Effect of a non-reactive absorbent with or without environmentally oriented electronic feedback on anesthesia
Carlos E Guerra-Londono1, Franklin Dexter2, John D Mitchell1
1Anesthesiology, Pain Management, & Perioperative Medicine, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA.
Study Objective:
To examine the effects of a non-reactive carbon dioxide absorbent (AMSORB® Plus) versus a traditional carbon dioxide absorbent (Medisorb™) on the FGF used by anesthesia providers and an electronic educational feedback intervention using Carestation™ Insights (GE HealthCare) on provider-specific change in FGF.
Design:
Prospective, single-center cohort study set in a greening initiative.
Setting:
Operating room.
Participants:
157 anesthesia providers (i.e., anesthesiology trainees, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and solo anesthesiologists).
Interventions:
Intervention #1 was the introduction of AMSORB® Plus into 8 Aisys CS2, Carestation™ Insights-enabled anesthesia machines (GE HealthCare) at the study site. At the end of week 6, anesthesia providers were educated and given an environmentally oriented electronic feedback strategy for the next 12 weeks of the study (Intervention #2) using Carestation™ Insights data.
Measurements:
The dual primary outcomes were the difference in average daily FGF during maintenance anesthesia between machines assigned to AMSORB® Plus versus Medisorb™ and the provider-specific change in average fresh gas flows after 12 weeks of feedback and education compared to the historical data.
Main Results:
Over the 18-week period, there were 1577 inhaled anesthetics performed in the 8 operating rooms (528 for intervention 1, 1049 for intervention 2). There were 1001 provider days using Aisys CS2 machines and 7452 provider days of historical data from the preceding year. Overall, AMSORB® Plus was not associated with significantly less FGF (mean - 80 ml/min, 97.5% confidence interval - 206 to 46, P = .15). The environmentally oriented electronic feedback intervention was not associated with a significant decrease in provider-specific mean FGF (-112 ml/min, 97.5% confidence interval - 244 to 21, P = .059).
Conclusions:
This study showed that introducing a non-reactive absorbent did not significantly alter FGF. Using environmentally oriented electronic feedback relying on data analytics did not result in significantly reduced provider-specific FGF.
Related Concept Videos
01:20Inhalational Anesthetics: Overview
01:17Assessment of Diffusion and Perfusion
The Role of Diffusion in Respiration
Diffusion is the process by which molecules move from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration. In the respiratory system, this...
01:30Administering Oxygen by Mask
Administering oxygen by mask is a common nursing intervention that provides supplemental oxygen to patients with respiratory distress or chronic lung conditions. This procedure involves delivering oxygen at a specified rate through a face mask connected to an oxygen source.
Equipment
The equipment necessary for this procedure includes:
01:29Administering Oxygen by Nasal Cannula
Nasal Cannulas
A nasal cannula is a lightweight tube split into two prongs placed in the nostrils,...
01:26Oxygen Delivering System I: Nasal Cannula and Face Mask
Nasal Cannula
A nasal cannula is a lightweight tube split at one end into two prongs and placed in the nostrils. It is typically used to deliver low to medium levels of oxygen.
Suggested flow rate: The suggested flow rate for a nasal cannula typically ranges between 1 and 6 L/min.
Oxygen percentage setting:...
01:20Assessment of Ventilation I: Respiratory Rate
A Ventilation assessment is critical for monitoring a patient's health status. Respiration, one of the most accessible vital signs, provides insights into the function of numerous body systems and can indicate serious health issues, such as brainstem injuries from head trauma.
Critical Guidelines for Assessing Ventilation: