rss
Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:e22 doi:10.1136/qshc.2002.004234
  • Crisis management

Crisis management during anaesthesia: sepsis

  1. J A Myburgh1,
  2. M J Chapman2,
  3. S M Szekely3,
  4. G A Osborne4,*
  1. 1Associate Professor, University of New South Wales, Director of Research, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, The St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia
  2. 2Senior Staff Specialist, Intensive Care Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  3. 3Senior Staff Specialist, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  4. 4Senior Staff Specialist, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  1. Correspondence to:
 Professor W B Runciman
 President, Australian Patient Safety Foundation, GPO Box 400, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia; researchapsf.net.au
  • Accepted 12 January 2005

Abstract

Background: Anaesthesia with concurrent sepsis is risky, and involves consideration of possible organ dysfunctions—respiratory, cardiovascular, renal, and haematological—as well as ensuring that appropriate antibiotics are given after taking the necessary microbiological specimens. Because prompt attention needs to be paid to so many body systems, the place for a structured approach during anaesthesia for a septic patient was assessed.

Objectives: To examine the role of a previously described core algorithm “COVER ABCD–A SWIFT CHECK”, supplemented by a specific sub-algorithm for sepsis, in the management of sepsis occurring in association with anaesthesia.

Methods: The potential performance of this structured approach for each of the relevant incidents among the first 4000 reported to the Australian Incident Monitoring Study (AIMS) was compared with the actual management as reported by the anaesthetists involved.

Results: Sepsis was identified as the primary problem in 13 of the first 4000 reports (<1%) to AIMS. The incidents reported generally occurred in sick patients; 70% were ASA status III or worse. The COVER ABCD algorithm provided a diagnosis and corrective manoeuvre in only 15% (2/13) of reported incidents, and the sepsis sub-algorithm provided adequate therapeutic strategies in a further 38% (5/13) of the incidents. Eight cases required the use of additional sub-algorithms for desaturation (30%), cardiac arrest (15%), hypotension (8%), and aspiration (8%).

Conclusion: Sepsis involves a serious physiological stress upon multiple organ systems. The use of a structured approach involving a core algorithm and additional sub-algorithms as required provides a series of checklists that can successfully deal with the complex multiple and interrelating problems that these patients present.

Footnotes

  • ↵* Dr Osborne died before this research was published.

  • The study was coordinated by the Australian Patient Safety Foundation, GPO Box 400, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.