A UK-wide survey evaluation of capnography variation

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1111/anae.16603
Andrew A. Shepherd, Jennifer L. Proc, Patrick A. Ward, Alistair F. McNarry, Mathew Lyons
{"title":"A UK-wide survey evaluation of capnography variation","authors":"Andrew A. Shepherd, Jennifer L. Proc, Patrick A. Ward, Alistair F. McNarry, Mathew Lyons","doi":"10.1111/anae.16603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>When interpreted correctly, waveform capnography can prevent morbidity and mortality during airway management. However, misidentification of capnography as other waveforms (e.g. pressure or flow) continues to cause preventable deaths [<span>1</span>] and has been implicated in a Coroner's Regulation 28 report [<span>2</span>]. Non-standardised monitor displays increase the risk of human error, leading to clinical delays or misjudgements [<span>3</span>]. Despite the capnography recommendations from the Association of Anaesthetists [<span>4</span>], Project for Universal Management of Airways and capnography safety campaigns, preventable deaths persist [<span>5</span>]. System design (removing the possibility of error) is the most effective form of error prevention [<span>6</span>]. In recognition of this, the Safe Anaesthesia Liaison Group (SALG) recommends standardising waveform capnography as a white solid filled-in graph at the bottom of the monitor display [<span>7</span>]. It is not known how widely this recommendation has been adopted. We aimed to establish the extent of variation in waveform capnography across the UK and assess compliance with the SALG standard.</p>\n<p>We devised a survey to collect capnography waveform and equipment data from participating hospitals (online Supporting Information Appendix S1). A website (https://cavastudy.co.uk) was established for hospital registration and respondent survey access. Participation was voluntary and open to all 420 NHS hospitals that provide anaesthesia services [<span>1</span>].</p>\n<p>Survey respondents were asked to identify distinct clinical areas in their hospital where waveform capnography was used, establish the number of different waveforms in each area, and categorise them according to 11 colours, two waveform types and three screen locations. These variants were chosen from a pilot survey in south-east Scotland. Departmental clinical directors of participating hospitals were asked to agree to their hospital's participation and state their personal awareness of the SALG standard. The survey was not anonymised. Research Ethics Committee and Caldicott Guardian approval were not required. Investigators registered the project via their local governance teams.</p>\n<p>Survey responses were collected from 9 September 2024 to 31 October 2024 using Microsoft Forms (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Analysis was conducted in R Studio (R version 4.4.1; R Foundation, Vienna, Austria).</p>\n<p>Data were received from 138/420 (33%) eligible hospitals (which were part of 65 NHS Trusts/health boards). We analysed 9052 individual capnography waveforms and identified 36 variants across nine colours, two morphologies (line and filled in) and three monitor locations (top, middle and bottom). The most common waveform was a white line at the bottom of the screen, followed by the SALG standard and then a white line in the middle. The remaining capnographs varied considerably in morphology (Table 1 and Fig. 1).</p>\n<div>\n<header><span>Table 1. </span>Top five waveform capnography variants reported most frequently.</header>\n<div tabindex=\"0\">\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th rowspan=\"2\">Rank</th>\n<th rowspan=\"2\">Capnography design</th>\n<th rowspan=\"2\">Waveform description</th>\n<th>Prevalence</th>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<th style=\"top: 41px;\">n = 9052</th>\n</tr>\n</thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>1</td>\n<td><img alt=\"image\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"/cms/asset/e203766a-49d8-4b78-b617-43848c90f956/anae16603-gra-0001.png\"/>\n</td>\n<td><p>Colour: White</p>\n<p>Type: Line</p>\n<p>Location: Bottom of screen</p>\n</td>\n<td>2496 (27.6%)</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>2*\n</td>\n<td><img alt=\"image\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"/cms/asset/31fadae5-ae6e-4742-92b8-be25432d6034/anae16603-gra-0002.png\"/>\n</td>\n<td><p>Colour: White</p>\n<p>Type: Filled In</p>\n<p>Location: Bottom of screen</p>\n</td>\n<td>1385 (15.3%)</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>3</td>\n<td><img alt=\"image\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"/cms/asset/ed64600c-8950-43da-8eb4-c229a0c65cbf/anae16603-gra-0003.png\"/>\n</td>\n<td><p>Colour: White</p>\n<p>Type: Line</p>\n<p>Location: Middle of screen</p>\n</td>\n<td>747 (8.25%)</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>4</td>\n<td><img alt=\"image\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"/cms/asset/5a13c6d1-4ad3-4ed7-bf01-dffcf5061c47/anae16603-gra-0004.png\"/>\n</td>\n<td><p>Colour: Yellow</p>\n<p>Type: Line</p>\n<p>Location: Bottom of screen</p>\n</td>\n<td>637 (7.04%)</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>5</td>\n<td><img alt=\"image\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"/cms/asset/7b02a26e-4e07-44c0-8614-cc717e7a17d6/anae16603-gra-0005.png\"/>\n</td>\n<td><p>Colour: Yellow</p>\n<p>Type: Filled in</p>\n<p>Location: Top of screen</p>\n</td>\n<td>496 (5.48%)</td>\n</tr>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n</div>\n<div>\n<ul>\n<li title=\"Footnote 1\"><span>* </span> SALG standard. </li>\n</ul>\n</div>\n<div></div>\n</div>\n<figure><picture>\n<source media=\"(min-width: 1650px)\" srcset=\"/cms/asset/4e066b3f-4d8d-407d-90b9-4045e2a0293b/anae16603-fig-0001-m.jpg\"/><img alt=\"Details are in the caption following the image\" data-lg-src=\"/cms/asset/4e066b3f-4d8d-407d-90b9-4045e2a0293b/anae16603-fig-0001-m.jpg\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"/cms/asset/860fb198-9f45-4f64-a98b-79465a9c641e/anae16603-fig-0001-m.png\" title=\"Details are in the caption following the image\"/></picture><figcaption>\n<div><strong>Figure 1<span style=\"font-weight:normal\"></span></strong><div>Open in figure viewer<i aria-hidden=\"true\"></i><span>PowerPoint</span></div>\n</div>\n<div>Quantities of display variants presented according to colour, trace type and location on screen. Colours were white, yellow, grey, blue, green, orange, cyan, pink and violet. Types were either a line or filled area. Locations were logged as top, middle or bottom of the screen.</div>\n</figcaption>\n</figure>\n<p>In 585/1816 (32%) clinical areas, monitors displayed other waveforms (e.g. pressure or flow), with identical morphology to capnography. The median (IQR [range]) of waveform variants per hospital was 4 (2–5.25 [1–13]). Across Trusts/health boards with multiple hospital sites, variants increased to 6 (4–8 [1–15]).</p>\n<p>Monitoring equipment service manuals were examined for customisation options to meet the SALG standard: 5008/9143 (54.5%) machines were user-modifiable to the standard; 4054/9143 (44.5%) required manufacturer modification; and 81/9143 (1%) were unmodifiable due to hardware limitations. The SALG standard was known to 77/102 (75%) of clinical directors.</p>\n<p>This survey highlights potential patient safety risks relating to variability in waveform capnography across UK hospitals. Both capnography waveform heterogeneity and ambiguity of non-capnography waveforms increase the risk of misinterpretation, potentially leading to errors in situational awareness. Such misinterpretations contribute to over 80% of anaesthesia-related adverse events, primarily due to failures in perceiving and comprehending critical information [<span>8</span>]. The risk is particularly high for clinicians moving between different hospital areas and rotating within Trusts/heath boards.</p>\n<p>Despite a low response rate (33%) from eligible hospitals, 36 variants of capnograph is concerning. A higher rate of participation may have identified even greater variation. We did not assess the impact of variation on clinical performance or error rates, and we did not explore the practical or financial implications of national capnography waveform standardisation.</p>\n<p>Despite publication of a Regulation 28 Coroner's report and the Royal College of Anaesthetists' national response, patients have continued to die due to unrecognised oesophageal intubation in the UK [<span>5</span>]. Although 54.5% of monitoring machines were user-modifiable and 75% of clinical leads were aware of the SALG standard, only 15.3% of waveforms conformed to it. System-level design limitations also contribute to the problem, with 44.5% of machines requiring manufacturer modification (online Supporting Information Table S1). This substantiates the Coroner's concern and suggests that clinicians and individual Trusts/health boards cannot be relied upon alone to implement the necessary standardisation.</p>\n<p>Our findings provide a snapshot of the extent of waveform capnography variation in the UK. Mandated change via regulatory intervention (as was performed for gas cylinder colours) is necessary to achieve national standardisation, whilst specialist airway societies and safety groups should continue to work collaboratively with machine manufacturers to facilitate this process and strive to achieve the SALG national standard for waveform capnography.</p>","PeriodicalId":7742,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16603","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When interpreted correctly, waveform capnography can prevent morbidity and mortality during airway management. However, misidentification of capnography as other waveforms (e.g. pressure or flow) continues to cause preventable deaths [1] and has been implicated in a Coroner's Regulation 28 report [2]. Non-standardised monitor displays increase the risk of human error, leading to clinical delays or misjudgements [3]. Despite the capnography recommendations from the Association of Anaesthetists [4], Project for Universal Management of Airways and capnography safety campaigns, preventable deaths persist [5]. System design (removing the possibility of error) is the most effective form of error prevention [6]. In recognition of this, the Safe Anaesthesia Liaison Group (SALG) recommends standardising waveform capnography as a white solid filled-in graph at the bottom of the monitor display [7]. It is not known how widely this recommendation has been adopted. We aimed to establish the extent of variation in waveform capnography across the UK and assess compliance with the SALG standard.

We devised a survey to collect capnography waveform and equipment data from participating hospitals (online Supporting Information Appendix S1). A website (https://cavastudy.co.uk) was established for hospital registration and respondent survey access. Participation was voluntary and open to all 420 NHS hospitals that provide anaesthesia services [1].

Survey respondents were asked to identify distinct clinical areas in their hospital where waveform capnography was used, establish the number of different waveforms in each area, and categorise them according to 11 colours, two waveform types and three screen locations. These variants were chosen from a pilot survey in south-east Scotland. Departmental clinical directors of participating hospitals were asked to agree to their hospital's participation and state their personal awareness of the SALG standard. The survey was not anonymised. Research Ethics Committee and Caldicott Guardian approval were not required. Investigators registered the project via their local governance teams.

Survey responses were collected from 9 September 2024 to 31 October 2024 using Microsoft Forms (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Analysis was conducted in R Studio (R version 4.4.1; R Foundation, Vienna, Austria).

Data were received from 138/420 (33%) eligible hospitals (which were part of 65 NHS Trusts/health boards). We analysed 9052 individual capnography waveforms and identified 36 variants across nine colours, two morphologies (line and filled in) and three monitor locations (top, middle and bottom). The most common waveform was a white line at the bottom of the screen, followed by the SALG standard and then a white line in the middle. The remaining capnographs varied considerably in morphology (Table 1 and Fig. 1).

Table 1. Top five waveform capnography variants reported most frequently.
Rank Capnography design Waveform description Prevalence
n = 9052
1 Abstract Image

Colour: White

Type: Line

Location: Bottom of screen

2496 (27.6%)
2* Abstract Image

Colour: White

Type: Filled In

Location: Bottom of screen

1385 (15.3%)
3 Abstract Image

Colour: White

Type: Line

Location: Middle of screen

747 (8.25%)
4 Abstract Image

Colour: Yellow

Type: Line

Location: Bottom of screen

637 (7.04%)
5 Abstract Image

Colour: Yellow

Type: Filled in

Location: Top of screen

496 (5.48%)
  • * SALG standard.
Abstract Image
Figure 1
Open in figure viewerPowerPoint
Quantities of display variants presented according to colour, trace type and location on screen. Colours were white, yellow, grey, blue, green, orange, cyan, pink and violet. Types were either a line or filled area. Locations were logged as top, middle or bottom of the screen.

In 585/1816 (32%) clinical areas, monitors displayed other waveforms (e.g. pressure or flow), with identical morphology to capnography. The median (IQR [range]) of waveform variants per hospital was 4 (2–5.25 [1–13]). Across Trusts/health boards with multiple hospital sites, variants increased to 6 (4–8 [1–15]).

Monitoring equipment service manuals were examined for customisation options to meet the SALG standard: 5008/9143 (54.5%) machines were user-modifiable to the standard; 4054/9143 (44.5%) required manufacturer modification; and 81/9143 (1%) were unmodifiable due to hardware limitations. The SALG standard was known to 77/102 (75%) of clinical directors.

This survey highlights potential patient safety risks relating to variability in waveform capnography across UK hospitals. Both capnography waveform heterogeneity and ambiguity of non-capnography waveforms increase the risk of misinterpretation, potentially leading to errors in situational awareness. Such misinterpretations contribute to over 80% of anaesthesia-related adverse events, primarily due to failures in perceiving and comprehending critical information [8]. The risk is particularly high for clinicians moving between different hospital areas and rotating within Trusts/heath boards.

Despite a low response rate (33%) from eligible hospitals, 36 variants of capnograph is concerning. A higher rate of participation may have identified even greater variation. We did not assess the impact of variation on clinical performance or error rates, and we did not explore the practical or financial implications of national capnography waveform standardisation.

Despite publication of a Regulation 28 Coroner's report and the Royal College of Anaesthetists' national response, patients have continued to die due to unrecognised oesophageal intubation in the UK [5]. Although 54.5% of monitoring machines were user-modifiable and 75% of clinical leads were aware of the SALG standard, only 15.3% of waveforms conformed to it. System-level design limitations also contribute to the problem, with 44.5% of machines requiring manufacturer modification (online Supporting Information Table S1). This substantiates the Coroner's concern and suggests that clinicians and individual Trusts/health boards cannot be relied upon alone to implement the necessary standardisation.

Our findings provide a snapshot of the extent of waveform capnography variation in the UK. Mandated change via regulatory intervention (as was performed for gas cylinder colours) is necessary to achieve national standardisation, whilst specialist airway societies and safety groups should continue to work collaboratively with machine manufacturers to facilitate this process and strive to achieve the SALG national standard for waveform capnography.

一项全英国范围内的血糖变化评估调查
尽管符合条件的医院的应答率很低(33%),但36种不同的capnograph仍令人担忧。更高的参与率可能意味着更大的差异。我们没有评估变异对临床表现或错误率的影响,我们也没有探讨国家造影波形标准化的实际或财务意义。尽管发布了第28条验尸官报告和皇家麻醉师学院的全国性回应,但英国仍有患者因未被识别的食管插管而死亡。尽管54.5%的监测仪是用户可修改的,75%的临床导联知道SALG标准,但只有15.3%的波形符合该标准。系统级设计限制也导致了这个问题,44.5%的机器需要制造商修改(在线支持信息表S1)。这证实了验尸官的关切,并表明不能单独依靠临床医生和个别信托基金/卫生委员会来实施必要的标准化。我们的研究结果提供了英国波形心电图变化程度的快照。通过监管干预(如气瓶颜色)强制改变是实现国家标准化所必需的,而专业气道协会和安全团体应继续与机器制造商合作,促进这一过程,并努力实现SALG波形检测的国家标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists is Anaesthesia. It is a comprehensive international publication that covers a wide range of topics. The journal focuses on general and regional anaesthesia, as well as intensive care and pain therapy. It includes original articles that have undergone peer review, covering all aspects of these fields, including research on equipment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信