Arterial pressure monitoring and management are mainstays of haemodynamic therapy in patients having surgery. This article presents updated consensus statements and recommendations on perioperative arterial pressure management developed during the 11th POQI PeriOperative Quality Initiative (POQI) consensus conference held in London, UK, on June 4-6, 2023, which included a diverse group of international experts. Based on a modified Delphi approach, we recommend keeping intraoperative mean arterial pressure ≥60 mm Hg in at-risk patients. We further recommend increasing mean arterial pressure targets when venous or compartment pressures are elevated and treating hypotension based on presumed underlying causes. When intraoperative hypertension is treated, we recommend doing so carefully to avoid hypotension. Clinicians should consider continuous intraoperative arterial pressure monitoring as it can help reduce the severity and duration of hypotension compared to intermittent arterial pressure monitoring. Postoperative hypotension is often unrecognised and might be more important than intraoperative hypotension because it is often prolonged and untreated. Future research should focus on identifying patient-specific and organ-specific hypotension harm thresholds and optimal treatment strategies for intraoperative hypotension including choice of vasopressors. Research is also needed to guide monitoring and management strategies for recognising, preventing, and treating postoperative hypotension.

BACKGROUND: Dissemination of medical practice and scientific information through social media (SoMe) by clinicians and researchers is increasing. Broad exposure of information can promote connectivity within the scientific community, overcome barriers to access to sources, increase debate, and reveal layperson perspectives and preferences. On the other hand, practices lacking scientific evidence may also be promoted, laypeople may misunderstand the professional message, and clinician may suffer erosion of professional status. The aim of this project was to enhance awareness and advise the anesthesia community and clinicians at large about the potential risks advocate for responsible use of SoMe to disseminate information related to medical practices and knowledge.
METHODS: A modified Delphi process with prespecified consensus criteria was conducted among a multidisciplinary panel of experts, including anesthesiologists-intensivists, clinical psychologists, and forensic medicine specialists. Six items were identified: Ethics and deontological principles, the practice of sharing information via social media, legal aspects, psychological aspects, self-promotion, and criteria for appropriate dissemination. Statements and rationales were produced and subjected to blinded panelists\' votes. After reaching consensus, a document was written which then underwent external review by experts uninvolved in the consensus process. The project was promoted by the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI).
RESULTS: Twelve statements were produced, and consensus was achieved for all. The panel concluded that the general principles guiding dissemination of professional information via SoMe must remain in line with the general principles of ethics, deontology, and scientific validity that guide the medical profession and science in general. Professional equity must be maintained while communicating via SoMe. Medical practices lacking support by scientific evidence should not be disseminated. Patients\' informed consent must be obtained before dissemination of information, images, or data. Self-promotion must not be prioritized over any of these principles.
CONCLUSIONS: When sharing medical practices and scientific information on SoMe, healthcare professionals are advised to act conscientiously and ethically. Local regulations should be adhered to. Institutional training on the potential risks and proper of SoMe for such purpose may contribute to preservation of professional integrity.

The 2022 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery are intended for physicians involved in the perioperative care of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, in whom heart disease is a potential source of complications. While relevant and useful, the length of the guidelines may limit widespread reading. This article summarises the guidelines, highlighting the aspects most relevant to medical staff preparing patients for surgery.

BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and providing adequate analgesia is paramount in preventing early complications from these injuries. Multiple regional anaesthetic techniques can be used to provide analgesia for these injuries; however, few evidence-based guidelines exist for their use. The aim of this study was to establish consensus within an expert group on the selection criteria used when choosing regional anaesthetic techniques for rib fractures.
METHODS: The Delphi technique is a mixed-methods study format which uses a longitudinal survey process to develop consensus opinion amongst an expert group. A three-round modified e-Delphi study was undertaken using an online survey platform. Round one established cohort characteristics and identified key factors considered important by the group when selecting regional anaesthetic techniques for rib fractures. Subsequent rounds used Likert scales and free text comments to rate the participants\' level of agreement with various statements generated from the first-round responses. The final consensus threshold was established as at least 70% of respondents stating, \'Strongly Disagree\' or \'Disagree\' or alternatively \'Agree\' or \'Strongly Agree\'.
RESULTS: An expert panel of UK-based consultants in anaesthesia and/or intensive care medicine was recruited. Participants worked in a variety of tertiary- and non-tertiary trauma care settings and were varied in their years of experience, approximate annual rib fracture caseload and preference for various anaesthetic techniques in rib fracture management. 54 participants took part in round one and generated 60 statements which were further analysed in an iterative process involving a total of three rounds. A total of 28 statements ultimately reached the pre-defined threshold for consensus within the expert group.
CONCLUSIONS: This e-Delphi study succeeded in building consensus across multiple statements relating to the selection criteria for regional anaesthesia in patients with rib fractures. These consensus statements can inform clinical practice, guide future research priorities and can be integrated into decision-making pathways across multiple hospital settings.

Peri-operative medication safety is complex. Avoidance of medication errors is both system- and practitioner-based, and many departments within the hospital contribute to safe and effective systems. For the individual anaesthetist, drawing up, labelling and then the correct administration of medications are key components in a patient\'s peri-operative journey. These guidelines aim to provide pragmatic safety steps for the practitioner and other individuals within the operative environment, as well as short- to long-term goals for development of a collaborative approach to reducing errors. The aim is that they will be used as a basis for instilling good practice.

Acute hospitalisation may be required to support patients with Neuromuscular disorders (NMDs) mainly experiencing respiratory complications, swallowing difficulties, heart failure, urgent surgical procedures. As NMDs may need specific treatments, they should be ideally managed in specialized hospitals. Nevertheless, if urgent treatment is required, patients with NMD should be managed at the closest hospital site, which may not be a specialized centre where local emergency physicians have the adequate experience to manage these patients. Although NMDs are a group of conditions that can differ in terms of disease onset, progression, severity and involvement of other systems, many recommendations are transversal and apply to the most frequent NMDs. Emergency Cards (EC), which report the most common recommendations on respiratory and cardiac issues and provide indications for drugs/treatments to be used with caution, are actively used in some countries by patients with NMDs. In Italy, there is no consensus on the use of any EC, and a minority of patients adopt it regularly in case of emergency. In April 2022, 50 participants from different centres in Italy met in Milan, Italy, to agree on a minimum set of recommendations for urgent care management which can be extended to the vast majority of NMDs. The aim of the workshop was to agree on the most relevant information and recommendations regarding the main topics related to emergency care of patients with NMD in order to produce specific ECs for the 13 most frequent NMDs.

Mortality, morbidity, and organ failure are important and common serious harms after surgery. However, there are many candidate measures to describe these outcome domains. Definitions of these measures are highly variable, and validity is often unclear. As part of the International Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative, this study aimed to derive a set of standardised and valid measures of mortality, morbidity, and organ failure for use in perioperative clinical trials.
Three domains of endpoints (mortality, morbidity, and organ failure) were explored through systematic literature review and a three-stage Delphi consensus process using methods consistently applied across the StEP initiative. Reliability, feasibility, and patient-centredness were assessed in round 3 of the consensus process.
A high level of consensus was achieved for two mortality time points, 30-day and 1-yr mortality, and these two measures are recommended. No organ failure endpoints achieved threshold criteria for consensus recommendation. The Clavien-Dindo classification of complications achieved threshold criteria for consensus in round 2 of the Delphi process but did not achieve the threshold criteria in round 3 where it scored equivalently to the Post Operative Morbidity Survey. Clavien-Dindo therefore received conditional endorsement as the most widely used measure. No composite measures of organ failure achieved an acceptable level of consensus.
Both 30-day and 1-yr mortality measures are recommended. No measure is recommended for organ failure. One measure (Clavien-Dindo) is conditionally endorsed for postoperative morbidity, but our findings suggest that no single endpoint offers a reliable and valid measure to describe perioperative morbidity that is not dependent on the quality of deli-vered care. Further refinement of current measures, or development of novel measures, of postoperative morbidity might improve consensus in this area.

Human factors is an evidence-based scientific discipline used in safety critical industries to improve safety and worker well-being. The implementation of human factors strategies in anaesthesia has the potential to reduce the reliance on exceptional personal and team performance to provide safe and high-quality patient care. To encourage the adoption of human factors science in anaesthesia, the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists established a Working Party, including anaesthetists and operating theatre team members with human factors expertise and/or interest, plus a human factors scientist, an industrial psychologist and an experimental psychologist/implementation scientist. A three-stage Delphi process was used to formulate a set of 12 recommendations: these are described using a \'hierarchy of controls\' model and classified into design, barriers, mitigations and education and training strategies. Although most anaesthetic knowledge of human factors concerns non-technical skills, such as teamwork and communication, human factors is a broad-based scientific discipline with many other additional aspects that are just as important. Indeed, the human factors strategies most likely to have the greatest impact are those related to the design of safe working environments, equipment and systems. While our recommendations are primarily provided for anaesthetists and the teams they work with, there are likely to be lessons for others working in healthcare beyond the speciality of anaesthesia.

Many nurses will still be familiar with the instruction \'nil by mouth from midnight\' traditionally given to patients preparing to undergo surgery. National and international guidelines now promote much shorter preoperative fasting times, encapsulated in the \'2-4-6 rule\' - two hours for clear fluids, four hours for breast milk and six hours for solids. The latest evidence appears to show that these fasting times are in need of revision. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in how guidelines are implemented. This article explores the guidelines and literature on preoperative fasting in adults and children to determine what the evidence is and what changes could be made to ensure consistent, high-quality patient care.

Guidance documents are a valuable resource to clinicians to guide evidenced-based decision making. The quality of guidelines in anaesthesia and across other specialties has been demonstrated to be poor. COVID-19 presented an urgent need for immediate guidance for anaesthetists as frontline clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents using the internationally validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.
A search was conducted in Ovid EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE to identify all COVID-19 anaesthesia guidance documents from 2020-2021. Thirty-eight guidance documents were selected for analysis by 4 independent appraisers using the AGREE II instrument, across its 6 domains and 23 items. A scoring threshold for high quality was agreed by the working group via consensus.
Overall, the body of COVID-19 guidance documents achieved poor scores using AGREE II. Only 5% of documents met the high-quality criteria. Markers of quality included international and multi-institutional collaboration. Document title (\'guideline\' vs \'consensus statement\'/ \'recommendations\') did not yield any differences in domain scores and overall quality ratings. Compared with recent general anaesthesia guidelines, COVID-19 guidelines performed significantly worse.
COVID-19 guidance documents published during the first two years of the pandemic lacked rigour and appropriate quality. This raises concern about their trustworthiness for use in clinical practice. Enhanced systems are required to ensure the integrity of rapidly formulated guidance.