Qualitative study of clinician and patient perspectives on the mode of anaesthesia for emergency surgery

BACKGROUND: Although delivering a chosen mode of anaesthesia for certain emergency surgery procedures is potentially beneficial to patients, it is a complex intervention to evaluate. This qualitative study explored clinician and patient perspectives about mode of anaesthesia for emergency surgery. METHODS: Snowball sampling was used to recruit participants from eight National Health Service Trusts that cover the following three emergency surgery settings: ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, hip fractures and inguinal hernias. A qualitative researcher conducted interviews with clinicians and patients. Thematic analysis was applied to the interview transcripts. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 21 anaesthetists, 21 surgeons, 14 operating theatre staff and 23 patients. There were two main themes. The first, impact of mode of anaesthesia in emergency surgery, had four subthemes assessing clinician and patient ideas about: context and the ‘best’ mode of anaesthesia; balance in choosing it over others; change and developments in anaesthesia; and the importance of mode of anaesthesia in emergency surgery. The second, tensions in decision‐making about mode of anaesthesia, comprised four subthemes: clinical autonomy and guidelines in anaesthesia; conforming to norms in mode of anaesthesia; the relationship between expertise, preference and patient involvement; and team dynamics in emergency surgery. The results highlight several interlinking factors affecting decision‐making, including expertise, preference, habit, practicalities, norms and policies. CONCLUSION: There is variation in practice in choosing the mode of anaesthesia for surgery, alongside debate as to whether anaesthetic autonomy is necessary or results in a lack of willingness to change.