Brull, Sorin J.

BACKGROUND: In patients who receive a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking drug (NMBD) during anesthesia, undetected postoperative residual neuromuscular block is a common occurrence that carries a risk of potentially serious adverse events, particularly postoperative pulmonary complications. There is abundant evidence that residual block can be prevented when real-time (quantitative) neuromuscular monitoring with measurement of the train-of-four ratio is used to guide NMBD administration and reversal. Nevertheless, a significant percentage of anesthesiologists fail to use quantitative devices or even conventional peripheral nerve stimulators routinely. Our hypothesis was that a contributing factor to the nonutilization of neuromuscular monitoring was anesthesiologists’ overconfidence in their knowledge and ability to manage the use of NMBDs without such guidance. METHODS: We conducted an Internet-based multilingual survey among anesthesiologists worldwide. We asked respondents to answer 9 true/false questions related to the use of neuromuscular blocking drugs. Participants were also asked to rate their confidence in the accuracy of each of their answers on a scale of 50% (pure guess) to 100% (certain of answer). RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred sixty persons accessed the website; of these, 1629 anesthesiologists from 80 countries completed the 9-question survey. The respondents correctly answered only 57% of the questions. In contrast, the mean confidence exhibited by the respondents was 84%, which was significantly greater than their accuracy. Of the 1629 respondents, 1496 (92%) were overconfident. CONCLUSIONS: The anesthesiologists surveyed expressed overconfidence in their knowledge and ability to manage the use of NMBDs. This overconfidence may be partially responsible for the failure to adopt routine perioperative neuromuscular monitoring. When clinicians are highly confident in their knowledge about a procedure, they are less likely to modify their clinical practice or seek further guidance on its use.

A panel of clinician scientists with expertise in neuromuscular blockade (NMB) monitoring was convened with a charge to prepare a consensus statement on indications for and proper use of such monitors. The aims of this article are to: (a) provide the rationale and scientific basis for the use of quantitative NMB monitoring; (b) offer a set of recommendations for quantitative NMB monitoring standards; (c) specify educational goals; and (d) propose training recommendations to ensure proper neuromuscular monitoring and management. The panel believes that whenever a neuromuscular blocker is administered, neuromuscular function must be monitored by observing the evoked muscular response to peripheral nerve stimulation. Ideally, this should be done at the hand muscles (not the facial muscles) with a quantitative (objective) monitor. Objective monitoring (documentation of train-of-four ratio ≥0.90) is the only method of assuring that satisfactory recovery of neuromuscular function has taken place. The panel also recommends that subjective evaluation of the responses to train-of-four stimulation (when using a peripheral nerve stimulator) or clinical tests of recovery from NMB (such as the 5-second head lift) should be abandoned in favor of objective monitoring. During an interim period for establishing these recommendations, if only a peripheral nerve stimulator is available, its use should be mandatory in any patient receiving a neuromuscular blocking drug. The panel acknowledges that publishing this statement per se will not result in its spontaneous acceptance, adherence to its recommendations, or change in routine practice. Implementation of objective monitoring will likely require professional societies and anesthesia department leadership to champion its use to change anesthesia practitioner behavior.

BACKGROUND: Studies of shared (patient-provider) decision making for elective surgical care have examined both the decision whether to have surgery and patients’ understanding of treatment options. We consider shared decision making applied to case scheduling, since implementation would reduce labor costs. METHODS: Study questions were presented in sequence of waiting times, starting with 4 workdays. “Assume the consultant surgeon (ie, the surgeon in charge) you met in clinic did not have time available to do your surgery within the next 4 workdays, but his/her colleague would have had time to do your surgery within the next 4 workdays. Would you have wanted to discuss with a member of the surgical team (eg, the scheduler or the surgeon) the availability of surgery with a different, equally qualified surgeon at Mayo Clinic who had time available within the next 4 workdays, on a date of your choosing?” There were 980 invited patients who underwent lung resection or cholecystectomy between 2011 and 2016; 135 respondents completed the study and 6 respondents dropped out after the study questions were displayed. RESULTS: The percentages of patients whose response to the study questions was “4 days” were 58.8% (40/68) among lung resection patients and 58.2% (39/67) among cholecystectomy patients. The 97.5% 2-sided confidence interval for the median maximum wait was 4 days to 4 days. Patients’ choices for the waiting time sufficient to discuss having another surgeon perform the procedure did not differ between procedures ( P = .91). Results were insensitive to patients’ sex, age, travel time to hospital, or number of office visits before surgery (all P ≥ .20). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that bringing up the option with the patient of changing surgeons when a colleague is available and has the operating room time to perform the procedure sooner is being respectful of most patients’ individual preferences (ie, patient-centered).

ObjectivesFor 8.5 consecutive years, all patient safety articles of a journal underwent statistical review before publication. We sought to establish the prevalence of statistical themes in the statistical reviews, consideration of contemporary statistical methods, and their associations with time to journal receipt of authors' revision.MethodsAn initial set of statistical themes was created using the statistical editor's notes. For example, for the statistical theme of “CONSORT checklist,” the search term needed was “CONSORT.” A complete (exhaustive) list of additional themes was obtained inductively.ResultsAmong the 273 subsequent reviews for manuscripts that were ultimately accepted, the number of paragraphs that included a theme of a statistical method was only weakly associated with longer revision times (Kendall τ = 0.139 ± 0.039,P= 0.0004). Among the total 3274 paragraphs of statistical reviews, 72.2% did not include a theme of a statistical method (e.g., the editor instead asked the authors to clarify what statistical method had been used) (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70.6%-73.7%,P< 0.0001 versus 50%).Among the 207 manuscripts with a review that included a statistical method, 47.3% included a contemporary topic (e.g., generalized pivotal methods) (95% CI = 40.4%–54.4%). However, among the 911 corresponding paragraphs of statistical review comments, only 16.0% included a contemporary theme (95% CI = 13.7%–18.6%).ConclusionsThe revised versions of patient safety articles, which are eventually to be accepted for publication, have many statistical limitations especially in the reporting (writing) of basic statistical methods and results. The results suggest a need for education of patient safety investigators to include statistical writing.