Search

Regional anaesthesia is an essential tool in the armamentarium for paediatric anaesthesia. While largely safe and effective, a range of serious yet preventable adverse events can occur. Incidence and risk factors have been described, but few detailed case series exist relating to paediatric regional anaesthesia. Across Australia and New Zealand, a web-based anaesthesia incident reporting system enables voluntary reporting of detailed anaesthesia-related events in adults and children. From this database, all reports involving paediatric regional anaesthesia (age less than 17 years) were retrieved. Perioperative events and their outcomes were reviewed and analysed. When offered, the reported contributing or alleviating factors relating to the case and its management were noted. This paper provides a summary of these reports alongside an evidence review to support safe practice. Of 8000 reported incidents, 26 related to paediatric regional anaesthesia were identified. There were no deaths or reports of permanent harm. Nine reports of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity were included, seven equipment and technical issues, six errors in which regional anaesthesia made an indirect contribution and four logistical and communication issues. Most incidents involved single-shot techniques or a neuraxial approach. Common themes included variable local anaesthetic dosing, cognitive overload, inadequate preparation and communication breakdown. Neonates, infants and medically complex children were disproportionately represented, highlighting their inherent risk profile. A range of preventable incidents are reported relating to patient, systems and human factors, demonstrating several areas for improvement. Risk stratification, application of existing dosing and administration guidelines, and effective teamwork and communication are encouraged to ensure safe regional anaesthesia in the paediatric population., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declare the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Yasmin Endlich is the current coordinator of the webAIRS publications group.

Purpose of Review: The purpose is to show the advantages of a Bowtie diagram as a versatile tool for displaying and understanding the evolvement and management of critical incidents., Recent Findings: The Bowtie diagram has been used recently in anesthesia to depict critical incidents having been used in high-risk industries for several decades. This diagram displays the progression from latent factors to potential harm in five steps., Summary: The Bowtie diagram combines the features of a fault tree and an event tree with the adverse event, known as the Top Event separating the two sections. The fault tree is similar in concept to a Swiss Cheese diagram and the event tree similar in concept to an emergency management algorithm. Preventive barriers and escalation measures are used to detect and trap abnormal states. If these fail, the event proceeds to a crisis, leading to the Top Event, a time for making decisions. A recovery state follows, which depicts an emergency state mandating immediate life or limb-saving management to recover from the crisis. Finally, in the aftermath state, a time for reflection and learning, ultimate outcomes are shown in the right-hand column., Video Abstract: The Bowtie Diagram. Designed and created by Yasmin Endlich, Martin D. Culwick and Stavros N. Prineas, http://links.lww.com/COAN/A68.

This audit of airway incidents was conducted over six months in 12 tertiary level hospitals across Australia and New Zealand. During that time, 131,233 patients had airway management and 111 reports were submitted (incidence 0.08%). The airway incidents included a combination of difficult airway management (83), oxygen desaturation (58), aspiration (19), regurgitation (14), laryngospasm (16), airway bleeding (10), bronchospasm (5) and dental injury (4), which gave a total of 209 events in 111 reports. Most incidents occurred during general anaesthesia (GA; 83.8%) and normal working hours (81.1%). Forty-three percent were associated with head and neck surgery and 12.6% with upper abdominal procedures. Of these patients, 52% required further medical treatment or additional procedures and 16.2% required unplanned admission to an intensive care unit or a high dependency unit. A total of 31.5% of patients suffered from temporary harm and 1.8% from permanent harm. There was one death. The factors associated with a high relative risk (RR) of an airway incident included American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA PS) (ASA PS 2 versus 1, RR 1.75; ASA PS 3 versus 1, RR 3.56; ASA PS 4 versus 1, RR 6.1), and emergency surgery (RR 2.16 compared with elective). Sedation and monitored anaesthesia care were associated with lower RRs (RR 0.49 and RR 0.73 versus GA, respectively). Inadequate airway assessment, poor judgement and poor planning appeared to be contributors to these events. Future teaching and research should focus on these areas to further improve airway management and patient safety.