Anesthesiology · 2026
A Contemporary Survey of The Impact of Perioperative Catastrophes on Anesthesiologists.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Margolis Rebecca, Licatino Lauren, Adams H Daniel, Higgins K Elliott, Janosy Norah R, Patel Saral, Dalton Allison, Oloso Bashira A, Staffa Steven J, Afonso Anoushka, Vinson Amy E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Perioperative catastrophes are sentinel events in anesthesiology with well-described emotional and professional consequences. A landmark national survey published in 2012 demonstrated substantial and prolonged distress among anesthesiologists following such events. Since 2012, anesthesiology practice has evolved within a healthcare environment characterized by persistent workforce strain, heightened attention to clinician well-being, and expansion of peer-support programs. A contemporary reassessment is warranted.
METHODS: A voluntary, anonymous electronic survey was distributed in 2025 to U.S.-based members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists who had opted to receive research surveys. The 44-item instrument was adapted from the 2012 questionnaire to preserve longitudinal comparability while incorporating contemporary support modalities. Domains included experience with perioperative catastrophes, characteristics of a memorable event, emotional and physical sequelae, impact on clinical performance, recovery trajectories, and perceptions of institutional support. Descriptive analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Of 1,725 respondents included in analysis (response rate 7.1%), 94.2% reported involvement in at least one perioperative catastrophe during their careers. Following a memorable event, 72.5% reported physical symptoms and 91.6% reported psychosocial symptoms. Most respondents perceived impairment in ability to provide anesthesia care in the first 4 hours (69.0%) and 24 hours (61.5%) after the event. Nearly one-fifth (19.7%) reported never fully recovering emotionally, closely mirroring rates reported in 2012. Although informal peer support was common, formal debriefing and institutionally supported time off were infrequently provided. Nearly one-quarter of respondents reported considering leaving anesthesiology as a result of a perioperative catastrophe.
CONCLUSION: Perioperative catastrophes remain a common experience in anesthesiology and continue to carry substantial and enduring consequences. Despite increased cultural awareness, there remains a gap between recognition of their impact and clinicians' reported recovery experiences. Routine integration of peer support, nonpunitive debriefing, and flexible duty relief may represent critical opportunities to improve clinician well-being, patient safety, and workforce sustainability.
METHODS: A voluntary, anonymous electronic survey was distributed in 2025 to U.S.-based members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists who had opted to receive research surveys. The 44-item instrument was adapted from the 2012 questionnaire to preserve longitudinal comparability while incorporating contemporary support modalities. Domains included experience with perioperative catastrophes, characteristics of a memorable event, emotional and physical sequelae, impact on clinical performance, recovery trajectories, and perceptions of institutional support. Descriptive analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Of 1,725 respondents included in analysis (response rate 7.1%), 94.2% reported involvement in at least one perioperative catastrophe during their careers. Following a memorable event, 72.5% reported physical symptoms and 91.6% reported psychosocial symptoms. Most respondents perceived impairment in ability to provide anesthesia care in the first 4 hours (69.0%) and 24 hours (61.5%) after the event. Nearly one-fifth (19.7%) reported never fully recovering emotionally, closely mirroring rates reported in 2012. Although informal peer support was common, formal debriefing and institutionally supported time off were infrequently provided. Nearly one-quarter of respondents reported considering leaving anesthesiology as a result of a perioperative catastrophe.
CONCLUSION: Perioperative catastrophes remain a common experience in anesthesiology and continue to carry substantial and enduring consequences. Despite increased cultural awareness, there remains a gap between recognition of their impact and clinicians' reported recovery experiences. Routine integration of peer support, nonpunitive debriefing, and flexible duty relief may represent critical opportunities to improve clinician well-being, patient safety, and workforce sustainability.