FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2078482095> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2078482095 endingPage "1243" @default.
• W2078482095 startingPage "1242" @default.
• W2078482095 abstract "We thank Chambers for the many positive comments in his editorial (Anaesthesia 2004; 59: 631–3) that accompanied publication of the Difficult Airway Society (DAS) guidelines on management of the unanticipated difficult intubation (Anaesthesia 2004; 59: 675–94). We believe that these guidelines help to integrate the training syllabus with clinical practice and conform to the recommendation by the Royal College of Anaesthetists that each department displays failed ventilation and failed intubation wall-charts. We would like to respond to a number of points in the editorial. The national airway management guidelines already published and those to be published soon by various European countries are all consensus-based. The great difference between a guideline for management of anaphylaxis and one for failed intubation is that in the latter, adherence to the guidelines will depend on the user having certain skills. The consensus group was particularly aware of the need to ensure that the guidelines contained a small number of airway techniques to facilitate training and provision of desirable equipment in each hospital. We stress the need for good training in basic and advanced airway management. This does not seem to be provided in the UK [1]. We believe that readers of Anaesthesia will judge the guidelines (and the editorial) by the application of common sense. Our indications for cricothyroidotomy are misquoted. We did not state that ‘immediate’ recourse to cricothyroidotomy should be made in the ‘can’t intubate, can't ventilate' (CICV) situation, and this statement should not be attributed to us. In the text we state: ‘Before resorting to invasive rescue techniques, it is essential that a maximum effort has been made to achieve oxygenation and ventilation with non-invasive techniques.’ We then present a risk–benefit analysis of the decision to proceed to a surgical airway and state: ‘Rapid development of severe hypoxaemia, particularly associated with bradycardia, is an indication for imminent intervention with an invasive procedure.’ The flow-chart indicates recourse to cricothyroidotomy in ‘CICV situation with increasing hypoxaemia’, without defining levels of saturation at which intervention should take place. The top of this chart lists in detail the non-invasive steps that should be taken to improve oxygenation before recourse to a surgical airway. We put much thought into all sections of the paper and believe that our recommendations for intervention in CICV are appropriate. It is not possible to define the exact point at which cricothyroidotomy should be performed, but the degree of hypoxaemia and the speed of desaturation are important. Preparations for cricothyroidotomy should be made whenever management of CICV proves unusually difficult, so that surgical intervention can be performed speedily when the difficult decision to proceed to an invasive technique is taken. Should emergency cricothyroidotomy be a core skill? Any suggestion otherwise implies that some avoidable deaths are acceptable because it is too much trouble to arrange proper training. Emergency cricothyrotomy is a core skill and all anaesthetists should know how to perform one and work in an environment in which the necessary equipment is immediately available. Manikin practice is essential and is conveniently carried out in a skills-room. Case presentations on the lost airway are an important and popular component of DAS meetings, and the techniques are taught in our workshops. The DAS (http://www.das.uk.com) is keen to hear from anyone undertaking emergency cricothyroidotomy in the UK. How safe is airway management in the UK? The DAS has tried to initiate national data collection on airway related mortality and morbidity but has not been able to interest the relevant anaesthetic bodies in the project. As ‘enthusiasts’ we have confidential knowledge of a substantial number of unreported airway deaths, many involving consultant anaesthetists and some occurring in the private sector. The cases of which we have heard must be the tip of the iceberg and, in the absence of accurate figures, we guess that not fewer than 20 patients per year die as a result of loss of the airway in anaesthetic and ITU practice in the UK. These tragedies often involve anaesthetists of good standing with a ‘standard’ range of skills, so this problem must be regarded as a ‘system’ problem that can only be solved by collection of comprehensive data, methodical analysis, and subsequent publication of recommendations. We do not agree that this is too much effort. In the UK there are at present two sources of information on complications of airway management. These are the records of cases that have resulted in litigation and the reports of National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) in England and Wales and Scottish Audit of Surgical Mortality (SASM) in Scotland. We believe that they fail to give an accurate picture of problems with airway management. The cases that result in litigation are probably only a small proportion of the total number of patients who suffer serious complications. Despite this limitation and their retrospective nature the Closed Claims Project, run by the American Society of Anaesthesiologists since 1985, has produced many important recommendations [2]. In the UK no effort has been made in recent years to learn from airway tragedies which result in litigation. There are certainly unpublished data available in the offices of the Medical Defence societies and the Legal Departments of the NHS. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence but we believe that a closed claims analysis system is needed in the UK. The forms used for data collection by NCEPOD and SASM are not designed to collect information about airway management and deal only with deaths. Information from ‘near misses’ is often more valuable than that from incidents [3-5]. There is a need for an effective incident reporting system [3-10]. Key features of confidential systems for reporting infrequent events are that they should be national [11] and not be organised by any body that is involved in licensure, certification or accreditation. Analysis should be performed by those with a special interest in the subject. These aims could be accomplished by creating a Web-based system for reporting complications and near misses in airway management in anaesthesia and in ITU practice in the UK. DAS would like to help with the design of such a system and with analysis of the data generated. We believe that reports from such a system could lead to a reduction in the number of avoidable airway deaths in the UK." @default.
• W2078482095 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2078482095 creator A5022511526 @default.
• W2078482095 creator A5025090105 @default.
• W2078482095 creator A5040853670 @default.
• W2078482095 creator A5057927477 @default.
• W2078482095 date "2004-11-18" @default.
• W2078482095 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2078482095 title "Difficult Airway Society guidelines" @default.
• W2078482095 cites W1600622801 @default.
• W2078482095 cites W2010116082 @default.
• W2078482095 cites W2091824350 @default.
• W2078482095 cites W2101846088 @default.
• W2078482095 cites W2105711453 @default.
• W2078482095 cites W2117607946 @default.
• W2078482095 cites W2120530657 @default.
• W2078482095 cites W2137866063 @default.
• W2078482095 cites W2138375866 @default.
• W2078482095 cites W2139983921 @default.
• W2078482095 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.4015_1.x" @default.
• W2078482095 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15549988" @default.
• W2078482095 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2078482095 type Work @default.
• W2078482095 sameAs 2078482095 @default.
• W2078482095 citedByCount "22" @default.
• W2078482095 countsByYear W20784820952013 @default.
• W2078482095 countsByYear W20784820952014 @default.
• W2078482095 countsByYear W20784820952015 @default.
• W2078482095 countsByYear W20784820952016 @default.
• W2078482095 countsByYear W20784820952019 @default.
• W2078482095 countsByYear W20784820952023 @default.
• W2078482095 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2078482095 hasAuthorship W2078482095A5022511526 @default.
• W2078482095 hasAuthorship W2078482095A5025090105 @default.
• W2078482095 hasAuthorship W2078482095A5040853670 @default.
• W2078482095 hasAuthorship W2078482095A5057927477 @default.
• W2078482095 hasBestOaLocation W20784820951 @default.
• W2078482095 hasConcept C105922876 @default.
• W2078482095 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2078482095 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2078482095 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2078482095 hasConceptScore W2078482095C105922876 @default.
• W2078482095 hasConceptScore W2078482095C177713679 @default.
• W2078482095 hasConceptScore W2078482095C42219234 @default.
• W2078482095 hasConceptScore W2078482095C71924100 @default.
• W2078482095 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2078482095 hasLocation W20784820951 @default.
• W2078482095 hasLocation W20784820952 @default.
• W2078482095 hasOpenAccess W2078482095 @default.
• W2078482095 hasPrimaryLocation W20784820951 @default.
• W2078482095 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W2078482095 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W2078482095 hasRelatedWork W2048182022 @default.
• W2078482095 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W2078482095 hasRelatedWork W2604872355 @default.
• W2078482095 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2078482095 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2078482095 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W2078482095 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W2078482095 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W2078482095 hasVolume "59" @default.
• W2078482095 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2078482095 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2078482095 magId "2078482095" @default.
• W2078482095 workType "article" @default.