Zehra İpek Arslan1, Mehmet Ertargın1, Cavit Işık Yavuz2, Hülya Yılmaz Yanal1, Yeşim Şenaylı3, Zehra Nur Baykara1, Mine Solak1. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine, Kocaeli, Turkey. 2. Department of Public Health, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Clinic of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Ankara Paediatrics Haematology-Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Every year, 230 million patients undergo major general surgery with anaesthesia worldwide, and 7 million resulted with major complications. Monitorisation and equipment has a great role in increasing patient safety and safe surgery during anaesthesia. METHODS: Turkey is divided into 12 Eurostut-NUTS regions and 26 subregions statistically. Totally, 303 hospitals that are included in these regions were enrolled in this descriptive trial. The hospitals were contacted by telephone between October 2012 and August 2013. Data collecting forms were e-mailed to any of the anaesthetists or anaesthesia technicians of the hospital and they were requested to fill the forms and forward them to one of the investigators. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 221 of 303 hospitals (73%). Twenty-three hospitals were tertiary (university and education and research), 21 were city and 177 were county hospitals. No anaesthetist, operating rooms or intensive care units were available in 114 of the county hospitals. Anaesthetists were responsible for 61% of these active working theatres. Electrocardiogram, heart rate, non-invasive blood pressure and saturation could be monitored in 97% of them. End-tidal carbon dioxide could be monitored in 91% of at least one operating room in these hospitals. However, if the subject became to end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring in every room, this ratio decreased to 63%. Defibrillators were absent in 6% of these rooms. Adult intensive care units were available in 33% of the hospitals and paediatric intensive care units were available in 32.4%; the responsibility of these intensive care units were carried out by anaesthetists at a 91.4% ratio. End-tidal carbon dioxide could be monitored in 54% of these units; invasive monitorisation could be applied in 68.4% if needed. CONCLUSION: It was observed that hospitals have different standards according to their infrastructures of anaesthesia and intensive care unit equipment. We think that the elimination of these differences is an important step with respect to increasing patient safety and enhancement of the service quality in hospitals.
OBJECTIVE: Every year, 230 million patients undergo major general surgery with anaesthesia worldwide, and 7 million resulted with major complications. Monitorisation and equipment has a great role in increasing patient safety and safe surgery during anaesthesia. METHODS:Turkey is divided into 12 Eurostut-NUTS regions and 26 subregions statistically. Totally, 303 hospitals that are included in these regions were enrolled in this descriptive trial. The hospitals were contacted by telephone between October 2012 and August 2013. Data collecting forms were e-mailed to any of the anaesthetists or anaesthesia technicians of the hospital and they were requested to fill the forms and forward them to one of the investigators. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 221 of 303 hospitals (73%). Twenty-three hospitals were tertiary (university and education and research), 21 were city and 177 were county hospitals. No anaesthetist, operating rooms or intensive care units were available in 114 of the county hospitals. Anaesthetists were responsible for 61% of these active working theatres. Electrocardiogram, heart rate, non-invasive blood pressure and saturation could be monitored in 97% of them. End-tidal carbon dioxide could be monitored in 91% of at least one operating room in these hospitals. However, if the subject became to end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring in every room, this ratio decreased to 63%. Defibrillators were absent in 6% of these rooms. Adult intensive care units were available in 33% of the hospitals and paediatric intensive care units were available in 32.4%; the responsibility of these intensive care units were carried out by anaesthetists at a 91.4% ratio. End-tidal carbon dioxide could be monitored in 54% of these units; invasive monitorisation could be applied in 68.4% if needed. CONCLUSION: It was observed that hospitals have different standards according to their infrastructures of anaesthesia and intensive care unit equipment. We think that the elimination of these differences is an important step with respect to increasing patient safety and enhancement of the service quality in hospitals.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anaesthesia; airway; equipment; intensive care unit; monitor; operating room
Authors: Glenn S Murphy; Joseph W Szokol; Jesse H Marymont; Steven B Greenberg; Michael J Avram; Jeffery S Vender; Margarita Nisman Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Jeffrey L Apfelbaum; Carin A Hagberg; Robert A Caplan; Casey D Blitt; Richard T Connis; David G Nickinovich; Carin A Hagberg; Robert A Caplan; Jonathan L Benumof; Frederic A Berry; Casey D Blitt; Robert H Bode; Frederick W Cheney; Richard T Connis; Orin F Guidry; David G Nickinovich; Andranik Ovassapian Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 7.892