Litigation related to drug errors in anaesthesia: an analysis of claims against the NHS in England 1995–2007

Ninety-three claims (total cost £4 915 450) filed under 'anaesthesia' in the NHS Litigation Authority database between 1995 and 2007, alleging patient harm directly by drug administration error or by an allergic reaction, were analysed. Alleged errors were categorised using systems employed by the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention, the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project and the UK Health and Safety Executive. The severity of outcome in each claim was categorised using adapted National Patient Safety Agency definitions. Sixty-two claims involved alleged drug administration errors (total cost £4 283 677) and 15 resulted in severe harm or death. Half alleged the administration of the wrong drug, in most (16) a neuromuscular blocker. Of the claims alleging the wrong dose had been given (25), nine alleged opioid overdose including by neuraxial routes. The most frequently recorded adverse outcomes were awake paralysis (19 claims; total cost £182 347) and respiratory depression requiring intensive care treatment (13 claims; total cost £2 752 853). Thirty-one claims involved allergic reactions (total cost £631 773). In 20 claims, the patient allegedly received a drug to which they were known to be allergic (total cost £130 794). All claims in which it was possible to categorise the nature of the error involved human error. Fewer than half the claims appeared likely to have been preventable by an 'ideal double checking process'.     

Litigation related to anaesthesia: analysis of claims against the NHS in England 2008–2018 and comparison against previous claim patterns

We reviewed all 1230 claims against anaesthesia notified to NHS Resolution (formerly the NHS Litigation Authority, 1995–2017) in England between 2008 and 2018. Claims were categorised by incident type, severity (whether physical or psychological), and cost, and comparisons were made against a similar published analysis of data from 1995 to 2007. While the annual number of claims against anaesthesia increased by 62% from the earlier period, anaesthesia now accounts for smaller proportions of all claims submitted to NHS Resolution (1.5% vs. 2.5%) and of the total cost of all claims (0.7% vs. 2.4%). The absolute costs related to anaesthesia claims rose over 300%, totalling £145 million between 2008 and 2018, but the mean cost per closed claim (retail price index adjusted) fell by 6% to £74,883. The most common clinical categories were regional anaesthesia (24%), inadequate anaesthesia (20%) and drug administration (20%). Claims related to airway management, central venous catheterisation and cardiac arrest remained infrequent but severe and costly. The proportion of claims relating to regional anaesthesia and obstetric anaesthesia fell significantly, but claims relating to peripheral nerve blockade doubled. Our analysis includes categories relating to organisational and human factors which are present in a substantial proportion of claims; categories with the highest mean cost per claim included delayed care, planning, monitoring and consent. Overall, the specialty of anaesthesia is at low risk of litigation. Our analysis provides important insights into current and changing patterns in claim distributions that may help improve the quality of patient care and reduce future litigation. We recommend the establishment of a structure for national review and learning from all cases of litigation.     

Litigation related to anaesthesia: an analysis of claims against the NHS in England 1995–2007

The distribution of medico-legal claims in English anaesthetic practice is unreported. We studied National Health Service Litigation Authority claims related to anaesthesia since 1995. All claims were reviewed by three clinicians and variously categorised, including by type of incident, claimed outcome and cost. Anaesthesia-related claims account for 2.5% of all claims and 2.4% of the value of all claims. Of 841 relevant claims 366 (44%) were related to regional anaesthesia, 245 (29%) obstetric anaesthesia, 164 (20%) inadequate anaesthesia, 95 (11%) dental damage, 71 (8%) airway (excluding dental damage), 63 (7%) drug related (excluding allergy), 31 (4%) drug allergy related, 31 (4%) positioning, 29 (3%) respiratory, 26 (3%) consent, 21 (2%) central venous cannulation and 18 (2%) peripheral venous cannulation. Defining which cases are, from a medico-legal viewpoint, 'high risk' is uncertain, but the clinical categories with the largest number of claims were regional anaesthesia, obstetric anaesthesia, inadequate anaesthesia, dental damage and airway, those with the highest overall cost were regional anaesthesia, obstetric anaesthesia, and airway and those with the highest mean cost per closed claim were respiratory, central venous cannulation and drug error excluding allergy. The data currently available have limitations but offer useful information. A closed claims analysis similar to that in the USA would improve the clinical usefulness of analysis.     

Awareness during general anaesthesia: a review of 81 cases from the Anaesthetic Incident Monitoring Study

Because of recent studies suggesting that awareness is still a major issue in anaesthetic practice, we reviewed 8372 incidents reported to the Anaesthetic Incident Monitoring Study. There were 81 cases in which peri-operative recall was consistent with awareness. There were 50 cases of definite awareness and 31 cases with a high probability of awareness. In 13 of the 81 incidents, the patients appeared to receive adequate doses of anaesthetic drugs. Where the cause could be determined, awareness was mainly due to drug error resulting in inadvertent paralysis of an awake patient (n = 32) and failure of delivery of volatile anaesthetic (n = 16). Less common causes included prolonged attempts at intubation of the trachea (n = 5), deliberate withdrawal of volatile anaesthetic (n = 4) or muscle relaxant apnoea with inadequate administration of hypnotic (n = 3). An objective central nervous system depth of anaesthesia monitor may have prevented 42 of these incidents and an improved drug administration system may have prevented 32. On the basis of these reports, we have developed guidelines that may have prevented the majority of these incidents.     

The 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: summary of main findings and risk factors

We present the main findings of the 5th National Audit Project on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia. Incidences were estimated using reports of accidental awareness as the numerator, and a parallel national anaesthetic activity survey to provide denominator data. The incidence of certain/probable and possible accidental awareness cases was ~1:19 600 anaesthetics (95% CI 1:16 700–23 450). However, there was considerable variation across subtypes of techniques or subspecialties. The incidence with neuromuscular blockade was ~1:8200 (1:7030–9700), and without it was ~1:135 900 (1:78 600–299 000). The cases of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia reported to 5th National Audit Project were overwhelmingly cases of unintended awareness during neuromuscular blockade. The incidence of accidental awareness during caesarean section was ~1:670 (1:380–1300). Two thirds (82, 66%) of cases of accidental awareness experiences arose in the dynamic phases of anaesthesia, namely induction of and emergence from anaesthesia. During induction of anaesthesia, contributory factors included: use of thiopental; rapid sequence induction; obesity; difficult airway management; neuromuscular blockade; and interruptions of anaesthetic delivery during movement from anaesthetic room to theatre. During emergence from anaesthesia, residual paralysis was perceived by patients as accidental awareness, and commonly related to a failure to ensure full return of motor capacity. One third (43, 33%) of accidental awareness events arose during the maintenance phase of anaesthesia, most due to problems at induction or towards the end of anaesthesia. Factors increasing the risk of accidental awareness included: female sex; age (younger adults, but not children); obesity; anaesthetist seniority (junior trainees); previous awareness; out‐of‐hours operating; emergencies; type of surgery (obstetric, cardiac, thoracic); and use of neuromuscular blockade. The following factors were not risk factors for accidental awareness: ASA physical status; race; and use or omission of nitrous oxide. We recommend that an anaesthetic checklist, to be an integral part of the World Health Organization Safer Surgery checklist, is introduced as an aid to preventing accidental awareness. This paper is a shortened version describing the main findings from 5th National Audit Project – the full report can be found at http://www.nationalauditprojects.org.uk/NAP5_home#pt .     

Awareness during anesthesia: a closed claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Awareness during general anesthesia is a frightening experience, which may result in serious emotional injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. We performed an in-depth analysis of cases from the database of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project to explore the contribution of intraoperative awareness to professional liability in anesthesia. METHODS: The database of the Closed Claims Project is composed of closed US malpractice claims that have been collected in a standardized manner. All claims for intraoperative awareness were reviewed by the reviewers to identify patterns of causation and standard of care. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent patient and anesthetic factors associated with claims for recall during general anesthesia compared to other general anesthesia malpractice claims. RESULTS: Awareness claims accounted for 79 (1.9%) of 4,183 claims in the database, including 18 claims for awake paralysis, i.e., the inadvertent paralysis of an awake patient, and 61 claims for recall during general anesthesia, ie., recall of events while receiving general anesthesia. The majority of awareness claims involved women (77%), younger than 60 yr of age (89%), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class I-II (68%), who underwent elective surgery (87%). Most (94%) claims for awake paralysis represented substandard care involving errors in labeling and administration, whereas care was substandard in only 43% of the claims for recall during general anesthesia (P < 0.001). Claims for recall during general anesthesia were more likely to involve women (odds ratio [OR] = 3.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58, 6.06) and anesthetic techniques using intraoperative opioids (OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.20, 3.74), intraoperative muscle relaxants (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.22, 4.25), and no volatile anesthetic (OR = 3.20, 95% CI = 1.88, 5.46). CONCLUSIONS: Deficiencies in labeling and vigilance were common causes for awake paralysis. Claims for recall during general anesthesia were more likely in women and with nitrous-narcotic-relaxant techniques.     

Analyse des échecs de la rachianesthésie en fonction de l''évolution de la pratique d''un hôpital universitaire

This study is a retrospective analysis of 303 consecutive spinal anaesthesia performed in orthopaedic patients of a University Hospital between January and December 1990. Failure of spinal anaesthesia was defined as the requirement for general anaesthesia to perform surgery. The parameters studied as possible risk factors of failure were patients demographics, local anaesthetic agents and solutions and techniques of spinal anaesthesia (single injection versus continuous spinal anaesthesia). Failures were related to inadequate or incomplete extension of sensory blockade or to difficulties to perform spinal injection. Continuous spinal anaesthesia was performed in 209 patients mostly with 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine, while 94 patients received a single injection of either hyperbaric 0.5% tetracaine with adrenaline or 0.5% bupivacaine or 5% lidocaine. Failures occurred in 6.3% of the cases but were significantly less frequent with continuous spinal anaesthesia (4.8%) than with the conventional technique (9.6%). The incidence of failure was higher with hyperbaric tetracaine (11.1%) confirming its poor reliability. Inadequate extension of the anaesthetic block was the main cause of failure whatever the spinal anaesthetic technique. These results point out the reliability of continuous spinal anaesthesia but problems may occasionally occur due to spinal catheter misplacement.     

Litigation related to airway and respiratory complications of anaesthesia: an analysis of claims against the NHS in England 1995–2007

Claims notified to the NHS Litigation Authority in England between 1995 and 2007 and filed under anaesthesia were analysed to explore patterns of injury and cost related to airway or respiratory events. Of 841 interpretable claims the final dataset contained 96 claims of dental damage, 67 airway‐related claims and 24 respiratory claims. Claims of dental damage contributed a numerically important (11%), but financially modest (0.5%) proportion of claims. These claims predominantly described injury during tracheal intubation or extubation; a minority associated with electroconvulsive therapy led to substantial cost per claim. The total cost of (non‐dental) airway claims was £4.9 million (84% closed, median cost £30 000) and that of respiratory claims was £3.3 million (81% closed, median £27 000). Airway and respiratory claims account for 12% of anaesthesia‐related claims, 53% of deaths, 27% of cost and ten of the 50 most expensive claims in the dataset. Airway claims most frequently described events at induction of anaesthesia, involved airway management with a tracheal tube and typically led to hypoxia and patient death or brain injury. Airway trauma accounted for one third of airway claims and these included deaths from mediastinal injury at intubation. Pulmonary aspiration and tube misplacement, including oesophageal intubation, led to several claims. Among respiratory claims, ventilation problems, combined with hypoxia, were an important source of claims. Although limited clinical details hamper analysis, the data suggest that most airway and respiratory‐related claims arise from sentinel events. The absence of clinical detail and denominators limit opportunities to learn from such events; much more could be learnt from a closed claim or sentinel event analysis scheme.     

Awake fibreoptic intubation following failed regional anaesthesia for caesarean section in a parturient with Still's disease

The anaesthetic management of a 25-year-old parturient with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (Still's disease) and a difficult airway presenting for elective Caesarean section is described. Inadequate block after epidural anaesthesia necessitated general anaesthesia. This was safely accomplished by securing the airway with awake oral fibreoptic intubation before general anaesthesia was induced. The problems of performing an awake fibreoptic intubation in a pregnant patient are discussed and a simple method for performing the technique is described.     

Awareness during Anesthesia: A Closed Claims Analysis

Background: Awareness during general anesthesia is a frightening experience, which may result in serious emotional injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. We performed an in-depth analysis of cases from the database of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project to explore the contribution of intraoperative awareness to professional liability in anesthesia.

Methods: The database of the Closed Claims Project is composed of closed US malpractice claims that have been collected in a standardized manner. All claims for intraoperative awareness were reviewed by the reviewers to identify patterns of causation and standard of care. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent patient and anesthetic factors associated with claims for recall during general anesthesia compared to other general anesthesia malpractice claims.

Results: Awareness claims accounted for 79 (1.9%) of 4,183 claims in the database, including 18 claims for awake paralysis, i.e., the inadvertent paralysis of an awake patient, and 61 claims for recall during general anesthesia, i.e., recall of events while receiving general anesthesia. The majority of awareness claims involved women (77%), younger than 60 yr of age (89%), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class I-II (68%), who underwent elective surgery (87%). Most (94%) claims for awake paralysis represented substandard care involving errors in labeling and administration, whereas care was substandard in only 43% of the claims for recall during general anesthesia (P < 0.001). Claims for recall during general anesthesia were more likely to involve women (odds ratio [OR] = 3.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58, 6.06) and anesthetic techniques using intraoperative opioids (OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.20, 3.74), intraoperative muscle relaxants (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.22, 4.25), and no volatile anesthetic (OR = 3.20, 95% CI = 1.88, 5.46).     

Litigation related to regional anaesthesia: an analysis of claims against the NHS in England 1995–2007*

We analysed 366 claims related to regional anaesthesia and analgesia from the 841 anaesthesia‐related claims handled by the National Health Service Litigation Authority between 1995 and 2007. The majority of claims (281/366, 77%) were closed at the time of analysis. The total cost of closed claims was £12 724 017 (34% of the cost of the anaesthesia dataset) with a median (IQR [range]) of £4772 (£0–28 907 [£0–2 070 092]). Approximately half of the claims (186/366; 51%) were related to obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia and of the non‐obstetric claims, the majority (148/180; 82%) were related to neuraxial block. The total cost for obstetric closed claims was £5 433 920 (median (IQR [range]) £5678 (£0–27 690 [£0–1 597 565]) while that for non‐obstetric closed claims was £7 290 097 (£3337 (£0–31 405 [£0–2 070 062]). Non‐obstetric claims were more likely to relate to severe outcomes than obstetric ones. The maximum values of claims were higher for claims related to neuraxial blocks and eye blocks than for peripheral nerve blocks. Despite many limitations, including lack of clinical detail for each case, the dataset provides a useful overview of the extent, patterns and cost associated with the claims.     

Dorsal column function after epidural and spinal blockade: implications for the safety of walking following low-dose regional analgesia for labour

Walking after regional blockade for labour using low-dose combinations of bupivacaine and fentanyl is possible due to the maintenance of lower limb motor power. In order to investigate concerns that dorsal column function, important in maintaining balance, is impaired after such techniques, clinical assessment of lower limb proprioception and vibration sense was evaluated in parturients after either low-dose epidural ( n  = 30) or spinal blockade ( n  = 30) for labour analgesia and compared with spinal anaesthesia ( n  = 30) for elective Caesarean section using a larger total dose of local anaesthetic. Of the patients receiving low-dose regional labour analgesia 7% ( n  = 4) had abnormal dorsal column function compared with 97% ( n  = 29) receiving spinal anaesthesia for Caesarean section (p < 0.001). All patients in the Caesarean section group developed lower limb motor weakness, compared with only 10% ( n  = 6) in the low-dose groups (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the low-dose groups with respect to sensory block, motor block or dorsal column function. Overall, 90% of patients receiving low-dose bupivacaine/fentanyl regional labour analgesia had both normal lower limb motor power and dorsal column function. Assessment of these parameters is recommended before allowing patients to walk after low-dose regional techniques for labour.     

Mortality associated with anaesthesia: a qualitative analysis to identify risk factors

From a prospectively defined cohort of patients who underwent either general, regional or combined anaesthesia from 1 January 1995 to 1 January 1997 (n = 869 483), all consecutive patients (n = 811) who died within 24 h or remained unintentionally comatose 24 h after anaesthesia were classified to determine a relationship with anaesthesia. These deaths (n = 119; 15%) were further analysed to identify contributing aspects of the anaesthetic management, other factors and the appropriateness of care. The incidence of 24-h peri-operative death per 10 000 anaesthetics was 8.8 (95% CI 8.2-9.5), of peri-operative coma was 0.5 (0.3-0.6) and of anaesthesia-related death 1.4 (1.1-1.6). Of the 119 anaesthesia-related deaths, 62 (52%) were associated with cardiovascular management, 57 (48%) with other anaesthetic management, 12 (10%) with ventilatory management and 12 (10%) with patient monitoring. Inadequate preparation of the patient contributed to 30 (25%) of the anaesthesia-related deaths. During induction of anaesthesia, choice of anaesthetic technique (n = 18 (15%)) and performance of the anaesthesiologist (n = 8 (7%)) were most commonly associated with death. During maintenance, the most common factors were cardiovascular management (n = 43 (36%)), ventilatory management (n = 12 (10%)) and patient monitoring (n = 12 (10%)). In both the recovery and the postoperative phases, patient monitoring was the most common factor (n = 12 (10%) for both). For cardiovascular, ventilatory and other anaesthetic management, human failure contributed to 89 (75%) deaths and organisational factors to 12 (10%). For inadequate patient monitoring, human factors contributed to 71 (60%) deaths and organisational factors to 48 (40%). Other contributing factors were inadequate communication (30 deaths (25%) for all four aspects of the anaesthetic management) and lack of supervision (particularly for ventilatory management). Inadequate care was delivered in 19 (16%) of the anaesthesia-related deaths with respect to cardiovascular management, in 20 (17%) with respect to ventilatory management, in 18 (15%) with respect to patient monitoring and in 23 (19%) with respect to other anaesthetic management.     

Detektion intraoperativer Wachheit bei einem Kleinkind mit akustisch evozierten Potenzialen

Intraoperative wakefulness is not only limited to adults and can also be found at a similar percentage (0.8%) in paediatric anaesthesia. For prevention of awareness neurophysiologic methods like auditory evoked potentials might be helpful. We report a case of a 2-year-old boy receiving balanced anaesthesia with sevoflurane and alfentanil. Midlatency auditory evoked potentials (MLAEPs) were recorded continuously before, during and after the surgical procedure. During the surgical procedure sevoflurane was withdrawn unintentionally. After a short period of time the boy started coughing and moved his legs, which was interpreted as insufficient analgesia. Several boli of alfentanil did not lead to the expected clinical effect on the depth of anaesthesia. After a recheck of the anaesthetic ventilator the error was determined and delivery of the volatile anaesthetic restored. The postoperative evaluation of the MLAEPs revealed the inadequate suppression of auditory processing during this incident with latencies comparable to the awake state. After reapplication of sevoflurane the MLAEPs were almost completely suppressed demonstrating adequate anesthetic depth. Exemplarily this case suggests that MLAEPs could be used to detect intraoperative awareness also in paediatric anaesthesia. Investigations to prove the validity and reproducibility of MLAEPs in children will be necessary.     

Anaesthetic assistants: their role in the development and resolution of anaesthetic incidents.

Trained anaesthetic assistants are considered essential for the safe conduct of anaesthesia. Data from 5837 AIMS (Anaesthetic Incident Monitoring Study) reports were evaluated for issues concerning anaesthetic assistants in the generation and resolution of anaesthetic incidents. "Inadequate assistance" as a contributing factor was identified in 187 reports, whilst "skilled assistance" which minimized the incident was present in 808 cases. One hundred and seventy-two reports specifically commented on anaesthetic assistants in the narrative section of the AIMS form. All surgical specialties were represented. In 147 of these reports the assistant actually contributed to or failed to assist with the incident. Although the majority of outcomes from the reports were uneventful, prolonged stay, awareness and ICU admission did ensue in a small number of cases. The most common incidents were related to problems with equipment, communication and inadequate staffing levels (number and/or skill mix). Results from this study have implications for anaesthetic assistant staffing levels and the orientation of course content.     

Regional anaesthesia for orthopaedic procedures

Regional anaesthetic techniques are fundamental in the anaesthetic care of orthopaedic patients. They may be used as the primary anaesthetic technique or to provide postoperative pain relief. Compared to general anaesthesia alone, regional techniques can provide superior perioperative analgesia, fewer systemic drug adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting and confusion, and earlier mobilization which can reduce nosocomial complications and facilitate expedited hospital discharge. Disadvantages include block failure, nerve injury, unrecognised injury to the anaesthetised limb, prolonged motor blockade and local anaesthetic toxicity. Preoperative assessment should identify contraindications, document pre-existing neurological deficits, and clarify surgical and perioperative aims. Informed consent should be obtained after a clear explanation of the procedure, its risks, and potential complications. Serious and long-term neurological complications are rare and may be reduced by an awake regional technique, sonographic guidance, regular aspiration and by ensuring low pressure injections. Postoperative follow-up is essential and suspicious neurological findings should be detected, investigated, and managed in an early and timely manner.     

Who operates when,where and on whom? A survey of anaesthetic‐surgical activity in Ireland as denominator of NAP5

The second phase of the 5th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, concerning accidental awareness during general anaesthesia, consisted of a survey of anaesthetic activity in Ireland. A network of consultant anaesthetists co‐ordinated data collection from the anaesthetic departments of 46 public and 20 independent hospitals over seven days. Data on patients' characteristics, anaesthetic techniques, staffing, and admission and discharge arrangements were collected on all cases for which anaesthetic care (general, regional or local anaesthesia, sedation or monitored anaesthesia care) was provided. A total of 8049 cases were reported during the survey, giving an annual estimate of 426 600 cases for which anaesthetic care is provided. General anaesthesia constituted 5621 (70%), regional anaesthesia 1404 (17%), local anaesthesia 290 (4%), sedation 618 (8%) and monitored anaesthesia care 116 (1%) of the total number of cases. This survey provides unique data regarding anaesthesia services in public and independent hospitals in Ireland.     

Fibre-optic awake intubation for caesarean section in a parturient with predicted difficult airway

Anaesthetic management of a parturient with predicted difficult airway presenting for caesarean section (CS) is not a straightforward decision: general anaesthesia should be avoided because intubation can be impossible and a "cannot intubate, cannot ventilate" scenario might ensue, on the other hand regional techniques can be unsuccessful or, though rarely, have complications that require emergency intubation. The case is presented of a primigravida admitted to hospital at 37 weeks' gestation with hypertension, intrauterine growth retardation and oligohydramnios. After a few days' observation, it was decided to proceed with an elective CS. The preoperative airway examination revealed a poor mouth opening with an interdental distance of 20 mm and a Mallampati class IV. The patient was classified as a case of difficult intubation and the following anaesthetic options were considered: epidural anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia and awake fibreoptic intubation followed by general anaesthesia. The pros and the cons of these techniques were explained to the patient and it was suggested that awake fibreoptic intubation was the safest option. The patient gave her consent, so an uneventful nasal awake fibreoptic intubation was carried out under local anaesthesia. This case report offers the opportunity to underline the risk to perform a central blockade in a parturient with predicted difficult intubation, arguing that the safest course of action is an awake fibrescopic intubation, besides some controversial points to safely perform awake fibreoptic intubation in obstetric patients are discussed.     

Patient safety incidents involving neuromuscular blockade: analysis of the UK National Reporting and Learning System data from 2006 to 2008

Neuromuscular blockade is a powerful anaesthetic tool that has the potential for significant adverse outcomes. We sought to explore the national picture by analysing incidents relating to neuromuscular blockade in anaesthesia from the National Reporting and Learning System from England and Wales between 2006 and 2008. We searched the database of incidents using SNOMED CT^® search terms and reading the free text of relevant incidents. There were 231 incidents arising from the use or reversal of neuromuscular blocking agents. The main themes identified were: non‐availability of drugs (45 incidents, 19%), possible unintentional awareness under general anaesthesia (42 incidents, 18%), potential allergic reaction (31 incidents, 13%), problems with reversal of blockade (13 incidents, 6%), storage (13 incidents, 6%) and prolonged apnoea (11 incidents, 5%). We make recommendations to reduce human error in the use of neuromuscular blocking agents and on future incident reporting in anaesthesia.     

Regional anaesthesia elastomeric pump performance aftera single use and subsequent refill: a laboratory study

Ambulatory local anaesthetic delivery systems are often limited by a short effective duration of infusion. Prolonging nerve blockade by substituting a new pump as recommended by the manufacturers, represents a substantial consumable item cost ($US300–500). We therefore evaluated the flow delivery performance of 31 single model elastomeric devices (all with a 2 ml.h⁻¹ background and 5 ml every hour bolus capability) that had been filled, used in clinical practice and then refilled in the laboratory. For the second infusion, there was a pattern of over-infusion (< 10 ml.h⁻¹) in the first hour; however, all pumps depreciated to < 150% of predicted by the second hour. The subsequent performance of all pumps was not only within safe limits, but also predominantly within the range (background infusion ± 15%, bolus +10/−20%) specified by the manufacturer for primary infusion. We conclude that this elastomeric regional anaesthesia pump design performs satisfactorily after having been refilled following a single previous use.