Opinions and Use of Depth of Anaesthesia Assessment Methods: A Cross‐Sectional Survey

AIMS: To capture nurse anaesthetists' opinions on the use of depth of anaesthesia assessment methods and describe when and how nurse anaesthetists find such technical devices useful in their clinical practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: Exploratory web-based survey among (n = 79) nurse anaesthetists who were members of the Swedish National Association for Anaesthesia and Intensive Care. RESULTS: In total, 25 nurse anaesthetists estimated that they used anaesthesia depth monitoring in up to every fourth case, whereas 20 reported applying monitoring in up to every second patient. Situations in which nurse anaesthetists would use depth of anaesthesia monitoring were during total intravenous anaesthesia, and in previous instances of awareness. There was a divergence of opinion among the nurse anaesthetists regarding whether judgement of clinical signs was equivalent or superior to the use of anaesthesia depth monitoring. CONCLUSION: Based on the survey results, there are indications that knowledge regarding depth of anaesthesia assessment methods needs to be enhanced. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Anaesthesia depth monitoring is regarded as important in specific clinical situations, rather than as a routine component of all general anaesthesia. Variations in nurse anaesthetists' opinions on the value of clinical signs compared with technological monitoring indicate that these approaches may be best understood as complementary rather than mutually exclusive methods of assessing anaesthetic depth. Furthermore, the findings highlight the need for ongoing professional education and discussion regarding the appropriate indications, interpretation, and application of anaesthesia depth monitoring in nurse anaesthesia practice. IMPACT: The findings suggest that anaesthesia depth monitoring is not routinely used by responding nurse anaesthetists. The results further indicate that nurse anaesthetists' opinion and experiences toward this technology vary, highlighting the importance of considering these factors when developing structured guidelines for clinical practice. REPORTING METHOD: Strobe guidelines were followed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.