麻醉人员的经验和观点与国家标准保护麻醉实践:挪威的横断面研究。

IF 1.3 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anesthesiology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2025-07-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/anrp/6302974
Ann-Chatrin Linqvist Leonardsen, Arvid Steinar Haugen, Johan Ræder, Therese Jenssen Finjarn, Erik Isern, Elin Kismul Aakre, Anne Marie Gran Bruun, Kristoffer Hennum, Jan Petter Ramstad, Tina Sand, Cathrine Saltnes, Svein Arne Monsen
{"title":"麻醉人员的经验和观点与国家标准保护麻醉实践:挪威的横断面研究。","authors":"Ann-Chatrin Linqvist Leonardsen, Arvid Steinar Haugen, Johan Ræder, Therese Jenssen Finjarn, Erik Isern, Elin Kismul Aakre, Anne Marie Gran Bruun, Kristoffer Hennum, Jan Petter Ramstad, Tina Sand, Cathrine Saltnes, Svein Arne Monsen","doi":"10.1155/anrp/6302974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Globally, anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists collaborate closely during anesthesia administration. However, there is a scarcity of guidelines detailing the division of tasks and responsibilities between these two professions. The Norwegian Standard for the Safe Practice of Anesthesia (NSA) was developed jointly by the Norwegian Association of Anesthesiologists and the Norwegian Association of Nurse Anesthetists as a consensus guideline to safeguard satisfactory anesthetic practice. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists regarding the NSA. <b>Methods:</b> The study employed a cross-sectional, observational design, utilizing a questionnaire. A purposive sampling strategy was employed, inviting all members of the two associations (<i>N</i> = 3300) to participate in a web-based survey. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 28. Descriptive statistics and independent samples <i>t</i>-tests were utilized to analyze the data. A two-sided <i>p</i> value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. <b>Results:</b> In total, 823 respondents (24.9%) completed the questionnaire in September 2024. The results indicate several areas for improvement to achieve the recommended standards of anesthetic practice as outlined by the NSA. Statistically significant differences were observed between responses from anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists. Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported the NSA as relevant to their daily work, and between 13 and 30 percent had experienced or were aware of situations where the standard was utilized in root cause analyses of adverse anesthetic events. <b>Conclusion:</b> The findings suggest that the NSA is employed in clinical practice. However, assuming the NSA ensures satisfactory anesthetic practice, there are several areas requiring improvement. Given the overlapping roles and responsibilities of anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists, the NSA may serve as a model for similar guidelines in other countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":7834,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","volume":"2025 ","pages":"6302974"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12289357/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anesthetic Personnel's Experiences and Perspectives With a National Standard for Safeguarding Anesthesia Practice: A Cross-Sectional Study in Norway.\",\"authors\":\"Ann-Chatrin Linqvist Leonardsen, Arvid Steinar Haugen, Johan Ræder, Therese Jenssen Finjarn, Erik Isern, Elin Kismul Aakre, Anne Marie Gran Bruun, Kristoffer Hennum, Jan Petter Ramstad, Tina Sand, Cathrine Saltnes, Svein Arne Monsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/anrp/6302974\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Globally, anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists collaborate closely during anesthesia administration. However, there is a scarcity of guidelines detailing the division of tasks and responsibilities between these two professions. The Norwegian Standard for the Safe Practice of Anesthesia (NSA) was developed jointly by the Norwegian Association of Anesthesiologists and the Norwegian Association of Nurse Anesthetists as a consensus guideline to safeguard satisfactory anesthetic practice. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists regarding the NSA. <b>Methods:</b> The study employed a cross-sectional, observational design, utilizing a questionnaire. A purposive sampling strategy was employed, inviting all members of the two associations (<i>N</i> = 3300) to participate in a web-based survey. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 28. Descriptive statistics and independent samples <i>t</i>-tests were utilized to analyze the data. A two-sided <i>p</i> value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. <b>Results:</b> In total, 823 respondents (24.9%) completed the questionnaire in September 2024. The results indicate several areas for improvement to achieve the recommended standards of anesthetic practice as outlined by the NSA. Statistically significant differences were observed between responses from anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists. Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported the NSA as relevant to their daily work, and between 13 and 30 percent had experienced or were aware of situations where the standard was utilized in root cause analyses of adverse anesthetic events. <b>Conclusion:</b> The findings suggest that the NSA is employed in clinical practice. However, assuming the NSA ensures satisfactory anesthetic practice, there are several areas requiring improvement. Given the overlapping roles and responsibilities of anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists, the NSA may serve as a model for similar guidelines in other countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesiology Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"2025 \",\"pages\":\"6302974\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12289357/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesiology Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/anrp/6302974\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/anrp/6302974","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在全球范围内,麻醉师和麻醉师护士在麻醉给药过程中密切合作。然而,这两种职业之间的任务和责任分工缺乏详细的指导方针。挪威麻醉安全实践标准(NSA)是由挪威麻醉师协会和挪威护士麻醉师协会联合制定的,作为保障令人满意的麻醉实践的共识指南。本研究旨在探讨麻醉医师及护理麻醉师对NSA的经验及看法。方法:本研究采用横断面观察设计,采用问卷调查法。采用有目的的抽样策略,邀请两个协会的所有成员(N = 3300)参加基于网络的调查。数据分析使用统计软件包的社会科学,第28版。采用描述性统计和独立样本t检验对数据进行分析。双侧p值≤0.05认为具有统计学意义。结果:2024年9月共完成问卷823人,占24.9%。结果表明,为了达到美国国家安全局所概述的麻醉实践推荐标准,有几个方面需要改进。麻醉医师和护理麻醉医师的反应有统计学上的显著差异。大约三分之二的受访者表示,NSA与他们的日常工作有关,13%到30%的受访者经历过或知道在麻醉不良事件的根本原因分析中使用该标准的情况。结论:本研究结果提示NSA可用于临床。然而,假设国家安全局确保了令人满意的麻醉实践,有几个领域需要改进。鉴于麻醉师和麻醉师护士的角色和职责重叠,美国国家安全局可以作为其他国家类似指导方针的典范。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Anesthetic Personnel's Experiences and Perspectives With a National Standard for Safeguarding Anesthesia Practice: A Cross-Sectional Study in Norway.

Background: Globally, anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists collaborate closely during anesthesia administration. However, there is a scarcity of guidelines detailing the division of tasks and responsibilities between these two professions. The Norwegian Standard for the Safe Practice of Anesthesia (NSA) was developed jointly by the Norwegian Association of Anesthesiologists and the Norwegian Association of Nurse Anesthetists as a consensus guideline to safeguard satisfactory anesthetic practice. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists regarding the NSA. Methods: The study employed a cross-sectional, observational design, utilizing a questionnaire. A purposive sampling strategy was employed, inviting all members of the two associations (N = 3300) to participate in a web-based survey. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 28. Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests were utilized to analyze the data. A two-sided p value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In total, 823 respondents (24.9%) completed the questionnaire in September 2024. The results indicate several areas for improvement to achieve the recommended standards of anesthetic practice as outlined by the NSA. Statistically significant differences were observed between responses from anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists. Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported the NSA as relevant to their daily work, and between 13 and 30 percent had experienced or were aware of situations where the standard was utilized in root cause analyses of adverse anesthetic events. Conclusion: The findings suggest that the NSA is employed in clinical practice. However, assuming the NSA ensures satisfactory anesthetic practice, there are several areas requiring improvement. Given the overlapping roles and responsibilities of anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists, the NSA may serve as a model for similar guidelines in other countries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信