Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > In search of the ‘good anaesthetic’ for hip fra...

Electronic data

  • 2019SheltonPhD

    Final published version, 17.8 MB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

In search of the ‘good anaesthetic’ for hip fracture repair: Difference, uncertainty and ideology in an age of evidence-based medicine

Research output: ThesisDoctoral Thesis

Published
Publication date15/10/2019
Number of pages356
QualificationPhD
Awarding Institution
Supervisors/Advisors
Publisher
  • Lancaster University
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

Hip fracture is a common life-threatening injury amongst frail elderly people and early surgical fixation under anaesthesia is advocated. It has long been suspected that mode of anaesthesia (general anaesthesia, induced unconsciousness; regional anaesthesia, interruption of sensation using local anaesthetic) influences outcome, however ‘conventional’ studies have consistently failed to demonstrate if this is the case. A similar proportion of patients receive regional and general anaesthesia; apparently decided more by institutional culture rather than clinical requirements. This variation is perceived by many as a scandal, and efforts are underway to ‘standardise’ anaesthesia. Standardisation is controversial however; anaesthetists seemingly cannot agree on what a ‘good anaesthetic’ actually is. In this ethnography I work with anaesthesia’s ‘scandalous’ variation in three contrasting hospitals. I ask how patients, anaesthetists and others understand, experience and enact the good anaesthetic. By adopting this approach, I have radically reconceptualised how hip fracture anaesthesia is described, what it consists of, and what is important about it. Blending a science and technology studies approach with my own perspective as a practicing anaesthetist, and drawing on sociological theory about boundaries, uncertainty and standardisation, I propose that a ‘good anaesthetic’ is not regional or general. These classifications fail to recognise the nuance and complexity that define ‘good’. I contend that, to patients, anaesthetists and their colleagues, a good anaesthetic: gets done today, withstands uncertainty, treads lightly and is easily forgotten. Hip fracture anaesthesia is not as it first appears. Though evidence-based medicine
makes divisions along ‘obvious’ lines, it fails to consider the goals and ideologies that underpin practice. In this thesis I explain why we must reconsider how hip fracture anaesthesia is understood. By asking ‘how, why and when?’ rather than simply ‘what?’, I offer a vital and different approach to evidence and practice for researchers, clinicians and patients.