Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK.
University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Anaesthesia. 2024 Oct;79(10):1030-1041. doi: 10.1111/anae.16360. Epub 2024 Jul 11.
We analysed the clinical practice of anaesthesia associates in the UK, as reported to the 7th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, and compared these with medically qualified anaesthetists.
We included data from our baseline survey, activity survey and case registry as with other reports from the project.
Among 197 departments of anaesthesia, 52 (26%) employed anaesthesia associates. Of 10,009 responding anaesthesia care providers, 71 (< 1%) were anaesthesia associates, of whom 33 (47%) reporting working nights or weekends (compared with 97% of medically qualified anaesthetists in training and > 90% of consultants). Anaesthesia associates reported less training and confidence in managing peri-operative cardiac arrest and its aftermath compared with medically qualified anaesthetists. Anaesthesia associates were less directly involved in the management and the aftermath of peri-operative cardiac arrest than medically qualified anaesthetists, and the psychological impacts on professional and personal life appeared to be less. Among 24,172 cases, anaesthesia associates attended 432 (2%) and were the senior anaesthesia care provider in 63 (< 1%), with indirect supervision in 27 (43%). Anaesthesia associates worked predominantly in a small number of surgical specialties during weekdays and working daytime hours. Complication rates were low in cases managed by anaesthesia associates, likely reflecting case mix. However, activity and registry case mix data show anaesthesia associates do manage high-risk cases (patients who are older, comorbid, obese and frail) with the potential for serious complications. Registry cases included higher risk cases with respect to the clinical setting and patient factors.
Anaesthesia associates work in enhanced roles, relative to the scope of practice at qualification agreed by organisations. Recent changes mean the Royal College of Anaesthetists and Association of Anaesthetists do not currently support an enhanced scope of practice.
我们分析了英国麻醉助理的临床实践,这些数据来自皇家麻醉医师学院第 7 次国家审计项目的报告,并将其与有行医资格的麻醉师进行了比较。
我们将基线调查、活动调查和病例登记处的数据纳入了与项目其他报告相同的分析中。
在 197 个麻醉部门中,有 52 个(26%)雇用了麻醉助理。在回应调查的 10009 名麻醉护理人员中,有 71 名(<1%)是麻醉助理,其中 33 名(47%)报告在夜间或周末工作(相比之下,接受培训的有行医资格的麻醉师中只有 97%,顾问级别的麻醉师中则超过 90%)。与有行医资格的麻醉师相比,麻醉助理在处理围手术期心脏骤停及其后果方面的培训和信心较少。在管理和处理围手术期心脏骤停的后续工作中,麻醉助理不如有行医资格的麻醉师直接参与,其对专业和个人生活的心理影响似乎也较小。在 24172 例病例中,麻醉助理参加了 432 例(2%),在 63 例(<1%)中担任高级麻醉护理人员,其中 27 例(43%)由间接监督。麻醉助理主要在少数外科专业工作,工作日白天工作。在麻醉助理管理的病例中,并发症发生率较低,这可能反映了病例组合。然而,活动和登记处的病例组合数据表明,麻醉助理确实会管理高风险病例(年龄较大、合并症较多、肥胖和虚弱的患者),这些病例有可能出现严重并发症。登记处病例在临床环境和患者因素方面包括了更高风险的病例。
与组织商定的资格范围相比,麻醉助理的工作范围得到了增强。最近的变化意味着皇家麻醉医师学院和麻醉师协会目前不支持扩大实践范围。