text:
Talk:General anaesthesia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexxias.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is
Is it just me, or does this article not include a BASIC DEFINITION of what general anaesthesia is? Something like, "General anaestheisa is the medical practice of rendering a patient unconscious prior to surgery." Or something better than that, preferably by someone who actually knows what they're talking about, as opposed to me. This article just seems to launch right into the very "medicaly" stuff that makes my brain hurt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.108.72.21 (talk • contribs).
 * "...general anaesthesia is a state of total unconsciousness resulting from anesthetic drugs." That's the definition. To better address this, I changed the generic (and overused) 'Cleanup' tag to a 'Confusing' tag. Deltabeignet 01:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That is the definition I just added a few hours ago to the article (before reading the comments here). --WS 04:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Overview
Have fixed the link to GA drugs as being the same and the link further down the page. There was no page behind the URL. It reads better now. John Shannon Talk 8:26, 5th August 2006 (GMT+9)

Longer term effects of anaesthesia, contra-indicators, etc
Might it be worth mentioning some of the contra-indicators for GA in a bit more detail? I underwent GA just over a week and a half ago and (typically) got an offer to go in for another operation in a few days time. I declined on the basis that I suspected multiple GAs in such a short space of time would be bad for me. Do the drugs clear out of your system that quickly? What are the general rules for undergoing GA? Obviously, these rules change depending on clinical necessity.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.2.169 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 April 2006

Mortality rate?
Those mortality rate figures seem kinda high. the percentages seem way off for how many surgeries are actually performed. can anyone add to that?
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.147.54.163 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 11 July 2006

 * Indeed - operative risk for, say, a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm is (I gather) about 90% (being 100% if one does not try to operate) vs 50% if in process of tearing vs under 5% if a routine operation for a merely distended non-tearing aneurysm. But these figures have nothing to do with the risks of GA itself, and all to do with the underlying condition & stability of the patient. I've removed the quite misleading (and uncited) info. David Ruben Talk 11:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Around the world that I know off there have been 2 deaths (one in Australia in July, 2006 - huge media coverage), another in California, July, 2006 - R. Grace - no media coverage) that have been caused by GA drugs - or rather an alergic reaction to an anti-nausea agent used in the GA drug process. We need to find out what these anti-nausea drugs are, and determine if there is a process for testing a patient against these drugs, and the other GA drugs, in the days or maybe hours leading up to the GA. John Shannon Talk 8:13, 5th August 2006 (GMT+9)

–Is the mention of anaphylaxis to anti-emetics important enough to be mentioned here? I think not; induction agents, muscle relaxants, and anti-biotics are much more common causes of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia. --Thegasman 11:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or does the info in the mortality rate section seem contradictory? It says 5 deaths per million in one place, then goes on to say that people aren't even sure that we're better than 1 death per 100,000, and that data isn't even collected.  The cite for 5 deaths per million says 5 deaths per million "anesthetic administrations" after talking about how anesthesia has gotten safer because of things like local anesthetics.  The way it's used now, in an article on general anesthesia, seems misleading, especially when we have a citation that says that he couldn't possibly know the current numbers for general anesthesia.  I'm going to remove the relevant sentence and rework the section. Meviin (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Anaesthesia or Anesthesia?
I think we need a consensus and some consistency here! --Thegasman 11:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

- it depends on what part of the world you are from. in Mother England it's anaesthesia

Yes, but for the sake of the article it should be consistent. Also, anaesthetist/anesthesiologist/anesthesia provider. It's confusing to read. As the the title is "General Anaesthesia I propose we should use the British spellings consistently, and mention the American versions in brackets after the first use of each term. Comments? --62.6.139.11 09:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Agree - as per WP:MOS, articles should stick with whatever version of English they currently have, and to remain consistant within an article. So "anaesthe-" as root for all terms on this page with initial acknowledgement of alternative spellings. David Ruben Talk 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anesthesia's longterm impact on developing brain cells?
Perhaps this is related to the 24Apr2006 question posed above...

http://whyfiles.org/251anesth_brain/index.php?g=1.txt

"Anesthesia is essential to surgery, but does it kill brain cells?"

Any suggestion about where this kind of research might best be found? 199.214.24.129 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anesthesia safety statistics
In the US, up until about 1980 anesthesia was a significant risk, with at least one death per 10,000 times administered. After becoming something of a public scandal, a careful effort was made to understand the causes and improve the results. It is generally believed that anesthesia is now at least ten times safer than it was then.  However, there is some controversy about this.  In the US, the data is not made public (in fact, the data is not even collected), so the truth is uncertain.  The rate for dental anesthesia is reported to be one out of 350,000.

See also: -69.87.200.24 21:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.apsf.org/resource_center/newsletter/1995/fall/gravenstein.html

Anaesthesia and sleep
Hello.

I'd like to know if general anaesthesia also causes the person to sleep. For example, suppose a person is suffering from insomnia, if they get knocked out by a mixture of these drugs, would they feel better once they regain consciousness (or at the very least would that be better than not sleeping at all)? Can you experience REM sleep during general anaesthesia? 193.217.54.222 (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

no you are not asleep in the sence if your were tired before the anaesetheic then you will be after as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.128.133 (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Stages?
The "Stages of anaesthesia" section lists a 4-stage progression, with an intro that notes that this progression "is largely replaced by the 3 stage classification.", but I see no other mention or link indicating what that means. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Side effects and risks
was wondering if you could add some infromation about the drugs general side effects I know many differnt ones are used but just the general side effects and porblem that this could cause if you have an ADVERSE reaction to any of the durgs administered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.128.133 (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

not the stages any reactions you may get from the drugs eg Increase or decrease in blood pressure or risk of heart attack etc??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.128.133 (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not B Class
As a consultant anaesthetist I reckon I know a thing or two about this topic. I last contributed to this article about 2 years ago, when it seemed a reasonable overview of the topic of general anaesthesia, at least in line with modern medical texts. I came back to see what changes have occured since then, and am frankly shocked. This article is no longer worthy of an encyclopedia, and I would now rate it as a stub - definately not a B. It appears that most of the useful information has been deleted, leaving an article with a beginning and an ending, but no middle. A few points 1. What is the relevence of Viagra? It is not an issue of importance enough to merit a mention. This is not Vogue magazine! 2. Stages of anaesthesia are only of historical interest. It could be a topic of it's own for those interested, but does not belong here. 3. What happened to the processes of induction, maintenance, and recovery from anaesthesia? This is the core of the topic and isn't even mentioned!

To be perfectly honest the best way forward seems to be deletion and start again. Any takers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegasman (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, it's certainly not a stub, because it has lots of content. It might be poorly written, poorly organized, and/or poorly/mis-focused though:( The full edit history is available (click the "history" at the top of the page) so you can see who added what cruft and removed what worthy material. To start us off, can you point to a specific revision back before the page went down-hill? DMacks (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 * agree with most points, but the stages of anaesthesia remain highly relevant for gas induction of anaesthesia (in Australia, the norm for elective, low risk anaesthesia in children). Whyso (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've looked back through the edits. Things seemed to go badly wrong with edit of 18:37 14th November 2007. I note a reference to someone's sexual orientation was added at this edit, suggesting it was maybe just vandalism ;-) The last useable edit therefore seems to be 7:33 5th November 2007. Can we revert to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegasman (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mortality Rate Contradiction/Confusing
Under the Mortality Rate section, it first makes the statement that the mortality rate reported by a source is 3-5x per every million procedures of anesthesia, however later on when referring to dental anesthesia, the morality rate is reported to be once every 350K, which should be significantly less than surgical type anesthesia, but the numbers don't add up, which is confusing. Seems like a pitfall of having two different sources, since the dental source claims that the dental kind is significantly safer, yet this Wikipedia article doesnt reflect that.

article reassessment, begin major overhaul
I have reassessed this article as Start class, mainly because it has few if any reliable sources. I intend to begin working on it soon. It is greatly in need of attention from expert editors and any other interested editors. DiverDave (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No definition is given, and no discussion of the conflicting definitions
This article does not give a definition of the term "general anesthesia", which is a problem. In my experience there are multiple conflicting definitions of "general anesthesia" in use in different countries, specialties, and regions. For instance, I have met doctors who believe it is not general anesthesia if the patient is not intubated and not given paralytics. There is a gray area between "procedural sedation" and "general anesthesia". If the patient is somewhat conscious and able to respond to commands, it is clearly procedural sedation. If the patient is mechanically ventilated and given paralytics, it is clearly general anesthesia. Everything in between is a gray area, and some doctors invent euphemisms such as "heavy sedation" to minimize the perceived severity of the surgery (or "procedure") which is planned. Fluoborate (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General anaesthesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529013054/http://www.nda.ox.ac.uk:80/wfsa/html/u15/u1503_01.htm to http://www.nda.ox.ac.uk/wfsa/html/u15/u1503_01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on General anaesthesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nda.ox.ac.uk/wfsa/html/u15/u1503_01.htm
 * Added tag to http://journals.2lww.com/anesthesiology/Abstract/1978/12000/Preventable_Anesthesia_Mishaps__A_Study_of_Human.4.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815080827/http://physiciansnews.com/spotlight/200wp.html to http://physiciansnews.com/spotlight/200wp.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731031031/http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/2003/01_03/cottrell.html to http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/2003/01_03/cottrell.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040515001721/http://www.anzca.edu.au/publications/profdocs/profstandards/PS18_2000.htm to http://www.anzca.edu.au/publications/profdocs/profstandards/PS18_2000.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051219095333/http://www.rcoa.ac.uk/index.asp?PageID=69 to http://www.rcoa.ac.uk/index.asp?PageID=69

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Is surgery the major factor for general anaesthesia?
The introduction part refers to: "It is carried out to allow medical procedures ..." But if surgery is the overwhelming majority of the reasons to apply anaesthesia I'd suggest to state that. Including some other procedures to think about for which anaesthesia is applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Zeyneb (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

References-- Removing Maintenance Tag
I have added seven sources to the short section "Preanaesthetic evaluation." Is this sufficient to remove the maintenance tag? Alexxias (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

"Postoperative Care" Section
I revised this section to better reflect procedures followed in the postoperative care unit, including drugs used, vital signs monitored, etc. I also discussed some of the major side effects that would be managed immediately after general anaesthesia. Many of the same things that were previously mentioned are rephrased, but better organized and cited. Are there any objections to my changing the section? Alexxias (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge with page General anaesthetic?
Topics seem to be relatively similar in both pages; I'm proposing a merge of the two pages into one. Seems like a logical thing to do. Discussion? BluePankow  ✉  16:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WikiProject Medicine Fall 2022 UCF COM
— Assignment last updated by Sudokologist (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I am currently a 4th medical student working on improve medically relevant pages and articles on Wikipedia. Anesthesiology is an evolving field with many innovations occurring daily. The first time many people heard of general anesthesia is often right before their procedures, and googling about it is likely the first thing to do. Wikipedia is a common resource for many non-medical people, and it is important to ensure patients have the most accurate and relevant information. This article is currently graded a C – class on the quality scale with a High on the importance scale. General anesthesia is the foundation for the field of anesthesiology and crucial for the field of surgery. I hope to improve this article over the course of the next few weeks. I am to update this topic with quality and current information from reputable resources and medical databases.

Introduction: The biggest issue currently is that the definition of general anesthesia is not included. There is a gray area between conscious sedation and general anesthesia, and I hope to clear the misconception.

History: I hope to provide more details on the more recent history of general anesthesia. Also, it appears that most of the text in this section does not have any citation attribute to it, and I hope to improve that.

Purpose: This section is currently very barebone and needs some work. I plan to expand the description for each usage of general anesthesia. Preanesthetic evaluation: I plan to expand the section on airway evaluation, including several assessment methods such as the Mallampati score and thyroid mental distance.

Biochemical mechanism of action: This section needs to be updated. Although the exact biochemical mechanism of action for general anesthesia is not clear, there has been much recent research that brought us closer to the answer. I plan to explore more on this topic and update this section with current research and consensus.

Induction: This section is well organized with much detailed information. However, many parts need citation and resource verification. I also hope to update it on some of the monitoring and neuromuscular blockade reversal agents.

Maintenance: this section currently lacks citations to any resource. I hope to add updates to information on the maintenance of anesthesia and the verification of citations.

Postoperative care: overall, well organized with good citations. I hope to improve this section by adding more current guidelines for postoperative care. For example, the ERAS protocol, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudokologist (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

General anaesthesia
What is general anaesthesia explain clearly 117.221.222.199 (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: STS 1010
— Assignment last updated by Jessicacariello (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:General anaesthesia


text:
Joseph Wambaugh

Joseph Aloysius Wambaugh Jr. (born January 22, 1937) is an American writer known for his fictional and nonfictional accounts of police work in the United States. Many of his novels are set in Los Angeles and its surroundings and feature Los Angeles police officers as protagonists. He won three Edgar Awards, and was named a Grand Master by the Mystery Writers of America.

Early life
The son of a police officer, Wambaugh was born in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He joined the U.S. Marine Corps at age 17 and married at 18. Wambaugh is of Irish and German descent.

Police career
Wambaugh received an associate of arts degree from Chaffey College and joined the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in 1960. He served for 14 years, rising from patrolman to detective sergeant. He also attended Cal State Los Angeles, where he earned BA and MA degrees.

Themes
Wambaugh's perspective on police work led to his first novel, The New Centurions, which was published early in 1971 to critical acclaim and popular success, while Wambaugh was still a detective. He later quipped that suspects would ask for his autograph.

Soon turning to writing full time, Wambaugh was prolific and popular starting in the 1970s. He mixed writing novels (The Blue Knight, The Choirboys, The Black Marble) with nonfiction accounts of crime and detection (true crime): The Onion Field. His later books included The Glitter Dome (a TV-movie adaptation that starred James Garner and John Lithgow), The Delta Star, and Lines and Shadows.

In contrast to conventionally heroic fictional policemen, Wambaugh brought a gritty texture to his flawed police characters. Beginning with The Choirboys, Wambaugh changed his approach and began to use dark humor and outrageous incidents to emphasize the psychological peril inherent in modern urban police work. Many characters are referenced by often unflattering nicknames rather than given names, while other characters are given whimsical names to paint an immediate word portrait for the reader. Wambaugh became sharply critical of the command structure of the LAPD and individuals within it, and later, of the city government as well. The character Deputy Chief Digby Bates in The Black Marble, for example, is likely a thinly veiled lampoon of Chief Daryl Gates.

Beginning with The Black Marble in 1977, Wambaugh devoted at least half of a narrative to satirical observations of the mores and extravagances of the Southern California "rich and famous" lifestyle. The Black Marble parodied dog shows and the fading lifestyle of "old" Pasadena, but not entirely unsympathetically. The Glitter Dome explored the pornographic film industry, The Delta Star delved into the politics and intrigue of the Nobel Prize and scientific research, and The Secrets of Harry Bright savaged the Palm Springs lifestyle of wealthy people with second homes, inclinations to drugs and drinking, and restricted country clubs. The Secrets... was also a rather grim testimony to how fathers coped with the loss of a child. With The Golden Orange, set in Orange County; Finnegan's Week, set in San Diego; and Floaters, set in San Diego within the events of the America's Cup yacht racing, Wambaugh broadened the scope of his observations. He was a sharp observer of locations where he lived as a current celebrity himself.

In 1992, Wambaugh generated controversy with his nonfiction book Echoes in the Darkness, based on the murder of Susan Reinert, a teacher in the Upper Merion School District in suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Critics alleged that the author paid prosecutors in the trial of principal Jay C. Smith to funnel information to him before an arrest was made. Smith's conviction was overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on the grounds that the prosecution hid the existence of sand that could have supported Smith's case. The chief investigator, John J. Holtz of the Pennsylvania State Police, later admitted having accepted $50,000 from author Wambaugh. Smith sued the police for collusion to falsely convict him, but lost after a federal appeals court concluded that despite his release, evidence of his guilt remained overwhelming. The earlier murder conviction of Smith's alleged co-conspirator, William Bradfield, remained undisturbed. Bradfield died in prison.

One of Wambaugh's most known nonfiction books is The Blooding, which tells the story behind an early landmark case in which DNA fingerprinting helped solve two murders in Leicester, England. The DNA evidence resulted in the arrest and conviction of Colin Pitchfork.

In 2003, Fire Lover: A True Story brought Wambaugh his second Edgar Award, for Best Crime Fact book. In 2004, he received an MWA Grand Master Award.

In the 2000s, Wambaugh also began teaching screenwriting courses as a guest lecturer for the theater department at the University of California, San Diego.

Hollywood Station series
In 2006, Wambaugh returned to fiction with the publication of Hollywood Station, set in the summer of 2006. It was his first novel since Floaters (1996) – and his first to depict the officers and detectives of LAPD since The Delta Star (1983). Hollywood Station was highly critical of conditions caused by the federal consent decree under which the LAPD had to operate after the Rampart scandal. In 2008, he followed it with Hollywood Crows, a sequel featuring Hollywood Division Community Relations Officers ("Crows") that featured many of the same characters. This was followed by Hollywood Moon in 2009, Hollywood Hills in 2010, and Harbor Nocturne in 2012, set in successive calendar years and involving officers of Hollywood Station's midwatch (5:00 pm to 3:00 am).

The only recurring characters to appear in all five books of the series are "Hollywood Nate" Weiss, a cop with dreams of movie stardom; "Flotsam" and "Jetsam", two cops who are avid surfers and always speak in a thick surfer lingo; and "Compassionate Charlie" Gilford, a lazy night-watch detective who functions as a sardonic Greek chorus.

The incidents in which the various police characters are involved are based in part on anecdotes Wambaugh collects from working police officers.

Film and television adaptations
Many of his books were made into feature films or TV movies during the 1970s and 1980s. The New Centurions was a theatrical film starring George C. Scott released in 1972. The Blue Knight, a novel following the approaching retirement and last working days of aging veteran beat cop "Bumper" Morgan, was made into an Emmy-winning 1973 TV miniseries starring William Holden. It was also adapted as a short-lived TV series starring George Kennedy. Wambaugh made a brief appearance in the pilot as a desk sergeant. Wambaugh's realistic approach to police drama was highly influential in both film and television depictions (such as Hill Street Blues) from the mid-1970s onward.

Wambaugh was also involved with creating/developing the NBC series Police Story, which ran from 1973 to 1978. The anthology show covered the different aspects of police work (patrol, detective, undercover, etc.) in the LAPD, with story ideas and characters supposedly inspired by off-the-record talks with actual police officers. At times, the show's characters also dealt with problems not usually seen or associated with typical TV cop shows, such as alcohol abuse, adultery, and brutality. Wambaugh appeared in his second brief acting role in the second-season episode "Incident in the Kill Zone". The show had a brief revival on ABC during the 1988–1989 season.

Wambaugh was also involved in the production of the film versions of The Onion Field (1979) and The Black Marble (1980), both directed by Harold Becker. In 1981, he won an Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for his screenplay for the latter film. The Choirboys film adaptation had met with poor critical and audience reception a few years earlier. All three films featured performances by then up-and-coming actor James Woods.

The Glitter Dome, which starred James Garner, John Lithgow and Margot Kidder, was a 1984 film for HBO.

Fugitive Nights was made into a 1993 feature film of the same title.

Novels
Hollywood Station series
 * The New Centurions (1971)
 * The Blue Knight (1972)
 * The Choirboys (1975)
 * The Black Marble (1978)
 * The Glitter Dome (1981)
 * The Delta Star (1983)
 * The Secrets of Harry Bright (1985)
 * The Golden Orange (1990)
 * Fugitive Nights: Danger in the Desert (1992)
 * Finnegan's Week (1993)
 * Floaters (1996)
 * Hollywood Station (2006)
 * Hollywood Crows (2008)
 * Hollywood Moon (2009)
 * Hollywood Hills (2010)
 * Harbor Nocturne (2012)

Non-fiction

 * The Onion Field (1973)
 * Lines and Shadows (1984)
 * Echoes in the Darkness (1987)
 * The Blooding: The True Story of the Narborough Village Murders (1989)
 * Fire Lover: A True Story (2002)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Joseph Wambaugh


text:
Talk:Local anesthesia

Combine Local anesthesia and Regional anesthesia into a Conduction anesthesia page
Currently conduction anesthesia is just redirected to Local Anesthesia, but I think it should be the other way around and the Conduction Anesthesia page should have portions dedicated to local and regional. The regional anesthesia page is a mess. It has not been revisited in years and there is a lot of overlapping information. I'm going to make the change soon unless there is a lot of talk opposing it. Chursaner (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The
The section "Uses in Chronic Pain" is extremely POV, is in direct conflict with other Wikipedia articles, and contains "facts" that many qualified to judge would consider to be just plain wrong. In particular, the following phrase:

"On the other hand, some other classes of centrally acting substances like for example opioids (they are unfortunately still often used in the treatment of chronic pain, including local pain in the peripheral nerve system) are extremely harmful and should be avoided in the treatment of chronic pain at all costs."

Should be contrasted with the article Opioid, where it states:

"Opioids have long been used to treat acute pain (such as post-operative pain). They have also found to be invaluable in palliative care to alleviate the severe, chronic, disabling pain of terminal conditions such as cancer. Very high doses are often required in palliation to improve the patients' terminal quality-of-life.

''In recent years there has been an increased use of opioids in the management of non-malignant chronic pain. While this trend is still somewhat controversial in some circles, due to issues of dependence, the emerging medical consensus is that most chronic pain patients can safely use opioids for years with a minimal risk of addiction or toxicity and that the overall increase in quality of life outweighs any adverse effects of opioid use.''"

The latter is the general consensus regarding the use of opioid medications for the treatment of chronic pain. It should also be noted that the UN has recently (2005) determined that access to effective control of chronic pain is a basic human right.

As a result, I've changed this section to (1) refer to the article [[Opioid] and (2) to point out that there are some who view the use of opioids as a bad idea when treating Chronic Pain, although this is not the consensus or the opinion of the UN and WHO.

Johnpf 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I have replaced the whole section with a short overview, as the text that we had really did not belong here but rather into pain therapy. I have moved it to Talk:Pain management. Kosebamse 08:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Local Anaesthetic
 Chiss Boy 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall we had this discussion a couple of years back, when it was decided that this article should remain separate. As I recall:

 * There is a difference between the chemistry/pharmacology and the practice of local anesthesia

 * The resulting article would be too long

 * There is already a precedent with Pain Management and Analgesic

I say keep separate - I think the verb and the noun deserve different articles

Johnpf 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with the comment above and am therefore removing the merge template --Lox (t,c) 11:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that there's a difference between the general practice of local anesthesia and the drug group of local anesthetics, just as with pain management and the analgesic drugs, so, IMPOV, they should remain separate. However, the main problem with this article is that much of the text is about the drugs rather than the general practice. I'll try to fix some of it now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Getting to B-class
This article could be rated B-class if it included some references. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Revision
"Lip stitching - a local anesthesia can also be injected into the lip when having stitches there, as the needle goes in it is extremely painful and must be injected in to several different places in the lip for it to work. Then the pain is over until the stitches are in. You can actually feel the stitch-needle go in to your lip tissue."

I am not experienced in editing Wikipedia, but this seems to be very out of place. It is poorly constructed, and sounds like someones personal experience more than fact. I also had other obvious grammar and spelling mistakes which I fixed. 142.177.110.53 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Title:anesthesia/analgesia
I think it would be better to have this article under the title 'Local analgesia'. While anesthesia refers to a complete loss of feeling, analgesia refers only to insensibility to pain (per OED). In addition, for some anesthetists anaesthesia implies loss of consciousness. --Eleassar my talk 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the name Local anesthesia should remain for this article, because it is the broader sense. Local analgesia redirects to here. I just tried to explain the relation in this revision. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Move? 20 January 2015

 * With or without text-merging them, and put the merged page where? (To avoid a move war developing) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment while I support a merge of the articles, I am not sure which would be the best title as base.
 * "Conduction anesthesia" OR "Conduction anesthetic" gets "About 14,500 results" in books
 * "Local anesthesia" OR "Local anesthetic" gets "About 745,000 results" in books
 * GregKaye 14:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I support a merge/move to local anaesthesia, which I believe t be the more common name per above. Also supported by the n-gram . --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Merge and locate at Local anesthesia per WP:COMMONNAME — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to local anesthesia as that is what it is usually called. Never heard of the term conduction anesthesia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Local anesthesia


text:
User:Kurek/sandbox

Just a place for me to test out various things.

title: User:Kurek/sandbox


text:
Talk:Regional anaesthesia

Untitled
Acupuncture is not a method of regional anaesthesia. It has to do with meredians and stuff, but to mention it here just leads to confusion. JFW | T@lk  13:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

here here. thanks JFW! Erich 23:25, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Acupuncture has legitimate anaesthetic and analgesic utilizations. It is recognised by the Royal College of Anaesthetists as a valid form of regional anaesthesia as well as being used for chronic pain management in patients. It is available on the NHS(UK) as an alternative to anaesthetics drugs. See also the research carried out at Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina into the treatment and management of post-operative pain using acupuncture. Also, this article links to some relevant subject matter: http://www.icmart.org/icmart02/abstracts/11.html A full and indepth analysis of all forms of regional anaesthesia is currently being prepared and will be posted online shortly. If you wish to remove the word acupuncture from the brief stub for the purposes of clarity then that's acceptable, but acupuncture will be discussed as a valid alternative to drugs based anaesthetics and pain management within the full article. I take it Erich that in Australia you guys don't consider acupuncture a valid form of anaesthesia? Are you by chance still using chloroform for tonsillectomies as well :P when you are not hunting game with your boomerang! Unsigned byUser:62.252.0.5.

 * 62.252.0.5, sign your entries ( ~ = four tildes does the trick).
 * Acupuncture is an alternative form of regional anaesthesia, but to mention it inline with regular methods is really dubious. If you're so insistent, create a seperate section about it.
 * Given your previous trolling on Talk:Jew it's going to take some time before I feel I can take your edits seriously. And stop your personal attacks on Erich; I find myself secretly wishing he'd knock you out with a boomerang before performing a tonsillectomy on you (and I mean a cerebellar one). JFW | T@lk  08:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about JFDwolff. I believe (I can't remember precisely what I typed) my former comment said words to the effect of 'regional anaesthesia involves the use of drugs and in SOME circumstances acupuncture ... etc As it was a stub comment I didnt expand on this, but have intention to. I am not a champion of exclusively using acupuncture, the GMC would probably have a field day with that one. However it is a valid form of regional anaesthesia and used quite successfully along side of and in many circumstances in lieu of drugs based anaesthetics. My comments to Erich were entirely in jest. As for talk:jew? I have no idea what you mean by that. This computer is a shared resource. Unsigned byUser:62.252.0.5.

Ok I have just checked this IP you quoted next to my anaesthetics comments above, and its coming back as a Cache Server IP for an internet service provider in the UK. Please do not attribute responsibility of every post under that IP to one individual! Unsigned byUser:62.252.0.5.

 * Well, the edits made from your IP number on this page were (literally) moments after someone with that IP number wrote some stuff stinking of Holocaust denial on Talk:Jew. If it wasn't true, I'll eat my words and take your work here on their merits. Occam's razor may have cut me short.
 * The use of acupuncture as a form of anaesthesia is very contentious. There are some randomised controlled trials of mediocre quality that find little benefit of acupuncture over placebo. If you possess references to studies that say otherwise, please share them with us!
 * Again, please sign your entries! I've explained above how to do this. JFW | T@lk  09:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will register with the wikipedia site as I am not sure what I need to do with tidal things (~) you mention. As I said, that ip you listed above which you say is for me, is certainly not the IP of this shared PC, but is a cache server for an internet service provider (NTL Guildford region Cache according to a tracert I did on it just now). Unsigned byUser:62.252.0.5.

 * Good, this means you won't get mistaken for the Neo-Nazi Holocaust denier vandal who has been trolling Jew and Holocaust from the same IP. (You'll need to learn the ~tilde trick when you get a login. It's made with a key on your keyboard; you'll probably need shift to bring it up.) ~ JFW | T@lk  19:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clean up Required
This copied from an erroneous VfD Regional anaesthesia This article appears to me to be a less comprehensive article, and a duplication of the subject of Local anaesthesia L-Bit 3 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
 * While I don't know the subject, the thing to do if that is indeed the case would be a redirect from one to the other. No VfD required. CDC   (talk)  3 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
 *  Keep , expand. Different from Local anaesthesia, and if that is a valid topic then this should be also, with cross-reference links both ways. It is important for the article to show that it is not the same as local. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
 * But, keep in mind I am not in the medical profession or by any means knowledgeable about anaesthesia. Make my vote Weak Keep for now. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
 * Back to Keep, with restructuring. Looking for definitions makes me think that local anaesthesia is a subset of regional anaesthesia. Therefore, I suggest that the material in Local anaesthesia be moved to Regional anaesthesia and a redirect created from the local anaesthesia article. But, first, we must ask the age-old question - Is there a Doctor in the house?. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Keep Had I done some research before posting here, I would probably not have posted as VfD. Acccording to |Dr Oysten's website, local anaesthesia is indeed a subset of regional anaesthesia and so User:WCFrancis; you are correct. However, as Dr Oysten states, ".... many people use the phrase (local anaesthesia) loosely to include regional anaesthesia". That begs the question, if "Local" is more commonly used to refer to the medically correct term "Regional", and I would hazard a guess that "more commonly" should be read as "almost universally", then should "Local" be the main entry? I note also that the original "Regional" article spells anaethesia without the second 'A'. I have no idea if this is American spelling or a typo. So, I am giving up with this VfD and copying this whole section to the two discussion pages - "Regional" and "Local" in the hope that a medical person and/or a person better versed in Wiki procedures can clean up the issue. L-Bit 01:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD results
This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Votes for deletion/Regional anaesthesia. -- BD2412 talk 05:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Although I am not an anaesthetist, as an orthopaedic surgeon I recognise the difference between Regional and Local anaesthetics. Local anaesthesia is usually achieved by infiltration of the area with local anaesthetics. Regional anaesthesia extends well beyond the area infiltrated and may affect a whole limb. It is achieved by neural blockade and can be accomplished either by spinal anesthesia, epidural anaesthetic, caudal blocks, nerve block or intravenous (Bier) blocks. It is interesting (to me) that Caudal and Bier blocks don't have wiki entries yet and the nerve block entry has some bizarre statements (done under fluroscopic control!). --Mylesclough 07:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge with nerve block
A merge tag was placed on this 9 months ago, but no reasons were given that I can see on this page, and no discussion has taken place. Nerve blocks are one of several modes of regional anesthesia, so separate pages for each, with cross-references, seems reasonable. Therefore, I have removed the merge tag. Terrace4 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

New Merge Proposal
Regional anaesthesia seems to be used as a synonym for local anaesthesia. Unless someone can find some material difference between the terms, the articles should be merged. K e rowyn Leave a note 07:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Defintely merge! They are one in the same. Nevie Nevie 14:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not, sorry folk. These are different. I do them every couple of days. Erich 11:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Local anesthesia is a term to describe infiltration of a local anesthetic agent (e.g. - lidocaine) into the subcutaneous tissue surrounding an incision. This numbs the nerve endings supplying the tissue. Regional anesthesia includes several techniques of injecting local anesthetic into the tissue/fluid surrounding nerve roots or peripheral nerve(s) (spinal or epidural block, peripheral nerve block). Regional anesthesia (yes, this is the American spelling) targets large areas of the body without affecting the rest of the body. This can allow some patients to remain completely awake during surgery on an arm, leg or lower abdomen. By choosing appropriate drugs the duration of pain control can be extended to many hours or even days with little or no systemic side effects. I do spinal, epidural and peripheral nerve blocks every day in my anesthetic practice.Ericdi 01:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if they are different can we still merge the two and just spell out the differences in the article? Maybe put the page under "Conduction anesthesia" and have local and regional both redirect there? This topic has needed serious clean up for a long time Chursaner (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Regional anaesthesia


text:
Talk:Sedation

Second source seems to be down
maybe it should be removed or replaced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6DollarSuit (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Insufficient description
The article described sedation as something to use to on restless and agitated people, but it can also be unintentionally, as a side affect of medication. So in that case it people with a normal level of consciousness are sedated to a lower level of consciousness, not for procedural purposes. TheDrD1ng3r (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sedation


text:
Talk:Airway management

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OnurYenigun, Yoursfrankly, Norvertrinidad, Randhillon. Peer reviewers: Jhandcox, Kinisem, Amlunatesan, VeeBabzel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Student Project
We are a group of Notre Dame Australia Doctor of Medicine Students reviewing and editing wikipedia pages to improve their quality.

Jaw thrust
My understanding is that jaw thrust is still an acceptable method of airway control, just not for the lay person. At least that's the accepted teaching in the UK. Anybody have any source for it being totally contraindicated by ILCOR? If not, I'll remove that comment. --John24601 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not totally contraindicated. It should be made abundantly clear that lay rescuers are not to use the technique; that it is reserved exclusively for healthcare professionals. Link to ILCOR paper here (Circulation). I'll try to make it clearer in the article. -Mike.lifeguard 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just tidied up the edit a bit, because it was still a bit how-to, and sounded like POV. Hope you like the revised version Owain.davies 09:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst wikipedia should write for non-experts, I don't think we need to be assuming that when we discuss different techqniques, if we don't explicitly say it then they're going to do it. If we start doing that, we'd have to go to such ridiculous lengths as telling people not to perform a Heart transplant. I like the article as it currently stands (as revised by Owain). --John24601 09:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New section on supraglottic airways?
I'd like to add a section on supraglottic airways such as laryngeal masks. I'm new to editing wikipedia, but I did notice that there's a picture of a proseal (which is a form of supraglottic airway) next to tracheal intubation. A proseal does not itself enter the trachea and is not an example of tracheal intubation, though you might intubate through it. A picture of an endotracheal tube might be better here. Also, the Adjuncts to airway management and Invasive airway management have some repetition re: intubation. So, here are some proposed sections that I'd like to reorganise/write under Invasive airway management: Any objections to these ideas? If not, might start work in a sandbox first. Any comments/help appreciated. Bron (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unprotected airways
 * Oropharyngeal
 * Nasopharyngeal
 * Supraglottic
 * Protected airways
 * Endotracheal
 * Surgical (cricothyroidotomy, tracheostomy etc.)

 * Thank you for offering to expand the article. The most important factor is that you use reliable sources to support statements. Have you read WP:MEDRS? Regarding the categories that you describe, I would advise caution.

 * There are different levels of "protection" in this context. My understanding of the laryngeal mask airway (or "supraglottic" as you say) is that it partially protects the airway. Of course it won't prevent vomitus from entering the trachea, but it has more effect than the oropharyngeal airway in preventing saliva from doing so.

 * Endotracheal intubation per se does not protect the airway—rather it is the inflation of the cuff. (Of course this is one of the advantages of ET intubation.) I am aware of a case where an anaesthetist (anesthesiologist) passed a size 5 ET tube and left the cuff deflated in a patient with laryngeal necrosis. Cricothyroidotomy certainly does not protect the airway. Tracheostomy may or may not protect the airway, depending on whether a cuff is used. In long-term tracheostomy patients, often a cuff is not used. Indeed many of these patients have fenestrated tubes to allow speech. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

- Yes agreed, surgical airways should have been one category up on its own, oops. Actually, even though it is the way we're usually taught (protected airway = cuffed endotracheal tube or conscious pt with intact airway reflexes), you're right to point out that there is still a risk of aspiration around the cuff and a LMA does seem to reduce the aspiration risk. I will do some more research, but it might be better just to list OPA/NPA/LMA/ETT/cric etc. all under 'invasive airways'. Terminology for LMA/ supraglottic / extraglottic / periglottic is not very well standardised it seems. I will work on the rewrite with good references. Thanks for your help. Bron (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The best approach is to choose a good quality reference and follow the format that it uses. Not only does this avoid your dilemma, it also gives you supportive evidence if someone challenges you. I also suggest that you edit the article directly—not in a sandbox. This allows other readers to see your edits sooner, it allows other editors to edit and improve your work, and it potentially allows other editors to flag up problems sooner. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * All the methods of airway management mentioned so far are invasive and should be classified as such. An example of Non-Invasive Ventilation would be the use of a facial mask or helmet on the patient in order to enable CPAP ventilation as an alternative to intubation in a conscious patient. While tracheal intubation (with blocked cuff) is the gold standard in airway management, giving the best possible protection against aspiration, it is not always possible or practical to intubate. Some alternatives not mentioned in this article include the ventilation with a facial mask, the Laryngeal tube we use a lot in Europe and the older and now little used double-lumen tubes such as the Carlens tube.Ochiwar (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about airway management, not ventilation. Non-invasive ventilation has no place in this article. Also, as I mentioned on your talk page, CPAP is not a form of ventilation. At a stretch, CPAP might be regarded as "airway management" in the broadest sense with respect to obstructive sleep apnoea, I doubt that sources about airway management would describe it as such. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  12:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said on my talk page, Yes I agree. I am not suggesting that CPAP should be part of this article. I only mentioned it in response to Brons suggestion above to list OPA/NPA/LMA/ETT/cric etc. all under 'invasive airways'. I was trying to explain that they all are indeed invasive and to demonstrate the difference between invasive and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) I mentioned CPAP as an example of non-Invasive (not with the intention of it being a part of the article). I do not regard CPAP as a method of airway management, as it is indicated only on concious patients with spontaneous breathing and intact reflexes, which means basically that they already (or still) have an intact and existing airway so there is not much "airway management" involved. Like you say, at a stretch OSAS may be an exeption in the broadest sense but even then I would not regard it as airway management in the context of this article. In a nutshell what I am saying is "Laryngeal tube and Carlens double-lumen are some forms of invasive airway management not mentioned in this article. The former has practical applications, while the latter is more a historical note." Technically speaking though I must correct your statement that CPAP is not a means of ventilation. In most textbooks and articles, CPAP is described as non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for example here and hereand here CPAP is distinctly mentioned as a form of ventilation, albeit non-invasive. I agree with you it has little or nothing to do with airway management though (In the context of this article). Ochiwar (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept that some sources describe CPAP as a form on non-invasive ventilation. However, in my opinion, this is a convenience for want of a better phrase, and also because many bilevel non-invasive ventilators can be used to deliver CPAP. Consider this: what exactly is "ventilation"? Is oxygen delivered via face-mask a form of ventilation? Oxygen via nasal cannulae? Hyperbaric oxygen? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I agree as stated above. I have found an article on the double lumen tube I had been referring to as Carlens tube above (its actually called Combitube) and added it to the article. I am rewriting the Combitube article a little and adding references because some of the material in that article is not quite accurate, such as; "Inflation of the cuff allows the device to function similarly to an endotracheal tube and usually closes off the esophagus, allowing ventilation and preventing pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents". Maybe you could look at it later for a c/e after I have done some preliminary work on that. Ochiwar (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Me? Sure. Let me know on my talk page when you want me to look over the article. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok here are some changes, what do you think? I won't be surprised if my edit gets rejected, just thought it would be worth having a go. (Be Bold and all that...) Still learning! More work needed, of course. I agree that the Artificial airway article could be merged, just noticed that suggestion, so I might look at what's involved there next... Bron (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks good. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A few general comments
All: I have no expertise in this field, but I am teaching the class through which Bron came to improve this article. I took a look, and have a few general comments as a lay reader. Hopefully these will be helpful to anyone looking to improve the article:
 * The lead section is very short for such a detailed article, may leave the reader wanting a broader overview before diving into the details. I would suggest, at minimum, mentioning the topics that are explored in the later sections. For instance: what are "airway maneuvers" and "

Invasive airway management"? Why are "Removal of vomit and regurgitation", "Airway management in specific situations" significant?

 * Related to the first point, the first two sections could use a little introductory prose (either in addition to, or complementing, any summary info added to the lead section).
 * There is a proposal to merge artificial airway into this article. It's best to create a section here on the talk page expressing why that merge would be a good idea, and creating the opportunity for others to express why they think the articles should remain separate (if they do). It's best not to take too long on decisions about merges, as it can have a somewhat paralyzing effect on the content; it's easier to expand the article(s) if there is a clear agreement about whether there will be one or two.
 * This one may take more research and work than the others, but seems worth mentioning: what is the history of airway management? It seems likely to me that the understanding and techniques of the procedure(s) have evolved over the years. When was the concept first articulated? By whom? How has it evolved and changed? Have established medical societies or peer reviewed journals advocated for significant changes to how it's approached? A "history" section would be a welcome addition to the article.

Overall, it looks like the article has had significant improvement recently. Keep up the good work everyone! -Pete (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Overhaul and splitting of the article
Hi. I know these things are usually discussed on the talk page before major changes are done, but I was stricken by the mood and did an overhaul of the article. More specifically; I simplified and reduced it where I could and split the article into basic, advanced and surgical airway management. While Airway management have lost some information (not much by the way, I more or less just update the language), more or less everything have just been moved to the three fore mentioned articles, although a lot of it have been rewritten to some extend. Thereby making this an overview article. Please have a look through it and correct what you don´t like. And again; sorry for proposing the split/forking of the article here. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

references/reviews

 * might be useful for this and related article(s)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Article Overhaul (November-December 2016)
To readers/editors of the "airway management" article:

As a collaboration between Anesthesia, Surgery and Emergency Medicine students at The University of California - San Francisco Medical School, this article will be significantly improved over the next couple of weeks. It is our goal to improve and update the content, accuracy, readability and references of the article. Stay tuned for a more precise timeline of deliverables anticipated to be released by end of November. We appreciate any suggestions as we complete this work.

Update November 28, 2016 The individual sections/subsections of this Article will be edited by the corresponding individuals below

Lead Section: (Onur Yenigun-Emergency Medicine)

Basic Airway management (Ranvir Dhillon- Emergency Medicine) Advanced Airway Management (Norver Trinidad- Anesthesiology) Airway Management in Specific Situations
 * Treatment (Ranvir Dhillon- Emergency Medicine)
 * Prevention (Ranvir Dhillon-Emergency Medicine)
 * Removal of Foreign Objects (Frank Lu- General Surgery)
 * Supraglottic Techniques(Norver Trinidad- Anesthesiology)
 * Infraglottic Techniques(Norver Trinidad- Anesthesiology)
 * Surgical methods (Frank Lu- General Surgery)
 * Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (Onur Yenigun-Emergency Medicine)
 * Trauma (Onur Yenigun-Emergency Medicine)
 * The Difficult Airway (Norver Trinidad- Anesthesiology)

Overall, we believe the structure of article is appropriate (i.e. basic, advanced, specific situations) and will be maintaining this format. Again, we will do our best to incorporate the aforementioned suggestions by the community as well as any new suggestions. Broadly, we will utilize WikiMedicine's guidelines to ensure this article maintains a neutral point of view, presents well-documented and accurate information published in textbooks and secondary sources, is free from copyright violations, and is optimized for the lay-reader in mind using an Acrolinx report... Stay tuned.

Norvertrinidad (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW BY KIRAN SEMBHI Peer-review feedback for Norver: Anyway, here are my specific comments. Please take it leave as you see fit. It’s just my lay opinion. Overall, I really enjoyed reading it. Lead section: Overall, great summary of the subject. Just enough information so that it is not overwhelming. These are just a few thoughts I had: again, please take or ignore as you see best. “both prevent and relieve airway obstruction” Is there an easier way of saying this? Maybe I’m underestimating the lay reader…but I suggest: “Airway management includes a set of maneuvers and medical procedures performed to prevent airway obstruction or relieve it.” But may be okay as stands. Really like the 2nd sentence about the open pathway for exchange. 3rd sentence: very long, making it slightly complicated to follow. Suggest breaking it up. Current: “This is accomplished by either clearing a previously obstructed airway, which can be caused by the tongue, foreign objects, the tissues of the airway itself, and bodily fluids such as blood and gastric contents (aspiration), or by preventing airway obstruction in cases such as anaphylaxis, the obtunded patient, or medical sedation.” Suggested rearrange: This is accomplished by either clearing a previously obstructed airway; or by preventing airway obstruction in cases such as anaphylaxis, the obtunded patient, or medical sedation. Airway obstruction can be caused by the tongue, foreign objects, the tissues of the airway itself, and bodily fluids such as blood and gastric contents (aspiration). I really like the clear division in your explanation about basic & advanced categories. You make it easy to understand the structure. Great basic category explanation with examples. Advanced category-I suggest adding an immediate definition for the layperson supraglottic (above the vocal cords), infraglottic (below the VC). Although, I see how you are trying to keep things short. My suggestion: Advanced techniques require specialized medical training and equipment, and are further categorized anatomically into supraglottic devices (above the vocal cords), infraglottic techniques (below the vocal cords), and surgical methods (such as cricothyrotomy). Supraglottic devices include oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal airways. Infraglottic includes tracheal intubation. Great last line.

Supraglottic I think this is well written and relatively easy to read even for the lay person. There are some terms eg.positive pressure, spontaneous ventilation…that may not necessarily be understood by the absolute layperson, but I can’t suggest an alternative. Otherwise, I really like the structure and the walk through the explanation. I think it is explained simply and easy to follow. I REALLY like the oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal sections. They are well explained with pertinent information. Per your question, I do not think it is too long. I think the shorter sentences, make it easier to follow. I think the extraglottic section has a little more medical jargon that I think the layperson may know (cuffed perilaryngeal sealer…unless they have seen this before, it just sounds very medical. Again, I don’t know how to fix it. Maybe a picture?). However, I think it is deep enough in the article, that if a person is reading this far, they probably have enough acumen to be okay with this level of medical speak.) Overall, I think it is a very well-written section and flows well. Infraglottic Very reader friendly. Good summary. Concise. Surgical: Excellent section. Very readable. Definitely tailored to your target audience.

Norver, Hope this was what you were looking for. I’ve never done a peer review before. f not, please let me know and I’ll give it another try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.43.254 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review for Onur, by Jordan

Overall, great job Onur. Your sections and content are very clear and well-organized. Some concepts and sentences are slightly technical, but it works well given the advanced content of your page. Great job supporting your text with citations. If you have time, try to comb through it one more time and shorten sentences where possible, to make translation of the page easier. Nice work!

Lead Section

This is a great lead section. I like the very clear, succinct division between basic and advanced management. One suggestion is to update the gray info box to follow the format of other medicine pages. I know a lot of categories do not apply to airway management, but you could include: Specialty, Symptoms, Causes, and possible Treatment (see Hepatitis page for example). Also, for clarity in translation, replace the “It” with Airway” in this sentence: “It represents the "A" In the ABC treatment mnemonic”

Airway Management in Specific Situations

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
 * Could you perhaps include a photo of head-tilt chin-lift?
 * Can you simplify this concept with a lay person in mind: “Given that these are observational studies, caution must be given to the possibility of confounding by indication. That is, patients requiring an advanced airway may have had a poorer prognosis in relation to those requiring basic interventions to begin with.”
 * I like the section on what bystanders should do; can you add a link to a “Hands-Only” CPR page on wiki, if it exists?

Trauma
 * This is a great section. I think it could benefit from 1 to 2 pictures, maybe of bag-valve masking in the pre-hospital section and a videolaryngoscope or ETT picture in the in-hospital section?
 * Perhaps break up the last paragraph into 2 paragraphs: “in-hospital” management” and “difficulties in management.” The paragraph is long and can be conceptually split into Airway in ED and then things that make airway in ED difficult, e.g. the beards/trauma and blood/vomitus, edema sentences.
 * Good citations in this section!

Conscious Sedation
 * I think ya’ll deleted this section, let me know if there’s anything else you’d like for me to review.

Nice work! Jhandcox (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

'PEER REVIEW for Ranvir by Amlu:''

Basic Airway Management ''Overall, awesome job! The language of your section is simple, concise and easy to understand. It is also well-organized and you do a good job of contextualizing your section in the greater topic! I just have a few minor comments that you may or may not want to incorporate:''

Introduction Paragraph
 * Could you maybe add a 1-liner about basic airway management as the first sentence of this paragraph? Something similar to what is said in the lead paragraph just so the reader understands what it is in the event that they did not get that far down in the lead paragraph. But I also understand if you didn’t want it to be repetitive!
 * If you could just expand the “non-invasive” link that links out to the minimally invasive page
 * For clarity, if you could add, “Basic airway management can be divided into treatment and prevention of an obstruction in the airway.” Just to improve flow into the next sentence.

Treatment
 * You could consider adding a little bit to improve flow and context: “Treatment includes different maneuvers that aim to remove the foreign body that is obstructing the airway. This type of obstruction most often occurs when someone is eating or drinking.”
 * I got a little lost on my first read of this sentence so I would just add a few words to clarify. “Abdominal thrusts can also be performed on oneself with the help of certain objects, such as by leaning over a chair.”
 * Could you maybe add a picture for the children <1 being in head-down position? I could see that being super useful for readers!
 * You could just cut off the sentence at “However, many modern protocols recommend against the use of the finger sweep.” Since it’ll get too long otherwise!
 * Great citations and presentation of different protocols!

Prevention This was great – it is a complicated topic so I think you did an awesome job organizing and simplifying!
 * There are a few words that may be difficult for a layperson to understand (i.e. flexion and extension in the healt-tilt/chin-lift section). I’m not sure if it is worth expanding on those or including a photo that more clearly depicts the angles of extension and flexion? But I’ll leave this up to you since there is already a page on the healt-tilt/chin-lift, so there may not be a point in reinventing the wheel here!
 * Same goes with jaw-thrust maneuver – maybe just adding a better clarifying photo regarding anatomy and finger placement and keeping the linked page will be enough! But the overall wording is clear and makes sense.
 * Could you clarify what a dependent position is or if this is allowed, maybe you could ask readers to refer to the photo?
 * Just a few additional words to help improve flow since this is the first time in this article a collar is mentioned: “When there is a possibility of cervical injury, collars are used to help hold the head in-line. Most of these airway maneuvers are associated with some movement of the cervical spine. Even though cervical collars can cause problems maintaining an airway and maintaining a blood pressure….”

Again, awesome job overall. All of my comments are minor so feel free to take them as you see fit!

Amlunatesan (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airway management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130124010243/http://frca.co.uk/article.aspx?articleid=101120 to http://www.frca.co.uk/article.aspx?articleid=101120

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Airway management


text:
Talk:Anesthesiologist

Get rid of complaint boxes
The boxes on the top and bottom off the page no longer apply. How can you get rid of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.142.86 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the globalize tag, but the article only references one source (which is hardly adequate). So the other tag stays for now unless anyone disagrees. Aaron mcd (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement needs valid reference
The statement "According to the Society of Anesthesiologists, Anesthesiologists provide or participate in more than 90 percent of the 40 million anesthetics delivered in the USA annually." is referenced with a marketing type web page that only provides this same statement without documented research. Was this a poll, research study, ASA member survey? This leaves a lot of room for questions and bias.

The number today is closer to 50 million anesthetics. There is limited availability to the public about the number of cases that anesthesiologists perform soley. The majority participate along side a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA) who provide the vast majority of anesthesia in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.180.28.13 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement makes no sense
"In certain areas of the country there has been a shortage of anesthesiologists for several years. ... In many of these underserved areas, physicians supervise ACTs...." Interesting statement, in that there are CRNAs in practically every city in the nation. For example Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, etc. has CRNAs in every major hospital - are these major cities underserved??? Also, there has been a shortage of anesthesiologist for the last 100 years, that's why there are CRNAs and AAs. Eclipse Anesthesia 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Yup, just like nurse practitioners and PAs. Most MD/DOs supervise 2-4 rooms, and only begin and end, but not sit, their own cases. They also have significant roles outside the OR, but you are right, the focus on rural I think probably refers to the other mid level providers more so than CRNAs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, in Role in Healthcare Delivery: JAQUILA MATTHEWS WANTS TO BE AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST. Is this factual? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.66.105.102 (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ANZCA
In Australia/NZ Anaethetists are required to first sit a standard medical degree... and the training is about 7 years also... it's over 12 years all up before you enter a most junior position. 4-6 years med school, 2 years internship, 5 years minimum training in anaesthesia.

Most NZ anaethetists sit the exam in Australia under their medical board, however the "doctorate" is recognised in NZ as equivilency.
 * This is not true. It is a combined Australian_and_New_Zealand_College_of_Anaesthetists. The qualification is not a doctorate it is a fellowship (FANZCA)

Definition
I don't know

I think that the definition of an anaesthesiology needs some work. The scope is far too narrow and lacking in depth. Discussion needs to include the role of anaesthetists in managing pain and medical emergencies in addition to intraoperative sedation and traditional anaesthesia. Further, anaesthesiologists have roles in intensive care settings in some countries (like Australia). They do not simply put people to sleep, keep them asleep and wake them up, like the current defition implies. They are experts in physiology (particularly cardiorespiratory) and pharmacology, as well as being proficient saviours in the art of IV cannulation - a skill that many junior medical staff often have to fall back on for difficult veins. Finally, they act as patient representatives in the operation theatre and are great exponents of highly controlled and coordinated practice.

Perhaps some review should be taken of the definition as provided by a number of Anaesthetics Training College websites?

Since about 1988, the American Board of Anesthesiology has required 4 years of training after achieving a doctorate in order to be "Board Certified".

"Gold, et. al"
Is that an acceptible citation?

Anesthesiologists are the most likely physicians to become addicted to prescription medications.
Citation needed.

JasonBourne2007 03:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why has this piece of information been given a headline in the discussion page and a citation in the main page? -- Copperman 15:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No difference in outcomes link
This article is about anesthesiologists, and does not require this reference or resource. This resource should be added to an article about Nurse Anesthetist if such a page exists, or you should create the article. --Copperman 06:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Title: Anesthetists vs Anesthesiologist
I think that the title of the article should be Anesthetist. Anesthesiologist is only used in north america (I think Canada uses both for doctor practioners). The rest of the world uses Anesthetist. It is a little US-centric and possibly racist. In the interests of clarity, NPOV, understanding and global harmony, perhaps it might be changed.

This also means the first line in misleading. It gives the impression that Anesthetist is used only in Britain, but it is used in India (lots of doctors there), Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Botswana and so on.... 58.107.87.183 04:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The style of spelling the article is first written in is the one it should stay with, according to Wikipedia policy. Don't worry - I'm sure "global harmony" isn't jeopardized because some people don't spell "Color" with a 'u'. - 68.33.120.32 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree with User:68.33.120.32; if only north america uses the term "-ologist" then I would support moving the name of the article to Anaesthetist. If the wiki policy on this matter described above is regarding spelling then this may not apply - this is a different word, not a different spelling of the same word. Does anyone disagree before I proceed with a name change? k1-UK-Global 14:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Agree with Kayvan, the field is Anaesthesia, therefore Anesthesiologist is clearly incorrect, further, I have only seen Anesthesiologist in North Americal spelling, so I support the move --Varnis (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 * However, in north america (yes, including canada), anaesthsist means something entirely different (i.e. CRNA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

THERE IS NO ARGUMENT. An anesthesiologist is a physician that has specialty training in the field of anesthesia and either supervises or personally delivers an anesthetic. the term anesthetist refers to a person that delivers an anesthetic. The reason for confusion is that in a lot of areas throughout the world anesthetics are administered by physicians and therefore the distinction between anesthetist and anesthesiologist is not necessary or does not exist. However in some areas of the world anesthetics are delivered by anesthetists that are not necessarily anesthesiologists (physicians) and therefore the distinction between the two is necessary.

Please feel free to see the Merriam-Webster definition of the word Anesthesiologist. Still American-centric; For definitive definitions in the english language reference Oxford English Dictionary, you will find no entry for anesthesiologist

This portion of the article needs to be re-written in order to accurately reflect the subject or the title should be changed to that of anesthetist which is the broader more inclusive term. It is not only important for this to be accurate for the article, but to maintain the validity of the overall site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnedeff (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Need information on anesthesia subspecialties
I think the various subspecialties deserve more elucidation / own pages. In particular, there is precious little Wiki information on Pediatric Anesthesia. I am interested in different anesthesia approaches to neonates vs. older children, and pretty much struck out here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PedEye1 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Sweeping Edits
Not sure why the sweeping edits were made describing an Anesthesiologists work, but not only were they inappropriate, they were replaced with inaccurate data regarding the malpractice and salary issues facing Anesthesiologists. Returning to previous version. 72.185.204.89 13:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anesthesiologists are "board certified" as peri-operative physicians, and the removal thereof is unnecessary. If one is not board certified, then they do not fall under the category of "board certified anesthesiologist". Furthermore, nothing was implied that AA/CRNA care was new or limited, and this article is talking about Anesthesiologists, not mid-level occupations within the medical field. The shortage of Anesthesiologists in rural areas is the primary argument for augmentation of mid-level providers, up to and including the Medicare opt-out. As such, edits will be reversed, unless said edits are reasonably discussed in this talk page. Thank you. ICUDocMD 16:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Note to 71.233.29.56: I appreciate your enthusiasm to adding to this article, but please keep in mind wiki rules regarding edits. ICUDocMD 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Two vs. Four year premedical education
I do not see the value in bringing up 6 year medical education programs, I believe there are only 1-2 in the US out of over one hundred medical schools, the vast majority of Anesthesiologist have completed 12 years of post high school education and bringing up 10-12 seems to be superfluous. I have not edited the main page, but wonder if this has been discussed before

 * Its part of the CRNA attempt to cover up that they are nurses with 2 years extra training, compared to docs with 12-16 years of training.129.176.151.10 (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Surge of vandalism on this page
There's been quite a bit of vandalism on this page in the past 2 days, is that an indication for locking this page down? Also, I'm not sure how to tag the users/IPs as vandals, and I can't find the help page on that. Anyone knows how to? Squiggle 15:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To be straightforward, someone who is editing this page is an idiot. The section under training that describes a shortage of Anesthesiologists is under the heading- "Anesthesiologists are the best". What does that even mean? And the assertion that "jeremy stock is awsome!!" under the references convinces me that someone intentionally ruined this page.

I would say that tagging an IP won't keep a vandal from vandalizing. Lock it down until the Vandal gets bored.Seiken66 (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Globalization tag
I have removed the generic globalization tag from this article. If you think the tag is deserved, please feel free to restore it -- but please also add a clear explanation right here on this talk page. Your actual concerns are much more likely to be adequately addressed if you identify them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Restored the tag. The main body of the article is essentially "Anesthesiologists in the US" - I count eight references to the US in that section and no other countries. It needs to be more generalised, and US specific information should be in a section down the bottom with the other country specific information. Don't have knowledge of the field to fix this myself, but I think the problem is quite blatant! Nick Fel (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Concur, it's very US-centric, especially the first two sections. Touchdown Turnaround (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First three sentences make no sense.
I can tell this article has clearly been chopped and edited numerous times due to individuals with motives other than clearly defining a term on wikipedia for the uninformed, but seriously...this entry is completely unreadable now. What do the first three sentences even mean? They don't make sense.

"An anesthesiologist (US English) or anaesthetist (British English) is a physician trained in anesthesia and peri-operative medicine. However, in the United Kingdom,[clarification needed] the term anaesthetist has a broader context, to include both[clarification needed] types of practitioners. The source further defines an anesthesiologist as a physician who completes an accredited residency program in anesthesiology, usually four years following medical school."

What are "both types of practitioners"? This makes a reference that hasn't been defined.

What "source" further defines an anesthesiologist?

This whole article should be scrapped, written from scratch to define the term without all the garbage arguments between provider groups, and locked. As is it's rather useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.28.80 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary:

There is merit in a complete re-write. There is a lot of ill feeling, esp in the USA I understand about the respective merits of physician and non-physician anaesthetists. In the UK the latter are no longer really developing with a few dozen such colleagues in a modest number of hospitals. This is such a bone of contention, esp in the USA that there is something to be said for an effort to edit this page and lock it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinner doc (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

THERE IS NO ARGUMENT. An anesthesiologist is a physician that has specialty training in the field of anesthesia and either supervises or personally delivers an anesthetic. the term anesthetist refers to a person that delivers an anesthetic. The reason for confusion is that in a lot of areas throughout the world anesthetics are administered by physicians and therefore the distinction between anesthetist and anesthesiologist is not necessary or does not exist. However in some areas of the world anesthetics are delivered by anesthetists that are not necessarily anesthesiologists (physicians) and therefore the distinction between the two is necessary. Please feel free to see the Merriam-Webster definition of the word Anesthesiologist. This portion of the article needs to be re-written in order to accurately reflect the subject or the title should be changed to that of anesthetist which is the broader more inclusive term. It is not only important for this to be accurate for the article, but to maintain the validity of the overall site.Nnedeff (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2012
The opening section of this article should be changed. currently it states the following: "An anesthesiologist (US English) or anaesthetist (British English) is a nurse or physician trained in anesthesia and perioperative medicine."

This is a slightly inaccurate and potentially misleading statement.

"An anesthesiologist is a physician that specializes in anesthesiology. An anaesthetist (UK) or anesthetist (US) is a person that administers or provides an anesthetic, this person can be a physician (anesthesiologist) or nurse or other mid-level provider, such as an anesthesia assistant.  In many areas of the world anesthetics are administered or provided exclusively by physicians, in these cases referring to a physician or anesthesiologist as an anaesthetist or anesthetist is accurate."

Source: Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of anesthesiologist.

Regarding the confusion and the distinction between the two: The term anaesthetist or anesthetist is a broader term that encompasses anesthesiologists, which are a particular type of anaesthetist or anesthetist. So while anesthesiologists are anesthetists, not all anesthetists are anesthesiologists. This is analogous to the idea that all men are humans, but not all humans are men.

Nnedeff (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * While I agree with what your saying and have found a few sources to verify this, I'm unsure how to word it other than just deleting 'anaesthetist' and leave the reference to anaesthesiologists. Could you perhaps make the request in 'Change X to Y' format as the template suggests, or indicate how you think the lead sentence should read? Cheers — Deontalk 07:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant trivia
This is pretty much the definition of trivia. Articles are not made up of indiscriminate facts. -- Neil N  talk to me  11:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Anesthesiologist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928014513/http://www.dgai.de/downloads/MuensteranerErklaerung_Parallelnarkose11-04.pdf to http://www.dgai.de/downloads/MuensteranerErklaerung_Parallelnarkose11-04.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Copy Editing going on
I am copy editing this article under GOCE Back-log Elimination Drive click here to know Work is still in progress. for any suggestions on CE work tell me here or on my talk page. Red Pen (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Addition of "Nurse anesthesiologist"
Regarding this edit by User:Mmackinnon - this edit seems to redefine the article to deal with all providers of anesthesia (in particular, nurse anesthetists), and not just anesthesiologists. This edit removed several verifiable, published sources making reference to anesthesiologists being physicians, and added a number of links to unpublished material shared via a Dropbox account proposing "nurse anesthesiologist" as a term, chiefly appearing to be correspondence to the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. The article did not mention non-physicians in the lede until May 2018 when Mmackinnon made this unreferenced edit. From looking at the Dropbox content, Mmackinnon appears to be its major contributor and as such this may breach WP:COI and WP:OR, and despite multiple references to the AANA, a search on the AANA website returns no results for "nurse anesthesiologist". --Kwekubo (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

First, Anesthesiologist is NOT a title. Why you keep suggesting it is i have no idea. It is a DESCRIPTOR and it describes 3 professions who are experts in the field of "Anesthesiology". The entomology of the word is clear. Anesthesia (study or practice of anesthesia) and "ology", an expert in said study. There is only ONE title for Physicians who perform anesthesia in the USA and that is PHYSICIAN. That is a title. The dropbox links show evidence that this is, in fact true.

 * 1) 1) The AANA as an association recently recognized Nurse Anesthesiologist as a descriptor. It is RIGHT in the email press release I added.

 * 1) 2) The original articles of the AANA in the late 1800s clearly state "Anesthesiology".

 * 1) 3) Dentist Anesthesiologists have existed for over 50 years. Clearly the descriptor is NOT owned by physicians.

 * 1) 4) The ASA has changed the terms to PHYSICIAN Anesthesiologist because their own research which I could post here showed that 60% of people in the USA DID NOT associate Anesthesiologist with a physician.

If you want a page about physicians then what you need to do is make one entitled PHYSICIAN ANESTHESIOLOGISTS. Not attempt to change the entire page to be about ONE of THREE professions who are experts in Anestheisa delivery and none of them are technicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmackinnon (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Mmackinnon (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 * This page is about anesthesia doctors - from the time this page was created in 2004 right up until this edit by Mmackinnon in May 2018, the article dealt solely with the medical specialty of anesthesiology and with physicians specialised in it. I note that since 2009, you have only edited the articles nurse anesthetist, anesthesiologist and anesthesia, and from your username, it appears that you are in fact a principal author of the website https://nurseanesthesiologistdescriptor.com/, as well as the unpublished document titled "Issue Brief" that you yourself added to the article as a reference via Dropbox at . There is an obvious conflict of interest here, and adding material that has not been previously published elsewhere and cannot be verified externally likely constitutes original research. I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines WP:COI and WP:V, and disclose any conflicts of interest that you might have with regard to the AANA. I appreciate that in North America there does seem to be controversy regarding the names of different anesthesia providers, and it may be appropriate to mention this in an appropriate section of the article (such as the existence of dental anesthesiology residencies for dentists in the US and Canada). However, from a neutral global standpoint, the word "anesthesiologist" clearly denotes a physician! See . A Google search for "nurse anesthesiologist" reveals very little evidence that the phrase exists, other than as a mistaken form of "nurse anesthetist" - and apart from the website you authored. --Kwekubo (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that this edit redefines the content of the article to include non-physician providers of anesthesia in the definition, and uses several documents shared via a Dropbox account which cannot be externally verified. As per the Wikipedia verifiability policy, "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I have found several reliable external sources define anesthesiology as a medical specialty and anesthesiologists as medical practitioners, including the Merriam Webster, the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists, Oxford Dictionaries, the US National Institutes of Health, theAmerican Heritage Dictionary, and Collins' Dictionary. --Kwekubo (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The edits and the references are direct from the AANA particularly the email with the policy change recognizing Nurse Anesthesiologist. the existence of Veterinary Anesthesiologists and Dentist Anesthesiologist AND the entomology of the root "ologist" makes it clear this is NOT a term owned by physicians. The ASA data shows this to be the case. This is RIGHT from the ASA research data. https://www.dropbox.com/s/d8srsutoi4xdmul/Slide%206%20MDAs%20are%20Physicians%20VOTERS.png?dl=0 Its already in the packet i postged but clearly you did not read it. Your primary issue seems to be that you are a physician and do not want to accept it but that does not change the facts.Mmackinnon (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I do see that there dental anesthesiologists (particularly in the US) and veterinary anesthesiologists do both exist, and it would be appropriate to include some mention of these in the article - but these are separate specialties of separate professions and would deserve their their own articles at dental anesthesiology and veterinary anesthesiology. This would not change the fact that the primary meaning of "anesthesiology" is the medical specialty. By comparison - even though veterinary pathologists and veterinary oncologists exist, the Pathology and Oncology articles at Wikipedia deal solely with the medical specialties of human pathology and human oncology, and there are separate articles for the veterinary specialties Veterinary pathology and Veterinary oncology. A Google search for "nurse anesthesiologist" reveals very little evidence that the phrase exists, other than as a mistaken form of "nurse anesthetist" - quite frankly, readers of Wikipedia articles must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up! Anyone can create a personal web page or Dropbox account to share a document - for that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable (see WP:RSSELF). Can you provide references to external, verifiable, reliable sources showing that the phrase "nurse anesthesiologist" is actually in use? Thanks --Kwekubo (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the changes I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Kwekubo (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC).

@kwekubo I have replied, the evidence is clear and i stand by what i said. The only reason you want to change the article is because you have a vested interest in it. However, the etymology of the work "anesthesiologist" has not changed no matter how much YOU want it to. Nurse Anesthesiologist has been accepted as a descriptive term just as dentist and vet anesthesiologists has been. This is nothing new. The article is "anesthesiologist" not PHYSICIANS. And there are 3 types here in the USA.Mmackinnon (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

What "evidence" are you talking about? When you "stand by what [you] said" that is a statement of opinion not fact. Fake sources and logical fallacies abound. Unfortunately another example of militant CRNA tactics. Claim to be something you are not, and then accuse others of impropriety when called out for it. So because many patients do not realize their anesthesiologist is a physician, you've decided to latch on to that term? In other words, instead of increasing patient awareness of Anesthesiologists and CRNAs, you try to muddy the waters and spread disinformation. I don't call myself a "physician anesthesiologist", I call myself an anesthesiologist. This is a term that has been used since its inception to denote a PHYSICIAN. I suspect if you had it your way you wouldn't call yourself a "nurse anesthesiologist", you would abbreviate it to just anesthesiologist. Also, it does not take full time 7-8 years to train to be a CRNA with a DNP. Look up the curriculum. Eikenhein (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on definition of anesthesiologist

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute over whether the word "anesthesiologist" denotes a medical doctor, or whether the word can be applied to various types of professional involved in providing anesthesia. 07:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Badly formed RfC - Please indicate in RfC's what content is actually being debated. Asking random questions like "Is an Anesthesiologist a doctor?" (they are BTW), isn't an effective way of doing RfC's. NickCT (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies. This RfC relates to a series of edits starting in May 2018 by User:Mmackinnon, rewriting the article to state that anesthesiologists may be any of doctors, nurses, dentists or veterinary surgeons. I came across the article in late August and added several sources making reference to anesthesiologists being doctors; this was reverted, with a number of links being added to unpublished material shared via a Dropbox account proposing the term "nurse anesthesiologist". There seems to be a conflict of interest, as User:Mmackinnon is co-author of at least one of the articles he has shared via his Dropbox account, and appears to have been involved in efforts earlier this year to coin the term "nurse anesthesiologist" and to promote its use instead of "nurse anesthetist". I edited the article on two occasions to remove these links, but they were reverted; I began discussion at Talk:Anesthesiologist, but this has stalled and seems to have run as far as it can without seeking the opinion of other editors. -Kwekubo (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - Ok. This seems like a pretty clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue. I haven't tested this, but I'm pretty confident that in English language sources the primary topic for "Anesthesiologist" is for medical doctors called anesthesiologists. If there are other peoeple called anesthesiologists, those people should be indicated on a disambig page. NickCT (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nick is probably correct. This dictionary entry specifies that an anesthesiologist is a physician.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See Nurse anesthetist. The disambig page from here should lead there. NickCT (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * comment agree w/ NickCT--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur with NickCT that 'anaesthesiologist' denotes someone who holds an MD and specializes in anaesthesiology. The accepted generic for non-MDs practicing anaesthesiology, at least in the US, is 'anaesthetist'. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with NickCT and Vaticidalprophet et al. JonRichfield (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Summoned by bot. Agree with above users. An anesthesiologist is a doctor. Meatsgains (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An anesthesiologist is a doctor. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected
I have fully protected this page for a week to allow consensus to be formed on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anesthesiologist


text:
Talk:Anesthetic

cocaine
Cocaine is not the only natural anesthetic, eugenol (high concentrations in clove oil) is also a naturally occurring anesthetic.

History?
I would like to see more about when certain anesthetics were discovered and came to prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmazinglyLifelike (talk • contribs) 15:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Good morning, I am editing this page as part fo a Wikipedia for the Medical Editor class. I made a number of changes mostly concerned with formatting and sourcing. I also added some information about local anesthetics and anesthesia awareness, as well as removing the adverse effects section under muscle relaxants. I tried to make edits in small pieces and provide a summary of why the changes were made. Please let me know if you have any suggestions! Stautges (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anesthetic