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
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
959-970Subventions
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