Anaesthetists' current practice and perceptions of aerosol-generating procedures: a mixed-methods study.

aerosol generating procedures anaesthetists' perception national infection control and prevention guidelines respiratory protective equipment

Journal

Anaesthesia
ISSN: 1365-2044
Titre abrégé: Anaesthesia
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0370524

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2022
Historique:
accepted: 17 06 2022
pubmed: 22 7 2022
medline: 4 8 2022
entrez: 21 7 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The evidence base surrounding the transmission risk of 'aerosol-generating procedures' has evolved primarily through quantification of aerosol concentrations during clinical practice. Consequently, infection prevention and control guidelines are undergoing continual reassessment. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore the perceptions of practicing anaesthetists regarding aerosol-generating procedures. An online survey was distributed to the Membership Engagement Group of the Royal College of Anaesthetists during November 2021. The survey included five clinical scenarios to identify the personal approach of respondents to precautions, their hospital's policies and the associated impact on healthcare provision. A purposive sample was selected for interviews to explore the reasoning behind their perceptions and behaviours in greater depth. A total of 333 survey responses were analysed quantitatively. Transcripts from 18 interviews were coded and analysed thematically. The sample was broadly representative of the UK anaesthetic workforce. Most respondents and their hospitals were aware of, supported and adhered to UK guidance. However, there were examples of substantial divergence from these guidelines at both individual and hospital level. For example, 40 (12%) requested respiratory protective equipment and 63 (20%) worked in hospitals that required it to be worn whilst performing tracheal intubation in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. Additionally, 173 (52%) wore respiratory protective equipment whilst inserting supraglottic airway devices. Regarding the use of respiratory protective equipment and fallow times in the operating theatre: 305 (92%) perceived reduced efficiency; 376 (83%) perceived a negative impact on teamworking; 201 (64%) were worried about environmental impact; and 255 (77%) reported significant problems with communication. However, 269 (63%) felt the negative impacts of respiratory protection equipment were appropriately balanced against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Attitudes were polarised about the prospect of moving away from using respiratory protective equipment. Participants' perceived risk from COVID-19 correlated with concern regarding stepdown (Spearman's test, R = 0.36, p < 0.001). Attitudes towards aerosol-generating procedures and the need for respiratory protective equipment are evolving and this information can be used to inform strategies to facilitate successful adoption of revised guidelines.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35864419
doi: 10.1111/anae.15803
pmc: PMC9543704
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

959-970

Subventions

Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : NIHR301520

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.

Références

Anaesthesia. 2020 Jul;75(7):920-927
pubmed: 32246849
J Hosp Infect. 2022 Jun;124:13-21
pubmed: 35276282
Anaesthesia. 2022 Jan;77(1):22-27
pubmed: 34700360
Thorax. 2022 Mar;77(3):276-282
pubmed: 34737195
Anaesthesia. 2021 Sep;76(9):1167-1175
pubmed: 34005837
JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2027-2028
pubmed: 32338710
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35797
pubmed: 22563403
Anaesthesia. 2021 Dec;76(12):1577-1584
pubmed: 34287820
Anaesthesia. 2021 Feb;76(2):174-181
pubmed: 33022093
Anaesthesia. 2021 Nov;76(11):1465-1474
pubmed: 33784793
Anaesthesia. 2021 Mar;76(3):295-300
pubmed: 33307597

Auteurs

A J Shrimpton (AJ)

Anaesthesia, Pain and Critical Care Sciences, School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol, UK.

C E D Osborne (CED)

Anaesthesia, Pain and Critical Care Sciences, School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol, UK.

J M Brown (JM)

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.

T M Cook (TM)

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal United Hospital NHS Trust, Bath, UK.

C Penfold (C)

NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, UK.

L Rooshenas (L)

Bristol Medical School, Bristol Population Health Science Institute, University of Bristol, UK.

A E Pickering (AE)

Anaesthesia, Pain and Critical Care Sciences, School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH