Safety & quality resources: Overview

Abstract
Anaesthetic airway incidents persist as a significant concern in patient safety and, despite extensive investigations, continue to cause patient harm. Traditional safety investigations predominantly adhere to Safety-I principles, focusing on identifying and rectifying errors, often yielding limited new findings. In this analysis conducted within the webAIRS database, the focus shifted towards Safety-II principles. The aim of this study was to identify factors contributing to airway management safety by examining incidents that did not result in adverse patient outcomes. Incidents categorised as 'difficult intubation' or 'failed intubation' without causing harm to the patient and reported to webAIRS between 2016 and 2022, were included in the analysis.An inductive qualitative content analysis of narrative data from 129 such incidents revealed that the majority of reported events depicted scenarios deviating from controlled and planned circumstances. During the analysis four themes were identified: patient factors, system factors, individual anaesthetist factors and airway management strategy. Within the first three themes, multiple factors were linked to airway management strategies. The findings of this qualitative analysis show that 'Work as done' often differs from 'Work as imagined'.This qualitative analysis highlighted the dynamic nature of human management, as individuals respond to unplanned or unexpected events, showcasing adaptability and positive contributions to incident performance. Expanding the understanding of patient safety to also include Safety-II principles, provides a deeper and wider understanding of airway management safety.

Abstract
The increasing prescription of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists presents a peri-operative challenge for anaesthetists. These drugs delay gastric emptying, potentially increasing pulmonary aspiration risk. Despite recent recommendations from the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Australian Society of Anaesthetists, and American Society of Anesthesiologists, there remain no formalised guidelines regarding preoperative optimisation for patients taking GLP-1 agonists. Given the current lack of evidence, we present a case series of incidents involving patients treated with GLP-1 agonists reported to webAIRS, a web-based anaesthetic incident reporting system in Australia and New Zealand. Among 11,700 reports from July 2009 to April 2024, 13 incidents related to GLP-1 agonist use were identified, including seven cases concerning aspiration. Patient factors potentially contributing to increased aspiration risks in these incidents included a higher body mass index, type 2 diabetes mellitus, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, emergency case, and time from GLP-1 agonist cessation. Most incidents involved a rapid sequence induction for general anaesthesia with no cases utilising gastric ultrasound, preoperative nasogastric tube insertion, or intravenous erythromycin use. This case series highlights the potential concerns relating to GLP-1 treatment in the perioperative setting. Interdisciplinary collaboration and communication between anaesthetists, surgeons, general practitioners and endocrinologists are required to further investigate and establish preoperative guidelines for safe GLP-1 agonist use. Specifically, consideration in determining actual gastric contents of each patient despite generic fasting guidelines is needed. Early preoperative risk stratification should also improve patient safety and outcomes.

Abstract
Background: Junior anaesthesiologists often find it difficult to gain the trust of surgeons, possibly because of their limited experience and unfamiliarity with surgeons. Therefore, they can face pressure when navigating disagreements with senior surgeons. We investigated whether and how differences in anaesthesiologist-surgeon seniority might impact patient safety.

Methods: This was a sequential explanatory, mixed-methods evaluation conducted at a general hospital, comprising a retrospective case-control study followed by semi-structured interviews. In the quantitative phase, the case group included surgical patients who experienced anaesthesia-related adverse events. The control group was randomly selected from surgical patients without adverse events, matched to the case group by surgeon, surgery, and surgery year. The exposure was the differences in work experience between anaesthesiologists and surgeons. For the qualitative phase, participants were recruited from attending anaesthesiologists using a theoretical sampling strategy, and a grounded theory analysis was performed.

Results: The quantitative study included 390 patients in the case group and 1560 patients in the control group. After controlling for confounders, we did not find a significant association between differences in anaesthesiologist-surgeon seniority and odds of anaesthesia-related adverse events (adjusted odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.01, P=0.634). In cases of disagreements among surgeons, anaesthesiologists primarily based clinical decisions on the potential impact on patient safety. Junior anaesthesiologists faced challenges when rejecting surgeons. Nevertheless, they received robust support from anaesthesiology colleagues.

Conclusions: The capacity of anaesthesiologists to uphold patient safety was not significantly affected by their seniority levels relative to surgeons.