Introduction
The authors of the article have focused on how healthcare providers have developed various approaches to provide excellent healthcare services. For instance, the use of BIS Monitor has been introduced to reduce postoperative recovery time and anesthetic drug consumption (Rüsch et al., 2018). In this case, the article’s authors have analyzed different aspects associated with BIS Monitor and how they can impact healthcare services involving anesthesia. The article’s main objective was to analyze the effectiveness of (BIS) and its importance in limiting intraoperative awareness in adults undergoing surgery. Moreover, the researchers analyzed the use of BIS Monitor in detecting early recovery times during operations. Therefore, this is an article critique that focuses on the different factors that have been analyzed by the authors involving BIS Monitor in the prevention of anesthesia awareness.
Background
The background of the article has been developed clearly to ensure that readers can understand the main objective of the study. The use of clinical signs or end‐tidal anesthetic gas (ETAG) have been exercised by many physicians in many hospitals. However, researchers have argued that the approaches can lead to challenges during surgeries, whereby overdosing or underdosing a patient can be experienced leading to awareness. Thus, the investigators have focused how BIS can guide health practitioners regarding anesthetic dose. The purpose of the article has also been well-articulated, and readers can learn that it aims at assessing the effectiveness of BIS in anesthesia awareness.
Evaluation
Focusing on the main argument of an article is vital as it enables the audience to analyze whether adequate evidence is used. In this case, the article provides information that shows that BIS monitor is essential during anesthetic dose and may be better than clinical signs or ETAG. The argument is convincing since the authors have revealed that the approach is more effective as the symptoms can be recorded easily and effectively than when using clinical signs. Additionally, the use of modern technology in healthcare is encouraged as it helps in improving patient outcomes (Park, 2020). The use of multiple EEG features and artificial neural networks to monitor the depth of anesthesia have also been analyzed (Gu et al., 2019). Thus, the study revealed that the authors’ claims were convincing since both ETAG and clinical signs had some disadvantages, such as poor dosage.
The article is also useful since it has detailed information involving BIS in the prevention of anesthesia awareness. The information presented from the investigation shows that healthcare professionals can utilize the approach and develop advanced ways of limiting anesthesia awareness. Many people have investigated the importance of BIS and can benefit from the data provided in the article. Additionally, the information can limit gaps experienced in other researches. The key results of the article educates physicians to use BIS as it limits awareness during operations.
Response
Based on the information provided, one can argue that the article has vital information that can significantly enable healthcare providers during surgery. BIS monitors brain activity, making it easy for physicians to detect intraoperative awareness (Dahaba, 2018). Nonetheless, the article has strengths and weaknesses that can be analyzed. One of the strengths is that it is structured appropriately, making it easy for the readers to acquire credible information when analyzing it. Another strength is that the authors have used a good sample size to acquire adequate information from the participants. Moreover, individuals who were likely to encounter awareness were used in the research to guarantee that valid information was exercised. Limiting bias is another strength since Cochrane’s’ Risk of bias’ tool was used to ensure that risks of bias are limited (Lewis et al., 2019). The weakness of the article is that it only focuses on general anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery. Therefore, it does not provide information regarding the effectiveness of BIS on other age groups undergoing surgery. Moreover, it has not provided information on whether the approach can be impacted by other aspects such as gender and race.
The article raises issues involving the need to limit anesthesia awareness by developing better approaches. Moreover, underdose and overdose during surgery have led many people to experience complications due to anesthesia awareness (Lewis et al., 2019). The several studies that have been conducted to assess the advantages of BIS monitoring show that the article is vital as it provides more information about anesthesia awareness. Therefore, one can argue that the authors have presented a significant issue that can improve healthcare services.
Conclusion
To conclude, the article has credible information that can be utilized to improve healthcare services involving anesthesia. Moreover, it shows the importance of BIS Monitor in detecting early recovery times from general anesthesia during operations, which has been exercised in various healthcare facilities. The data provided has also revealed using a BIS monitor to guide the dose of anesthetic can minimize challenges experienced when using EATG and clinical signs. Therefore, the article has credible information that healthcare providers and other researchers can utilize to develop methods of limiting Intraoperative awareness.
References
Dahaba, A. A. (2018). Thinking outside the box. Off-label use of Bispectral Index within context and limitations for conditions other than depth of anesthesia. Minerva anestesiologica, 85(2), 189-193.
Gu, Y., Liang, Z., & Hagihira, S. (2019). Use of multiple EEG features and artificial neural network to monitor the depth of anesthesia. Sensors, 19(11), 2499.
Lewis, S. R., Pritchard, M. W., Fawcett, L. J., & Punjasawadwong, Y. (2019). Bispectral index for improving intraoperative awareness and early postoperative recovery in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9). Web.
Park, H. S., Kim, Y. S., Kim, S. H., Jeon, A. R., Kim, S. E., & Choi, W. J. (2020). Comparison of electroencephalogram between propofol-and thiopental-induced anesthesia for awareness risk in pregnant women. Scientific reports, 10(1), 1-10.
Rüsch, D., Arndt, C., Eberhart, L., Tappert, S., Nageldick, D., & Wulf, H. (2018). Bispectral index to guide induction of anesthesia: a randomized controlled study. BMC anesthesiology, 18(1), 1-10.