Maria José Carvalho Carmona

Patients continue to suffer from preventable harm and uneven quality outcomes. Reliable clinical outcomes depend on the quality of robust administrative systems and reliable support processes. Critically ill patient handoffs from the operating room (OR) to the intensive care unit (ICU) are known to be high-risk events. We describe a novel perspective on how risk factors associated with the process of patient handoff communication between the OR and the ICU can lead to flawed communication, degraded team awareness, medical errors, and increased patient harm. Data were collected from two semi-structured focus groups using a five-step risk management approach at a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. We conducted a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) with multidisciplinary healthcare providers consisting of attending physicians, anesthesiologists, nurses, and physiotherapists involved in patient handoffs. We analyzed the results using a similitude analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing this novel risk management approach. We identified the handoffs risks associated with patients, staff, institution, and potential financial risks. The FMEA identified 12 process failures and 36 causes that generated 12 consequences and pointed to robust needed preventive measures to mitigate handoff risks. The clinical teams reported that this approach allowed them to see the process more completely as a whole not only in their narrow silos, thus understanding the enablers and difficulties of the other team members and how this understanding can shed light on their mental models, actions, and the process reliability. Teams identified key steps in the OR to ICU handoff process that are prone to the highest hazards to patients, the hospital, and staff, and are currently targeted for process improvement. Evidence-driven recommendations intended for reducing the risks associated with patient handoffs are presented. Implementing a dynamic risk management, interdisciplinary approach was used to redesign the OR to ICU patient handoff approach around the patient’s and clinician’s needs. The risk management program helped healthcare providers identify handoff steps, highlighting risky handoff process failures, making it possible to identify actionable failures, consequences, and define preventative action plans for mitigating the risks to improve the quality and safety of patient handoffs.

Introduction Surgery is a cost-effective public health intervention. Access to safe surgery is a basic human right. However, there are still significant disparities in the access to and safety of surgical and anaesthesia care between low-income and middle-income countries and high-income countries. The Latin American Surgical Outcomes Study in Paediatrics (LASOS-Peds) is an international, observational, 14-day cohort study to investigate the incidence of 30-day in-hospital complications following elective or emergency paediatric surgery in Latin American countries. Methods and analysis LASOS-Peds is a prospective, international, multicentre observational study of paediatric patients undergoing both elective and non-elective surgeries and procedures, inpatient and outpatient, including those performed outside the operating room. The primary outcome is the incidence of in-hospital postoperative complications up to 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes include intraoperative complications and the need for intensive care unit admission. Ethics and dissemination This study received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the coordinating centre (Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo) as well as from all the participating centres. The study results are expected to be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at international conferences. Trial registration number NCT05934682.

Background: Pediatric regional anesthesia has been driven by the gradual rise in the adoption of opioid-sparing strategies and the growing concern over the possible adverse effects of general anesthetics on neurodevelopment. Nonetheless, performing regional anesthesia studies in a pediatric population is challenging and accounts for the scarce evidence. This study aimed to review the scientific foundation of studies in cadavers to assess regional anesthesia techniques in children. Methods: We searched the following databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. We included anatomical cadaver studies assessing peripheral nerve blocks in children. The core data collected from studies were included in tables and comprised block type, block evaluation, results, and conclusion. Results: The search identified 2409 studies, of which, 16 were anatomical studies on the pediatric population. The techniques evaluated were the erector spinae plane block, ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve block, sciatic nerve block, maxillary nerve block, paravertebral block, femoral nerve block, radial nerve block, greater occipital nerve block, infraclavicular brachial plexus block, and infraorbital nerve block. Conclusion: Regional anesthesia techniques are commonly performed in children, but the lack of anatomical studies may result in reservations regarding the dispersion and absorption of local anesthetics. Further anatomical research on pediatric regional anesthesia may guide the practice.