Ophthalmic anaesthesia: Overview

Aims: This international survey was conducted to study the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on the provision and practices of ophthalmic anaesthesia, evaluate the methods employed by parent ophthalmic units for safeguarding their anaesthesia providers and patients during lockdown, and to assess pandemic's effect on anaesthesia providers as individuals. The study was done with the hope that the results will help in protecting patients and safeguarding precious human resource by better management if this pandemic was to continue or there was to be another pandemic.

Methods: An anonymous questionnaire survey was distributed electronically between December 2020-January 2021 to the practicing ophthalmic anaesthesia providers in different parts of the world.

Results: The survey identified that apart from reducing elective operating services, the ophthalmic units were ill prepared for the pandemic and the overall management was lacklustre. There was a definite lack of effective peri-operative patient screening, and, streaming processes. Measures for personal protection of staff were not optimal especially during regional/local ophthalmic anaesthesia. Severity of the pandemic, sudden job plan changes, and redeployment to intensive care units/acute covid wards had an adverse psychological impact on the affected staff.

Conclusion: Ophthalmic anaesthesia services worldwide have had poor attentiveness to the life-threatening menace and reality of Covid-19 pandemic. A review of the institutional practices to address correctible deficiencies is urgently required. Robust, mandatory, elective, timely preventative strategies need to be implemented to protect patients, and, the precious ophthalmic workforce from potential adverse physical and psychological injuries.

Purpose: This secondary analysis of a clinical trial that measured surgeon, anesthesiologist, and patient satisfaction following ophthalmic surgery under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with a benzodiazepine investigates the degree of association between patient satisfaction with anesthesia compared to surgeon and anesthesiologist satisfaction with anesthesia.

Patients and methods: Data from analogous 6-point surgeon satisfaction surveys and anesthesiologist satisfaction surveys were compared to data from a 6-point validated patient satisfaction survey collected from a clinical trial investigating satisfaction with different forms of benzodiazepine for patients undergoing cataract, retina, cornea, or glaucoma surgery. Relationships between measures were analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficient, with further subgroup analysis based on language groups and single-question measures of satisfaction.

Results: A total of 283 ophthalmic surgical cases were analyzed. Mean surgeon satisfaction was 5.27 (range, 1.33-6.00), mean anesthesiologist satisfaction was 5.12 (range, 1.17-6.00), and mean patient satisfaction was 5.28 (range, 2.58-6.00). The correlation between surgeon and patient satisfaction was 0.333 (p = 9.06e-9), while the correlation between anesthesiologist and patient satisfaction was 0.319 (p = 4.28e-8). There was no difference between English and non-English speaking patients in correlation between surgeon and patient satisfaction (p = 0.08) and anesthesiologist and patient satisfaction (p = 0.47).

Conclusion: The data demonstrate a low level of association between patient satisfaction with anesthesia and provider satisfaction, even when patient language is taken into consideration. This suggests that providers are poor predictors of patient satisfaction with anesthesia and are unreliable judges of patient comfort perioperatively.