Anaesthesia essentials: Overview

Abstract
Anaesthetic choice for large joint surgery can impact postoperative outcomes, including mortality. The extent to which the impact of anaesthetic choice on postoperative mortality varies within patient populations and the extent to which anaesthetic choice is changing over time remain under-explored both internationally and in the diverse New Zealand context. In a national study of 199,211 hip and knee replacement procedures conducted between 2005 and 2017, we compared postoperative mortality among those receiving general, regional or general plus regional anaesthesia. Focusing on unilateral (n=86,467) and partial (n=13,889) hip replacements, we assessed whether some groups within the population are more likely to receive general, regional or general plus regional anaesthesia than others, and whether mortality risk varies depending on anaesthetic choice. We also examined temporal changes in anaesthetic choice over time. Those receiving regional alone or general plus regional for unilateral hip replacement appeared at increased risk of 30-day mortality compared to general anaesthesia alone, even after adjusting for differences in terms of age, ethnicity, deprivation, rurality, comorbidity, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score and admission type (e.g. general plus regional: adjusted hazard ratio (adj. HR)=1.94, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.32 to 2.84). By contrast, we observed lower 30-day mortality among those receiving regional anaesthesia alone compared to general alone for partial hip replacement (adj. HR=0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97). The latter observation contrasts with declining temporal trends in the use of regional anaesthesia alone for partial hip replacement procedures. However, we recognise that postoperative mortality is one perioperative factor that drives anaesthetic choice.

Abstract
The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) recently reviewed and updated the guideline on equipment to manage a difficult airway. An ANZCA-established document development group, which included representatives from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand, performed the review, which is based on expert consensus, an extensive literature review, and bi-nationwide consultation. The guideline (PG56(A) 2021, https://www.anzca.edu.au/getattachment/02fe1a4c-14f0-4ad1-8337-c281d26bfa17/PS56-Guideline-on-equipment-to-manage-difficult-airways) is accompanied by a detailed background paper (PG56(A)BP 2021, https://www.anzca.edu.au/getattachment/9ef4cd97-2f02-47fe-a63a-9f74fa7c68ac/PG56(A)BP-Guideline-on-equipment-to-manage-difficult-airways-Background-Paper), from which the current recommendations are reproduced on behalf of, and with the permission of, ANZCA. The updated 2021 guideline replaces the 2012 version and aims to provide an updated, objective, informed, transparent, and evidence-based review of equipment to manage difficult airways.

No abstract available.

Abstract
Background and aims: Patient satisfaction is an important measure of quality of health care. Its assessment leads to a balanced evaluation of the structure, process and outcome of service at an institution. The aim of our study was to assess patient satisfaction with perioperative anaesthesia services provided in our institution and identify factors leading to dissatisfaction which could be preventable or addressed to improve patient care and experience.

Material and methods: A convenient sample size of 200 patients was accrued after written informed consent. A questionnaire to suit local needs of institute was developed, validated and a language appropriate questionnaire was administered by a trained research nurse 24-48 hours post anaesthesia to accrued patients. Data was summarised in percentages and satisfaction scores were compared across demographic variables using Chi square test.

Results: A total of 96% (192/200) patients were satisfied with the overall interaction with the anaesthetists in the perioperative period; with 99% (198/200) patients being satisfied with acute pain services provided, postoperatively. As regards to recovery room, 96.5% (193/200) patients were satisfied with the services provided. Satisfaction scores of the pre-anaesthetic clinic (PAC), pain team and anaesthesia services compared across demographic variables - age, gender and education qualifications were found to be statistically non-significant.

Conclusion: High rate of patients were satisfied with perioperative anaesthesia care services at our institute. Good and effective preoperative communication with the patient, effective management of postoperative pain and complications significantly contributed towards overall high patient satisfaction.