Search

Summary: Infection prevention and control team members (IPCTM) are often intimidated by aspects of ventilation as they relate to healthcare, because they consider them technical and outside their area of comfort and expertise. However, engineers, estates departments and planners need IPCTM input to ensure appropriate design and use. The main areas of importance centre on the operating theatre, the provision of air-controlled ventilated isolation rooms, and how to respond to major outbreaks/pandemics. Concentrating on basic principles of infection prevention and control, developing relationships with key departments and individuals, and applying best practice to these and other areas as they arise, are of great value. Some background, information and suggestions are provided for IPCTM with a view to providing simple practical advice in these areas.

Shortages in the physician anaesthesia workforce have led to proposals to introduce new staff groups, notably in the UK National Health Service (NHS) Anaesthesia Associates (AAs) who have shorter training periods than doctors and could potentially contribute to workflow efficiencies in several ways. We analysed the economic viability of the most efficient staffing model, previously endorsed by both the UK Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Anaesthetists, wherein one physician supervises two AAs across two operating lists (1:2 model). For this model to be economically rational (something which neither national organisation considered), the employment cost of the two AAs should be equal to or less than that of a single supervisor physician (i.e. AAs should be paid <50% of the supervisor's salary). As the supervisor can be an autonomous specialty and specialist (SAS) doctor, this sets the economically viable AA salary envelope at less than £40,000 per year. However, we report that actual advertised AA salaries greatly exceed this, with even student AAs paid up to £48,472. Economically, one way to justify such salaries is for AAs to become autonomous such that they eventually replace SAS doctors at a lower cost. We discuss some other options that might increase AA productivity to justify these salaries (e.g. ≥1:3 staffing ratios), but the medico-political consequences of each of them are also profound. Alternatively, the AA programme should be terminated as economically nonviable. These results have implications for any country seeking to introduce new models of working in anaesthesia., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Trauma & Orthopaedic (T&O) surgery presents several occupational hazards to pregnant women and the unborn child. National bodies have produced guidelines to mitigate these risks as far as possible but individual trusts must be aware of them and implement them in their local policies. Our study aims to re-assess whether national guidelines for the protection of pregnant women are better adhered to nationally by providing a comparison to a previous study in 2018., Methods: A national observational study of 146 NHS trusts in the UK was conducted. Each trust was asked to complete a freedom of information request regarding all orthopaedic guidelines relating to pregnant theatre staff, which specifically related to the protection of the mother and foetus from exposure to harmful activity in theatre. Compliance was ascertained by cross-checking local policies with national guidelines., Results: 82/146 (52.0%) of NHS trusts responded to the Freedom of Information  request. 31/75 (41.3%) respondents followed Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance for New and Expectant Mothers with 17/75 (22.7%) following multiple national guidelines. 16/75 (21.3%) NHS trusts do not follow any national guidelines in protecting new and expectant mothers from occupational hazards in the orthopaedic theatre setting., Conclusions: Although an improvement has been made since 2018 in complying with national guidelines protecting new and expectant mothers from orthopaedic-related hazards, a sizeable proportion of NHS trusts do not comply with any national guidelines, putting employees at undue risk. There is a continued need for pregnant surgeons to be aware of and seek occupational health advice from dedicated professional bodies if the NHS trust does not provide specific guidance. Simultaneously, a sustained effort must be present to continue to inform NHS employers of their duty to protect new and expectant mothers and signpost them to relevant guidance., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Distractions are cited as contributory to healthcare-associated errors in a large proportion of incidents including those involving anaesthetists. The anaesthetist is relatively understudied, despite the closer coupling between action and outcome than in surgery., Methods: After formal regulatory approval, we undertook an observational study using a validated rating scale for the observed effect of distractions. We also recorded the parties involved, the relative urgency of the distraction and the likely benefit or harm to the initiator and recipient., Results: Thirty-two separate surgical operations were observed. Median case duration was 103 min (range 22-227 min). 3557 potentially distracting events were observed, of which 1173 (33%) were deemed to score ≥ 2 on the distraction scale (i.e. caused distraction). Of these 3557 events, 1227 involved the anaesthetist either as an initiator of a potential/actual distraction, or the recipient of an actual distraction. The commonest initiators of distraction were the circulating nurse (832/3557) and the anaesthetist (816/3557). Sixty distracting events were observed while the anaesthetist was preparing or administering drugs (~2 per case). Of the 60 drug-related distracting events, 26 were initiated by the anaesthetist, and 3 of 7 airway events., Conclusions: Distracting events involving the anaesthetist are common, but approximately two-thirds of these events have no externally visible effect. Another anaesthetist was the most common recipient of a distracting event initiated by the anaesthetist. Anaesthetists need to address themselves as causes of distractions and the potential impact on patient safety.