OR Nurses Giving Conscious Sedation--WHY SHOULD WE?

Specialties CRNA

Published

I posted this tonight on the operating room nursing section, and would much appreciate it if the anesthesia providers who post here would visit that section and post your thoughts, so that they can reach those OR nurses who don't ever visit your section.

I know we have discussed this topic here before.

I am getting more and more alarmed at the trend of OR nurses giving conscious sedation, and frankly, I think it is time we simply refuse to do it--too much risk, too much responsibility involved in doing something that OTHER people--those of YOUR group--are experts at doing--and are compensated accordingly for doing.

I would really like to see anesthesia providers lobby to have this practice changed--forever.

Of course, if there are anesthesia providers who DISAGREE--who feel that OR nurses SHOULD welcome this "expanded role as a perioperative nurse--" by all means please respond, as well. I would be very interested in hearing your rationales.

Thank you. My post is below.

Frankly, I have never understood why some operating room nurses feel honored to be able to sit up at the head of the bed and administer conscious sedation, especially during elective cosmetic surgery procedures (in which the patient could afford the services of a CRNA or anesthesiologist.)

I think it is a power trip for them--makes them feel oh-so-important.

OK, here come the flames from those who consider it "an expansion of their role as a perioperative nurse" and apparently aren't concerned about not being trained--or compensated--in the same way a CRNA or anesthesiologist would be for doing the same thing.

I truly believe that this is a classic example of the saying, "A little knowledge can be dangerous."

Yes, I am ACLS certified--I am good at starting IVs--I know the conscious sedation drugs and the drugs to reverse them---and hey, I have even had to do a stab trach or two with a jelco to ensure an adequate airway and prevent imminent death----but that was as a Vietnam era corpsman, when there was no other option.

There was no MD or CRNA to call on--as an independent duty corpsman, I was it. Oh, and the situation was trauma--NOT elective cosmetic surgery.

Today, there are plenty of other options--those include staff CRNAs and anesthesiologists who are PAID for their skills at airway management and conscious sedation (as well as far more complicated anesthesia situations.)

Yes, times have indeed changed.

Personally, I do not feel they pay me enough to take on this role and the extra responsibility it entails--especially when CRNAs or anesthesiologists are sitting around with nothing to do--simply because hospital management, or cosmetic surgery patients who are paying out of pocket, do not want to reimburse those providerd (or bill the insurance) accordingly.

This often happens in elective cosmetic surgery cases where insurance ISN'T picking up the tab. Rather than pay the person who is trained--and welll compensated--to do this job--we are supposed to do it.

Why are we allowing ourselves to be exploited as a source of cheap labor?

I actually worked registry a few times at a hospital where, in my opinion, the "queen bee" RNs who fought for the chance to give conscious sedation were waayyyyyyyy over their heads--they were allowed by certain plastic surgeons to simply give drugs in the increments and fashion they (the nurses) saw fit--usually Fentanyl and Versed--and more than once they got into trouble and had to slip in an oral airway, bag the patient, and reverse the Versed with Romazicon or the Fentanyl with Narcan to end up with (eventually!) a spontaneously breathing patient.

Forget about having anesthesia nearby to come bail them out--they had long since gone home--none covering OB, either, as this small hospital had no OB unit.

I expressed my concern to their supervisor about this--with some trepidation--I knew it would not be well received since I was not staff. Her answer? "We do it all the time--and anyway, if they run into trouble, they can call the ER doctor."

Right. Like he is going to drop whatever he is doing (perhaps handling his own code!) and rush right over to bail someone out of a situation they should not have been doing in the first place.

(When I voiced THIS, I was given a blank and hostile stare--and, not called to work there again, surprise--as if I would have wanted to return to this hotbed of sentinel events in the making.)

What do the rest of you think? Why are nurses taking on this role? If you have no other objection, just consider this one---they just do not pay us enough to do it.

__________________

don't mean to be a stickler but you don't treat true vaso-vagals with atropine... wrong drug...

don't mean to be a stickler but you don't treat true vaso-vagals with atropine... wrong drug...

But, we always used to give Atropine for a vagal reaction--what else WOULD you give for symptomatic bradycardia? Typical example:

Big, macho guy gets, pale, cold, clammy, hypotensive and his pulse slows to 50's or even 40's when he sees the tiny needle with which we are going inject intradermal Lidocaine before inserting IV--mind you, he does not faint; just LOOKS as if he will soon--

So we quickly establish IV access, turn the IV up full blast, give O2, put bed into Trendelenberg and then, if necessary, give Atropine--I have seen many anesthesiologists do this over the years; since the late '70s into the early 2000's--I have done it myself, in the above described situation, and it worked great--what is the current recommendation, Tenesma?

I've even seen anesthesiologists give the Atropine IM BEFORE establishing IV access or trying any of the other interventions--

vaso-vagal is due to a high vagal tone (hence the name)... the reason the blood pressure drops and they feel nauseated is because the vagus will shunt most of the blood volume into the splanchnic circulation... therefore there is reduced venous return, therefore there is less ventricular filling, therefore the heart slows down.... So what happens when you give atropine: you increase the heart rate, but the blood volume is still in the splanchnic circulation, and you still have poor ventricular filling, and you still have low blood pressure... You are only confused into thinking the atropine helps because you see the patients respond, when all they are truly responding to is the trendelenburg - and therefore the emptying of the splanchnic circulation. In fact, they did quite a few animal studies in the 60's and 70s where they showed that giving atropine to an animal who just had an induced vasovagal did nothing but increase the heart rate.... What does make the difference is t-burg and a lot of volume, or giving a drug that will decrease the venous capacitance and reshunt the blood to the heart, such as ephedrine...

In fact, atropine can be a bad drug to use in a patient with ischemic myocardium who just had a vaso-vagal as it will not only increase the myocardial oxygen consumption and worsen ischemia, but also decrease your filling time and provide less coronary perfusion and worsen ischemia...

now there is a huge difference between hypotension due to a vaso-vagal response and hypotension due to bradycardia.... in symptomatic bradycardia then the treatment of choice is glycopyrrolate or atropine (depending on how aggressive you wanna be) or pacing (transcutaneous or transvenous)... one is due to volume shunting and decreased venous return, the other is due to intrinsic cardiac slowing...

vaso-vagal is due to a high vagal tone (hence the name)... the reason the blood pressure drops and they feel nauseated is because the vagus will shunt most of the blood volume into the splanchnic circulation... therefore there is reduced venous return, therefore there is less ventricular filling, therefore the heart slows down.... So what happens when you give atropine: you increase the heart rate, but the blood volume is still in the splanchnic circulation, and you still have poor ventricular filling, and you still have low blood pressure... You are only confused into thinking the atropine helps because you see the patients respond, when all they are truly responding to is the trendelenburg - and therefore the emptying of the splanchnic circulation. In fact, they did quite a few animal studies in the 60's and 70s where they showed that giving atropine to an animal who just had an induced vasovagal did nothing but increase the heart rate.... What does make the difference is t-burg and a lot of volume, or giving a drug that will decrease the venous capacitance and reshunt the blood to the heart, such as ephedrine...

In fact, atropine can be a bad drug to use in a patient with ischemic myocardium who just had a vaso-vagal as it will not only increase the myocardial oxygen consumption and worsen ischemia, but also decrease your filling time and provide less coronary perfusion and worsen ischemia...

now there is a huge difference between hypotension due to a vaso-vagal response and hypotension due to bradycardia.... in symptomatic bradycardia then the treatment of choice is glycopyrrolate or atropine (depending on how aggressive you wanna be) or pacing (transcutaneous or transvenous)... one is due to volume shunting and decreased venous return, the other is due to intrinsic cardiac slowing...

Tenesma, I agree--personally, I have always tried to use the common sense interventions first--Trendelenberg, O2, fluid--I can't see giving Atropine unless the patient does not repond to these 3 measures, and, in my experience, they always have--dramatically, rapidly--

It's usually when an anesthesiologist happens by, sees the patient in Trendelenberg and says, "Oh, why don't you give some Atropine? It's a pretty inert drug..." and they always end up giving it. Always, despite our (my) objections that the patient is already responding just fine to interventions implemented so far---.

Personally, I was taught long ago to give Atropine ONLY for symptomatic bradycardia--I think some anesthesiolgists just give it routinely, though, without waiting to see (or even trying) the other interventions--

Remember, I am talking about strong, healthy patients who just have a transient vaso-vagal reaction when they see a needle--in the pre-op holding area when we (a nurse) is about to start his IV--do you really advocate giving Ephedrine to these folks? I don't know, seems like overkill to me--but, of course, I am not an anesthesia provider--seems to me giving Ephedrine would have its own set of accompanying problems--

I know that in the OR if somebody had prolonged symptomatic bradycardia we would do IV Atropine (or, even now, still, occasionally, an Isuprel drip, although I know that's dated and perhaps controversial) or transcutaneous pacing--but that's an entirely different situation--I don't think I have ever seen Robinul used in this situation, EVER--not arguing with you at all, Tenesma, just have never seen it in over 25 years as an OR nurse--but I know that anesthesia is changing every day, as it must--

like you said... giving fluid and t-burg is the first intervention, if you need to add a drug ephedrine/phenylephrine would be a better choice than atropine (for vaso-vagal).

symptomatic bradycardia should be treated with atropine/pacing, but remember in the OR we see trends before bad stuff happens, and therefore we have a bit more leeway in what we choose - and robinul/glycopyrrolate is fine if you want to accelerate the heart a bit.

atropine isn't an inert drug... for cardiac cases/ischemic cases i usually just slip in pacer wires through my paceport PA catheter (or sometimes through a regular central line), because i get more control over the situation, compared to the unpredictability of heart rate response to atropine

So nurses should be trained to intubate. We should be also be allowed to start central lines and a-lines.

So nurses should be trained to intubate. We should be also be allowed to start central lines and a-lines.

And are they going to pay us more to provide these extra services that are, after all, outside our scope of nursing practice? Didn't think so.

And are they going to pay us more to provide these extra services that are, after all, outside our scope of nursing practice? Didn't think so.

So nurses should be trained to intubate. We should be also be allowed to start central lines and a-lines.

Well, nurses are trained to intubate and insert invasive lines. They are called CRNAs. BTW, they do pay us more.

Well, nurses are trained to intubate and insert invasive lines. They are called CRNAs. BTW, they do pay us more.

THAT'S RIGHT!!!!!!! My whole point of my original post exactly, and I will say it again, although I know people are sick of hearing it:

"Anesthesia is best left to anesthesia providers."

Period.

I can just see our next "inservice" regarding conscious sedation--so many patients are slipping into heavy sedation and requiring oral airways and ventilation that they now want the operating room nurses to learn--SURPRISE--how to insert and manage an LMA. Their rationale, once again, will be the old, tired, oft cited maxims:

"It's a natural extension of your role as a perioperative Registered Nurse."

"Health care is changing everywhere. You need to learn to accept and embrace change."

And, of course, there will be those RNs who will feel flattered and "important" to be entrusted with this responsibility.

I can only hope that CRNAs and anesthesiologists--starting with the members of this BB--do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.

So nurses should be trained to intubate. We should be also be allowed to start central lines and a-lines.

But, Diprivan, you are a CRNA or CRNA student, right? So of course YOU should be, and are, taught these things. But do you really advocate that ALL nurses--not just CRNAs--do them? If so, why?

Actually, I do not have a problem with art lines--if you can do a radial artery stick to obtain an ABG, you should be able to start an art line--RTs and ICU nurses do it all the time.

But airway management and anesthesia are best left to anesthesia providers. They are the pros.

Anesthesia is best left to anesthesia providers--not operating room nurses. Not ER nurses. Not ICU nurses. To anesthesia providers, PERIOD.

I disagree with the above statement. As an ICU nurse, it IS in my job description to administer sedation to my ventilated patients. It is unreasonable to assume that an anesthesiologist or CRNA should remain at the bedside of a critical patient for the entire time that they are on sedation. That could be as long as a month or more.

You don't know what you're missing until you have had a quiet night with two vented patients on diprivan drips. ;)

I used to work in the OR and would monitor patients during cataract surgery when they had received a dose of versed in pre-op holding. I didn't have a problem with that assignment. If the patient was receiving any more sedation than that, the CRNA was there.

I disagree with the above statement. As an ICU nurse, it IS in my job description to administer sedation to my ventilated patients.

There is a huge difference here--your ICU patients have protected airways, simply by virtue of being intubated and on ventilators.

Also, you have RT, pulmonologists, intensivists and sometimes anesthesiologists readily available, around the clock.

We are talking about conscious sedation in the OR, where patients come in awake, talking, and should be able to be up and out of there soon after surgery--with or without a very short stay in PACU--assuming nothing goes wrong.

Too often, they are too heavily sedated, and end up staying longer--or, not sedated enough, and had to suffer through what should have been balanced anesthesia--no pain, no memory of the event--but, not having been done by anesthesia professionals, was not.

We are also talking about potentially dangerous situations where NOBODY from the anesthesia department is around in case there is an airway emergency--where the nurse giving conscious sedation is told, "Call the ER doctor."

Let me ask you this, newnurse--I recently reviewed a med mal lawsuit in which a 45 year old man undergoing a pneumatic retinopexy for a detached retina--under Versed and local--arrested and died on the table.

He had suffered a fatal air embolism as a complication of the gas infused into his eye.

Would you, as the nurse up at the head of the table, have known what you were seeing, or how to respond?

Didn't think so. Neither did the nurse in this case.

Heaven help her at trial.

+ Add a Comment