Anders, Shilo

Anesthesiologists are sometimes slow to adopt new technologies despite proven benefits. The authors undertook to understand community anesthesiologists’ perspectives and practices regarding neuromuscular monitoring and reversal. Specifically, they sought to generate evidence for why some guidance-congruent practices— i.e. , quantitative train-of-four monitoring, ulnar nerve stimulation, and evidence-based reversal—remain inconsistently adopted despite robust evidence of patient harm from residual neuromuscular blockade and decades of effort to improve adoption. Thirty-six U.S. community anesthesiologists underwent a detailed qualitative cognitive interview. Analysis revealed four clinician archetypes whose neuromuscular monitoring and reversal practices are shaped by identifiable individual and practice-related biases and device- and system-level barriers. Perceived confidence in sugammadex efficacy was frequently cited as a rationale for omitting quantitative neuromuscular monitoring. The authors propose a research and implementation action agenda to close the evidence-to-practice gap in neuromuscular monitoring and reversal.

Effective decision-making in crisis events is challenging due to time pressure, uncertainty, and dynamic decisional environments. We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed and PsycINFO, identifying 32 empiric research papers that examine how trained professionals make naturalistic decisions under pressure. We used structured qualitative analysis methods to extract key themes. The studies explored different aspects of decision-making across multiple domains. The majority (19) focused on healthcare; military, fire and rescue, oil installation, and aviation domains were also represented. We found appreciable variability in research focus, methodology, and decision-making descriptions. We identified five main themes: (1) decision-making strategy, (2) time pressure, (3) stress, (4) uncertainty, and (5) errors. Recognition-primed decision-making (RPD) strategies were reported in all studies that analyzed this aspect. Analytical strategies were also prominent, appearing more frequently in contexts with less time pressure and explicit training to generate multiple explanations. Practitioner experience, time pressure, stress, and uncertainty were major influencing factors. Professionals must adapt to the time available, types of uncertainty, and individual skills when making decisions in high-risk situations. Improved understanding of these decisional factors can inform evidence-based enhancements to training, technology, and process design.