Literature DB >> 32736825

Obstetric anaesthetic practice in the UK: a descriptive analysis of the National Obstetric Anaesthetic Database 2009-14.

James H Bamber1, Dominique N Lucas2, Felicity Plaat3, Robin Russell4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Data on UK obstetric anaesthetic practice between 2009 and 2014 were collected by the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association's National Obstetric Anaesthetic Database. This database provides information on workload, variation in practice, and complication rates.
METHODS: During 2009-14, data were submitted by 190 UK hospitals. The number of hospitals that submitted data each year ranged between 114 and 145. During this 6 yr period, between 27 and 35 data items were requested, although not all hospitals submitted information on all data items. The dataset was assessed for quality and only those data items with acceptable quality were analysed.
RESULTS: The dataset contains information on 3 030 493 deliveries, 770 545 Caesarean sections, 623 050 women with labour neuraxial analgesia, and 61 121 general anaesthetics for Caesarean section. There was increased use of patient-controlled regimens for labour neuraxial analgesia over the 6 yr period. The mean rate of general anaesthesia used for Caesarean section was 8.75% (95% confidence interval, 8.26-9.24%). The rate of failed intubation for general anaesthesia for Caesarean section was one in 379. Inadvertent dural puncture rates varied between hospitals with a mean of 1.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.37%). The rate of a high neuraxial block causing unconsciousness was one in 6667 for all blocks.
CONCLUSIONS: This unique large dataset provides a valuable insight of obstetric anaesthetic activity in the UK. Although missing data may place limitations on interpretation, it provides comparative estimates for the rates of rare complications and highlights variations in practice in time and place.
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Caesarean section; anaesthesia complications; epidural analgesia; healthcare benchmarking; obstetric anaesthesia; quality improvement; workload

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32736825     DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.06.053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Anaesth        ISSN: 0007-0912            Impact factor:   9.166


  4 in total

Review 1.  Ultrasound-facilitated neuraxial anaesthesia in obstetrics.

Authors:  A Sadeghi; R Patel; J C A Carvalho
Journal:  BJA Educ       Date:  2021-08-19

Review 2.  Analgesia for Caesarean section.

Authors:  G Neall; S Bampoe; P Sultan
Journal:  BJA Educ       Date:  2022-03-08

3.  Obstetric analgesia and anaesthesia in SARS-CoV-2-positive parturients across 10 maternity units in the north-west of England: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  K Bhatia
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 12.893

4.  Prevention and management of intra-operative pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia: a technical and interpersonal approach.

Authors:  F Plaat; S E R Stanford; D N Lucas; J Andrade; J Careless; R Russell; D Bishop; Q Lo; D Bogod
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 12.893

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.