loss of reliable medical air supplied via the pipeline system, potential moisture exposure of anaesthetic ventilators and other equipment, limited capacity to provide ventilatory support and initial inability to use available medical air cylinders with anaesthetic workstations because of pressure regulator incompatibility. Management required immediate cessation of use of the medical air pipeline system, use of alternative medical air supplies, liaison with the anaesthetic machine manufacturer, installation of a temporary dehydrator, moisture removal and compliance testing. This case highlights that visible water at a medical gas outlet is a serious infrastructure failure requiring urgent escalation and multidisciplinary management. The primary educational message is that medical air-drying systems require proactive maintenance, lifecycle replacement and continuous dew-point monitoring linked to hospital alarm systems. Secondary lessons include the importance of tested backup medical air plans, equipment-compatible regulators and staff education to recognise moisture ingress as a high-risk patient safety event.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.