MyMedR

Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

The patients' understanding on the status and role of anaesthesiologists

Budiman M, Izaham A, Abdul Manap N, Zainudin K, Kamaruzaman E, Masdar A, et al.

Clin Ter, 2015 Nov-Dec;166(6):227-35.
PMID: 26794808 DOI: 10.7417/CT.2015.1892

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patients' understanding on the status and role of anaesthesiologists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. The interview had three segments which questioned on (i) patients' knowledge of the qualification, training and role of anaesthesiologists, (ii) attitude of patients towards anaesthesia and anaesthesiologists and (iii) the demographic data of patients.
RESULTS: Of 384 patients interviewed, 59.4% had prior anaesthesia experience. Most patients (95.6%) knew that anaesthesiologists were medical doctors, but only 27.1% knew the duration of training required to attain this specialist qualification. Patients' awareness of the various anaesthetic responsibilities was 12.2% in managing labour pain, 25.5% in intensive care units, 49.2% in chronic pain and 99.5% in postoperative pain management. During surgery, 73.7% of patients knew that anaesthesiologists were monitoring their vital signs, but only 42.2% thought anaesthesiologists also treated medical problems intraoperatively. Most patients (95.1%) would like to meet their anaesthesiologists prior to the operation and 97.7% want them to inform all possible anaesthesia complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Our patients' understanding and awareness of the status and roles of anaesthesiologists are still limited and variable. This can be further improved with patient interaction and public education.
KEYWORDS: Anaesthesiologist; Attitudes; Patient’s knowledge; Patient’s perception; Survey
Fulltext [Analysis of cricoid pressure application: anaesthetic trainee doctors vs. nursing anaesthetic assistants]

Yahaya NH, Teo R, Izaham A, Tang S, Mohamad Yusof A, Abdul Manap N

Rev Bras Anestesiol, 2016 May-Jun;66(3):283-8.
PMID: 26993407 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjan.2016.02.013

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of anaesthetic trainee doctors compared to nursing anaesthetic assistants in identifying the cricoid cartilage, applying the appropriate cricoid pressure and producing an adequate laryngeal inlet view.
METHODS: Eighty-five participants, 42 anaesthetic trainee doctors and 43 nursing anaesthetic assistants, were asked to complete a set of questionnaires which included the correct amount of force to be applied to the cricoid cartilage. They were then asked to identify the cricoid cartilage and apply the cricoid pressure on an upper airway manikin placed on a weighing scale, and the pressure was recorded. Subsequently they applied cricoid pressure on actual anaesthetized patients following rapid sequence induction. Details regarding the cricoid pressure application and the Cormack-Lehane classification of the laryngeal view were recorded.
RESULTS: The anaesthetic trainee doctors were significantly better than the nursing anaesthetic assistants in identifying the cricoid cartilage (95.2% vs. 55.8%, p=0.001). However, both groups were equally poor in the knowledge about the amount of cricoid pressure force required (11.9% vs. 9.3% respectively) and in the correct application of cricoid pressure (16.7% vs. 20.9% respectively). The three-finger technique was performed by 85.7% of the anaesthetic trainee doctors and 65.1% of the nursing anaesthetic assistants (p=0.03). There were no significant differences in the Cormack-Lehane view between both groups.
CONCLUSION: The anaesthetic trainee doctors were better than the nursing anaesthetic assistants in cricoid cartilage identification but both groups were equally poor in their knowledge and application of cricoid pressure.
KEYWORDS: Anaesthetic assistants; Assistentes de anestesia; Cricoid pressure; Pressão cricoide; Residentes em anestesiologia; Trainee anaesthetists
Near fatal error in management of postoperative epidural analgesia

Wan Mat WR, Yahya N, Izaham A, Abdul Rahman R, Abdul Manap N, Md Zain J

Int J Risk Saf Med, 2014;26(2):57-60.
PMID: 24902502 DOI: 10.3233/JRS-140611

Acute pain service (APS) ensures provision of effective and safe postoperative pain relief. The following cases describe a potentially fatal error in managing patients who receive epidural analgesia postoperatively.
Fulltext Analysis of cricoid pressure application: anaesthetic trainee doctors vs. nursing anaesthetic assistants

Yahaya NH, Teo R, Izaham A, Tang S, Mohamad Yusof A, Abdul Manap N

Braz J Anesthesiol, 2016 May-Jun;66(3):283-8.
PMID: 27108826 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.10.008

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of anaesthetic trainee doctors compared to nursing anaesthetic assistants in identifying the cricoid cartilage, applying the appropriate cricoid pressure and producing an adequate laryngeal inlet view.

METHODS: Eighty-five participants, 42 anaesthetic trainee doctors and 43 nursing anaesthetic assistants, were asked to complete a set of questionnaires which included the correct amount of force to be applied to the cricoid cartilage. They were then asked to identify the cricoid cartilage and apply the cricoid pressure on an upper airway manikin placed on a weighing scale, and the pressure was recorded. Subsequently they applied cricoid pressure on actual anaesthetized patients following rapid sequence induction. Details regarding the cricoid pressure application and the Cormack-Lehane classification of the laryngeal view were recorded.

RESULTS: The anaesthetic trainee doctors were significantly better than the nursing anaesthetic assistants in identifying the cricoid cartilage (95.2% vs. 55.8%, p=0.001). However, both groups were equally poor in the knowledge about the amount of cricoid pressure force required (11.9% vs. 9.3% respectively) and in the correct application of cricoid pressure (16.7% vs. 20.9% respectively). The three-finger technique was performed by 85.7% of the anaesthetic trainee doctors and 65.1% of the nursing anaesthetic assistants (p=0.03). There were no significant differences in the Cormack-Lehane view between both groups.

CONCLUSION: The anaesthetic trainee doctors were better than the nursing anaesthetic assistants in cricoid cartilage identification but both groups were equally poor in their knowledge and application of cricoid pressure.
Effectiveness of P6 acupoint electrical stimulation in preventing postoperativenausea and vomiting following laparoscopic surgery

Yeoh AH, Tang SS, Abdul Manap N, Wan Mat WR, Said S, Che Hassan MR, et al.

Turk J Med Sci, 2016 Apr 19;46(3):620-5.
PMID: 27513234 DOI: 10.3906/sag-1502-56

BACKGROUND/AIM: The effects of pericardium 6 (P6) electrical stimulation in patients at risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following laparoscopic surgery were evaluated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients for laparoscopic surgery with at least one of the determined risks (nonsmoker, female, previous PONV/motion sickness, or postoperative opioid use) were randomized into either an active or sham group. At the end of surgery, Reletex electrical acustimulation was placed at the P6 acupoint. The active group had grade 3 strength and the sham group had inactivated electrodes covered by silicone. It was worn for 24 h following surgery. PONV scores were recorded.
RESULTS: The active group had significantly shorter durations of surgery and lower PONV incidence over 24 h (35.1% versus 64.9%, P = 0.024) and this was attributed to the lower incidence of nausea (31.4% versus 68.6%, P = 0.006). The overall incidence of vomiting was not significantly different between the groups, but it was higher in the sham group of patients with PONV risk score 3 (23.9%, P = 0.049).
CONCLUSION: In patients at high risk for PONV, P6 acupoint electrical stimulation lowers the PONV incidence by reducing the nausea component. However, this reduction in nausea is not related to increasing PONV risk scores.