{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03446327683615819, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005649717514124294, 'mean_word_length': 5.91796875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Institutional preparedness to prevent and manage anaesthesia‐related ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’ events in Australian and New Zealand teaching hospitals

It is unclear how the recent local and international focus on systems issues and human factors in ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’ events has impacted institutional preparedness in Australia and New Zealand. This study attempts to capture a snapshot of current practices in Australian and New Zealand teaching hospitals with regard to preparedness to prevent and manage ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’ events. All Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists’ teaching hospitals were invited to complete an online survey consisting of 33 questions on terminology, equipment, cognitive aids, training and quality assurance. Follow‐up was by both email and telephone. Responses were received from 129 (91%) of the 142 sites. The survey revealed both countries have largely moved to point‐of‐care ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’ equipment. There were regional differences reported, with Australia favouring equipment, cognitive aids and teaching that supports a combined cannula and scalpel approach to ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’, whilst New Zealand favours those promoting a scalpel‐only approach. A lack of consistency with the terminology used around ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’ both within and between the two countries was also identified. This survey has revealed a generally reassuringly high degree of institutional preparedness to prevent and manage ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’ events across both countries but with strong regional differences in approaches. Little is known of the institutional practices outside these countries, making international comparison difficult.