Australian And New Zealand College Of Anaesthetists Research Articles

The new Diploma of Rural Generalist Anaesthesia: Supporting Australian rural and remote communities.

In 2023, a Diploma of Rural Generalist Anaesthesia (DipRGA) was implemented across Australia. Developed collaboratively by the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA), the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM) and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP), the 12-month qualification is completed during or following ACRRM or RACGP Rural Generalist Fellowship training. Focused on the needs of rural and remote communities for elective and emergency surgery, maternity care, resuscitative care for medical illness or injury, and stabilisation for retrieval, the DipRGA supports rural generalist anaesthetists working within collaborative teams in geographically isolated settings. The goal is a graduate who can anaesthetise American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class 1, 2 and stable 3 patients for elective surgery, provide obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia, anaesthetise paediatric patients and undertake advanced crisis care within their scope of practice. Crucially, they also recognise both limitations of their skills and local resources available when considering whether to provide care, defer, refer or transfer patients. DipRGA curriculum design commenced by adapting the ANZCA specialist training curriculum with consideration of the training approach of both the ACRRM and the RACGP, particularly the rural and remote context. Curriculum content is addressed in seven entrustable professional activities supported by workplace-based assessments and multisource feedback. Trainees are supervised by rural generalist anaesthetists and specialist anaesthetists, and complete flexible learning activities to accommodate geographical dispersion. Standardised summative assessments include an early test of knowledge and an examination, adapted from the ACRRM structured assessment using multiple patient scenarios.

The Bullying in Anaesthesia Registrars Survey (BARS): Does a validated questionnaire improve our understanding of bullying in Australian and New Zealand anaesthesia trainees?

Previous studies have established that bullying is a pervasive problem in healthcare. However, most investigations of bullying in anaesthesia use self-labelled survey questions in which respondents' subjective perceptions of bullying are central in defining prevalence. This study applied the validated revised Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ-r) for a more objective assessment of bullying prevalence and types of negative behaviours experienced by anaesthesia trainees in Australia and New Zealand.An online questionnaire was distributed by the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) Clinical Trials Network to 990 randomly selected ANZCA trainees. Bullying prevalence was assessed using both a self-labelled survey tool and the NAQ-r, which requires respondents to select from a list of negative acts, with validated cut-offs that define bullying. Sources of bullying, impact on recipients and barriers to reporting were also examined. This design allowed comparison of the two methods for evaluating bullying prevalence.Twenty-six percent of trainees surveyed completed both bullying survey instruments. Thirty percent of these respondents self-labelled as having experienced bullying in the previous six months, with 8% reporting bullying at least monthly. With the NAQ-r, most respondents (96%) reported experiencing at least one negative act in the prior six months, with 54% reporting these on a monthly basis. The most frequent behaviours described were humiliation and intimidation. Using NAQ-r cut-offs, 36% of respondents experienced occasional bullying and 10% were victims of severe workplace bullying.The NAQ-r provides a more nuanced and objective insight into bullying faced by ANZCA trainees than do self-labelled surveys. The results of the present study provide a valuable baseline for ongoing assessment.

Updated guideline on equipment to manage difficult airways: Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists.

The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) recently reviewed and updated the guideline on equipment to manage a difficult airway. An ANZCA-established document development group, which included representatives from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand, performed the review, which is based on expert consensus, an extensive literature review, and bi-nationwide consultation. The guideline (PG56(A) 2021, https://www.anzca.edu.au/getattachment/02fe1a4c-14f0-4ad1-8337-c281d26bfa17/PS56-Guideline-on-equipment-to-manage-difficult-airways) is accompanied by a detailed background paper (PG56(A)BP 2021, https://www.anzca.edu.au/getattachment/9ef4cd97-2f02-47fe-a63a-9f74fa7c68ac/PG56(A)BP-Guideline-on-equipment-to-manage-difficult-airways-Background-Paper), from which the current recommendations are reproduced on behalf of, and with the permission of, ANZCA. The updated 2021 guideline replaces the 2012 version and aims to provide an updated, objective, informed, transparent, and evidence-based review of equipment to manage difficult airways.

Towards a national perioperative outcomes registry: A survey of perioperative electronic medical record utilisation to support quality assurance and research at Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Clinical Trials Network hospitals in Australia.

In Australia, 2.7 million surgical procedures are performed annually. Historically, a lack of perioperative data standardisation and infrastructure has limited pooling of routinely collected data across institutions. We surveyed Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) Clinical Trials Network hospitals to investigate current and potential uses of perioperative electronic medical record data for research and quality assurance.A targeted survey was sent to 131 ANZCA Clinical Trials Network-affiliated hospitals in Australia. The primary aim was to map current electronic data collection methods and data utilisation in six domains of the perioperative pathway.The survey response rate was 32%. Electronic data recording in the six domains ranged from 19% to 85%. Where electronic data exist, the ability of anaesthesiology departments to export them for analysis ranged from 27% to 100%. The proportion of departments with access to data exports that are regularly exporting the data for quality assurance or research ranged from 13% to 58%.The existence of a perioperative electronic medical record does not automatically lead to the data being used to measure and improve clinical outcomes. The first barrier is clinician access to data exports. Even when this barrier is overcome, a large gap remains between the proportion of departments able to access data exports and those using the data regularly to inform and improve clinical practice. We believe this gap can be addressed by establishing a national perioperative outcomes registry to lead high-quality multicentre registry research and quality assurance in Australia.

A survey of self-reported use of cricoid pressure amongst Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists: Attitudes and practice

We conducted a survey of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists designed to quantify self-reported use of cricoid pressure (CP) in patients presumed to be at risk of gastric regurgitation, and to ascertain the underlying justifications used to support individual practice. We aimed to identify the perceived benefits and harms associated with the use of CP and to explore the potential impact of medicolegal concerns on clinical decision-making. We also sought to ascertain the views of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists on whether recommendations relating to CP should be included in airway management guidelines. We designed an electronic survey comprised of 15 questions that was emailed to 981 randomly selected Fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) by the ANZCA Clinical Trials Network on behalf of the investigators. We received responses from 348 invitees (response rate 35.5%). Of the 348 respondents, 267 (76.9%) indicated that they would routinely use CP for patients determined to be at increased risk of gastric regurgitation. When asked whether participants believed the use of CP reduces the risk of gastric regurgitation, 39.8% indicated yes, 23.8% believed no and 36.3% were unsure. Of the respondents who indicated that they routinely performed CP, 159/267 (60%) indicated that concerns over the potential medicolegal consequences of omitting CP in a patient who subsequently aspirates was one of the main reasons for using CP. The majority (224/337; 66%) of respondents believed that recommendations about the use of CP in airway management guidelines should include individual practitioner judgement, while only 55/337 (16%) respondents believed that routine CP should be advocated in contemporary emergency airway management guidelines.

Interviewer bias in selection of anaesthesia Fellows: A single-institution quality assessment study.

Fellowships are competitive training posts, often in a subspecialty area. We performed a quality assessment of potential interviewer bias on anaesthesia Fellow selection. After research locality approval, we analysed interview scores for all Fellowship applications to our department over sixyears. Panel interviewers participated in a structured interview process, asking a series of standardised questions to rate applicants. A mixed model analysis of total applicant rating with crossed effects of applicants and interviewers was used. A total of 94 applicants were interviewed by 27 panel members, with between two and four panel members per interview, giving a total of 329 applicant ratings. The random effect of applicants accounted for 45.8% of total variance in ratings (95% confidence intervals (CI) for intraclass correlation (ICC) 35.8%-57.2%) while interviewer effects accounted for 13.4% of total variance (95% CI for ICC 5.3%-30.0%). We found no evidence of bias for most potential sources after analysing multiple applicant and interviewer factors. After adjusting for interviewer training programme, applicants from other training programmes were rated a mean of 1.87 points lower than Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) applicants (95% CI 0.62-3.12, P = 0.003) and 1.84 points lower than Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA) applicants (95% CI 0.37-3.32, P = 0.014). After adjusting for applicant gender, female clinicians rated applicants 1.12 points higher (95% CI 0.19-2.06, P = 0.019) on average than male clinicians. The observed differences in interview scores amongst male and female clinicians and lower scores in applicants from programmes other than ANZCA/RCoA were small, and require confirmation in independent studies.

Multidisciplinary survey of current and future use of emergency laparotomy risk assessment scores in New Zealand.

Risk prediction is an important part of the management of emergency laparotomy (EL) patients. This study aims to investigate the current use of and future directions for EL risk prediction scores. New Zealand members of the Royal Australasian College of Surgery (RACS), Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) and College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey. Responses were received from 316 clinicians (45 RACS, 253 ANZCA and 19 CICM), with 73% of them having >10 years' experience as a consultant. Risk assessment scores were utilised by respondents for approximately 30% of EL cases. The most common EL risk scores used were Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality (P-POSSUM) and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs (ACS-NSQIP). When used, respondents used risk assessment mostly preoperatively (RACS 100%, ANZCA 98% and CICM 78%), although P-POSSUM and ACS-NSQIP scores require intraoperative data (which can only be estimated crudely preoperatively by the clinician). Respondents on average 'somewhat agreed' that risk assessment scores should only include preoperative variables. The most common reasons for using P-POSSUM and ACS-NSQIP scores were familiarity and ease of use and availability of online/app calculators. The most important outcomes that the respondents would like to predict were quality of life and 30-day mortality rather than long-term impact from EL. These findings suggest that developing a new score may be required to improve utilisation and help in decision-making. This may require tailoring risk scores specifically for EL, and designing them to predict what is preferred by the clinicians making the decisions.

Gender effects in anaesthesia training in Australia and New Zealand

BackgroundWomen face gender-based challenges in their medical education and career. Inequitable access to procedural training, a confidence gap, and professional identity deficit have been shown. We made a gender comparison of procedural case volume, confidence for independent practice, perceived gender and ethnic bias, and professional identity in Australasian anaesthesia trainees. MethodsAn online, voluntary, anonymous survey using SurveyMonkey® was delivered to Australasian anaesthesia trainees. Information collected included demographics, experience and confidence in 12 anaesthetic procedures, assessments relating to confidence and professional identity, and perceived gender and ethnic bias. Gender differences were evaluated. ResultsThree hundred and fifty-six trainees (22.2%) of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) responded. Male trainees reported a higher number (standard deviation) of procedures performed greater than 10 times (men 4.45 [2.55], women 3.78 [1.95]; P<0.001 adjusted for training level). Men were more likely to rate themselves at a training competency above their actual training level (men 18.6%, women 7.8%; P=0.004) and exaggerate procedural experience to supervisors (men 30.8%, women 11.8%; P<0.001). Final-year male trainees felt significantly more prepared for independent practice (P=0.021, trend across ordered responses). Women reported significantly higher levels of gender bias exhibited by patients (men 1.1%, women 84.5%; P<0.001) and in training overall (men 10.3%, women 55.3%; P<0.001), which was compounded in women with an ethnic minority background. ConclusionsA discrepancy exists between the number of procedures performed by male and female anaesthesia trainees in Australia and New Zealand. Relative male overconfidence may be a major contributing factor to the gender confidence gap.

Why be sustainable? The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Professional Document PS64: Statement on Environmental Sustainability in Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice and its accompanying background paper.

Healthcare’s environmental sustainability is increasingly an area of research and advocacy focus. The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) has produced a professional document, PS64, Statement on Environmental Sustainability in Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice, and a background paper, PS64 BP. The purpose of the statement is to affirm ANZCA’s commitment to environmental sustainability and support anaesthetists in promoting environmentally sustainable work practices. This article presents the main features of PS64 and its background paper, and the associated supporting evidence. The healthcare sector is highly interconnected with activities that emit pollution to air, water and soils, considerably adding to humanity’s collective ecological footprint. As anaesthetists, we are uniquely high-carbon doctors due to our work anaesthetising with greenhouse gases (particularly desflurane and nitrous oxide) and our exposure and contribution to large amounts of resource and energy use and waste generation in operating theatres. Discussion is made of the improving research base of anaesthetic life-cycle assessments—that is, cradle-to-grave studies of how much energy, water and so on a product or process requires throughout its entire life. Thereafter, reducing, reusing and recycling as well as water use are examined. Ongoing research efforts within environmentally sustainable anaesthesia are highlighted. Environmentally sustainable anaesthesia requires scholarship, health advocacy, leadership, communication and collaboration. The focus is placed on practical initiatives within PS64 and the background paper that can be achieved by all anaesthetists striving towards more sustainable healthcare practices that reduce waste, reap financial benefits and improve health.

Nurturing anaesthetic expertise

This article seeks to establish the educational and social significance of narrative and affect in anaesthetic training. Data were obtained from focus group discussions involving three groups of eight (total 24) young anaesthetists from around Australia held at an Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) residential conference. Analysis applied to transcripts of the discussions revealed the prominence of narratives used among trainees and supervisors as a medium for explaining and nurturing anaesthetic expertise. Nurturing expertise was accomplished by sharing narratives about extreme circumstances that highlighted a need for constant vigilance directed towards not just clinical circumstances but also colleagues. The article suggests that the narrative emphasis on remaining vigilant and maintaining personal resourcefulness may explain graduands' tendency towards social exclusivity (avoidance of non-colleague others), and contribute to a better understanding of medicine's professional inclusivity (strong in-group bonding).

Practice patterns and perceptions of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists towards perioperative oxygen therapy.

We conducted a survey of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists to determine self-reported practice of perioperative oxygen administration and to quantify perceptions regarding the perceived benefits and risks resulting from liberal oxygen therapy delivered in a manner consistent with the current World Health Organization guidelines. In addition, we sought feedback on the acceptability of several proposed clinical trial designs aiming to assess the overall effect of liberal and restricted perioperative oxygen regimens on patient outcomes. We developed a 23-question electronic survey that was emailed to 972 randomly selected Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) Fellows. We received responses from 282 of 972 invitees (response rate 29%). The majority of survey participants indicated that they routinely titrate inspired oxygen to a level they feel is safe (164/282, 58%) or minimise oxygen administration (82/282, 29%), while 5% of respondents indicated that they aim to maximise oxygen administration. The mean value for targeted intraoperative fraction inspired oxygen (FiO2) was 0.41 (standard deviation 0.12). Of the survey respondents, 2/282 (0.7%) indicated they believe that routine intra- and postoperative administration of ≥80% oxygen reduces the risk of surgical site infection. Well-designed and conducted randomised trials on this topic may help to better direct clinicians' choices. A high level of willingness to participate (80% of responses) in a study designed to investigate the impact of differing approaches to perioperative oxygen administration suggests that recruitment is likely to be feasible in a future study.

A cross-sectional survey of Australian anesthetists' and surgeons' perceptions of preoperative risk stratification and prehabilitation.

Preoperative fitness training has been listed as a top ten research priority in anesthesia. We aimed to capture the current practice patterns and perspectives of anesthetists and colorectal surgeons in Australia and New Zealand regarding preoperative risk stratification and prehabilitation to provide a basis for implementation research. During 2016, we separately surveyed fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) and members of the Colorectal Society of Surgeons in Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ). Our outcome measures investigated the responders' demographics, practice patterns, and perspectives. Practice patterns examined preoperative assessment and prehabilitation utilizing exercise, hematinic, and nutrition optimization. We received 155 responses from anesthetists and 71 responses from colorectal surgeons. We found that both specialty groups recognized that functional capacity was linked to postoperative outcome; however, fewer agreed that robust evidence exists for prehabilitation. Prehabilitation in routine practice remains low, with significant potential for expansion. The majority of anesthetists do not believe their patients are adequately risk stratified before surgery, and most of their colorectal colleagues are amenable to delaying surgery for at least an additional two weeks. Two-thirds of anesthetists did not use cardiopulmonary exercise testing as they lacked access. Hematinic and nutritional assessment and optimization is less frequently performed by anesthetists compared with their colorectal colleagues. An unrecognized potential window for prehabilitation exists in the two to four weeks following cancer diagnosis. Early referral, larger multi-centre studies focusing on long-term outcomes, and further implementation research are required.

A survey of anaesthetists' use of tranexamic acid in noncardiac surgery.

Major bleeding in noncardiac surgery is common and associated with serious complications. The antifibrinolytic agent tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces bleeding and may reduce the risk of these complications. TXA also may have immunomodulatory effects that could reduce surgical site infection. Clinical trials of TXA in noncardiac surgery have been insufficiently powered to evaluate its efficacy and safety. Therefore, large randomised controlled trials of its use in noncardiac surgery are required. To ensure that future clinical trials are feasible and acceptable, we undertook a survey of Fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA). Our aims were to ascertain current patterns of TXA administration and to assess the acceptability of randomising patients to intravenous TXA or placebo. A 12-item survey was electronically mailed to 1001 ANZCA Fellows. Two hundred and eighty nine responses were received and analysed (response rate 29%). Ninety-eight percent of respondents had used intravenous TXA in noncardiac surgery; 67% give TXA routinely for lower limb arthroplasty, with smaller proportions giving TXA for spinal surgery (40%) and other major orthopaedic surgery (28%). Almost half (49%) give TXA routinely for major trauma surgery. Thirty-six percent indicated that they did not give TXA for major vascular, abdominal, pelvic or thoracic surgery. The majority administered TXA as a single, fixed dose. Fifty-seven percent agreed that there is uncertainty about the relative risks and benefits of perioperative TXA in noncardiac surgery and 87% agreed that large definitive trials determining the safety and efficacy of perioperative TXA in noncardiac surgery are required. These results indicate that for ANZCA Fellows the use of TXA in noncardiac surgery is highly variable, that there is uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of TXA, and that a large trial would be acceptable.

Genesis of the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand.

In 2009 the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) of Australia and New Zealand was inaugurated in Melbourne, Australia. This College now regulates the education, training and accreditation for specialist intensivists for Australia and New Zealand. CICM origins started in 1975 with the formation of the Section of Intensive Care of the Faculty of Anaesthetists, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS), which moved through intermediary stages as the Faculty of Intensive Care, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) when that College was formed from the former Faculty of Anaesthetists RACS, and then the Joint Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine (ANZCA and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians [RACP]), until becoming completely independent as CICM in 2010. There was a period of about 40-50 years evolution from the first formations of intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand, and discussions by the personnel staffing those units amongst themselves and with Members of the Board of the Faculty of Anaesthetists RACS, to the formation of the Section of Intensive Care, then through two intermediary Faculties of Intensive Care Medicine, to the final independent formation of the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand in 2010.

A clinical audit of an office-based anaesthesia service for dental procedures in Victoria.

There is an increasing number of specialties performing office-based procedures, with many different providers practising in this field. Office Based Anaesthesia Solutions is a private enterprise designed to be a high-quality general anaesthesia and sedation service delivering care across 18 dental practices in Victoria. We undertook a criterion-based audit of our practice standards and outcomes. Following ethics approval, we retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients managed by our service between March 2014 and July 2017. We collected demographic data, information about anaesthesia technique, and surgical features. We assessed our findings against the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) day surgery policy documents. During the specified period, we provided anaesthesia or sedation for 1,323 patients. Their ages ranged from two to 93 years (mean [standard deviation] 33.3 [18.6] years). Ninety-three percent of patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification 1 or 2. Patient demographics were in line with ANZCA day surgical policy documents. Total intravenous anaesthesia was used in 1,054 of the 1,096 documented general anaesthesia cases. There were three unplanned hospital transfers (annual incidence 0.07%). As this was the first Australian criteria-based audit of office-based anaesthesia (OBA) for dental procedures, we cannot compare our findings directly to previous studies. However, we feel that our patient demographics fell within acceptable ANZCA day procedure standards and our adverse event rate was both very low and similar to other published international adverse event rates. Our audit indicates that with careful screening processes, patient selection and medical governance, OBA is a viable model of care for patients undergoing dental procedures.

Professor Ross Holland: The Special Committee Investigating Deaths Under Anaesthesia (SCIDUA) and his other contributions to anaesthesia.

As a young anaesthetic trainee in 1959 Ross Holland persuaded the Minister of Health in NSW, Australia, to establish SCIDUA, which by law required compulsory reporting for all deaths occurring during anaesthesia or up to 24 hours after cessation of the anaesthetic. The committee was multidisciplinary and, most importantly, had statutory privilege so that no discussions or findings were able to be subpoenaed for other legal investigations or case law. Holland was the foundation secretary of SCIDUA and later Chair. Apart from three years in the 1980s when there were political issues with legal privilege, the committee has met monthly and still meets. Holland was a major figure in antipodean anaesthesia, setting up in 1978 the clinical department at Westmead Hospital Sydney, then in 1987 becoming the foundation Professor to the Department of Anaesthesiology at the University of Hong Kong, and in 1990 foundation Professor and Chair, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care at the University of Newcastle, NSW. Holland had strong historical interests and was responsible for founding the Society for the Preservation of Artefacts of Surgery and Medicine (SPASM) and its associated museum. He also served an important term as Dean of the Faculty of Anaesthetists, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons prior to that Faculty becoming independent as the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA). Professor Holland received many accolades for these activities during his life, which are noted. It is fitting to recognise his seminal contributions to patient safety over more than 50 years.

Genesis of the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand

Background: In 2008, the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) of Australian and New Zealand was inaugurated in Melbourne, Australia. This College now regulates the education, training and accreditation for specialist intensivists for Australia and New Zealand. CICM origins started in 1975 with the formation of the Intensive Care Section of the Faculty of Anaesthetists, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS), which moved through intermediary stages as the Faculty of Intensive Care, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) when that College was formed from the former Faculty of Anaesthetists RACS, and then the Joint Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine (ANZCA and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians), until becoming completely independent as CICM in 2010.

Does perioperative ketamine have a role in the prevention of chronic postsurgical pain: the ROCKet trial.

Identifying operations and individuals with an increased risk of chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) has led to significant interest in interventions with the potential to achieve primary prevention of this condition. Pharmacological prevention remains controversial with a Cochrane review identifying perioperative ketamine administration as the only intervention with possible benefit although, with only small, heterogeneous studies, the authors called for a large randomised controlled trial (RCT) to confirm the validity of this result. In response to these data, a group of researchers from Australia and Hong Kong designed the ROCKet trial - Reduction Of Chronic Post-surgical Pain with Ketamine, endorsed by the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) Clinical Trials Network (CTN).

A survey of the sequelae of memorable anaesthetic drug errors from the anaesthetist's perspective.

Drug errors amongst anaesthetists are common. Although there has been previous work on the system factors involved with drug error, there has been little research on the sequelae of a drug error from the anaesthetist's perspective. To clarify this issue, we surveyed anaesthetists regarding their most memorable drug error to identify associated factors and personal sequelae regarding their professional practice after the event. An online survey was sent anonymously to 989 Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) Fellows in March 2016 and the results were collected over the following two months. There were 295 completed surveys (29.8% response). The majority of respondents were male consultants, aged over 45 years. Reported drug errors occurred most frequently during normal working hours, and the most common drugs involved were non-depolarising muscle relaxants. In 34% of the errors, another anaesthetist was present, and their presence was felt to have contributed in 40.7% of these cases. About 20% of respondents reported that they did not receive adequate support after the event. Sleep patterns were affected in 14.4% of respondents, although very few found that the error had affected their capacity to function at work. These findings suggest that memorable drug errors can be significant enough to have adverse sequelae to anaesthetists, even if no patient harm occurs.

Survey of research capability at Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists accredited training sites.

The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) has more than 200 accredited training sites in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore, many of which participate in ANZCA Clinical Trials Network (CTN)-endorsed clinical trials. We undertook a survey of accredited sites to determine research capability, activity and potential. With ethics committee approval an electronic survey was distributed to accredited sites in July 2015. Of 207 accredited sites, 167 were sent the questionnaire (after eliminating ineligible sites) and 128 responded. Response rates for Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore were 100%, 100%, 35%, 25% and 75% respectively. Forty-four (34%) of 128 responding sites had a head of research; 101 (80%) of 126 responding sites were active in research; 42 (33%) of 126 responding sites had no publications since January 2011 and 15 (12%) had >50 publications; 95 (76%) of 125 responding sites had at least one specialist anaesthetist engaged in research (median = 4 [range 1-25]); and 45 (36%) of 125 responding sites had at least one research coordinator (median = 2 [range 1-15]). Fifty-eight (28%) of the 207 accredited sites were identified as participating in recent ANZCA CTN-endorsed clinical trials. Research capability and activity were higher in these sites. This survey has identified a strong base upon which to expand clinical trial activity, and regions, sectors, investigators and research coordinators who may benefit from additional support.