Correspondence  |   October 2016
In Reply
Author Notes
  • University of Auckland, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand (A.F.M.). a.merry@auckland.ac.nz
  • (Accepted for publication June 21, 2016.)
    (Accepted for publication June 21, 2016.)×
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   October 2016
In Reply
Anesthesiology 10 2016, Vol.125, 820-821. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001252
Anesthesiology 10 2016, Vol.125, 820-821. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001252
We thank Tafelski et al. for making some interesting points about our recent study1  and asking for clarification of some issues.
We agree that for various reasons, our results may be an underestimate, and we discussed these in some length in our article.
With respect to the Hawthorne effect, we agree that our findings may reflect an underestimation of the actual rate of syringe contamination. Indeed, in the article, we indicated that “anesthesiologists were encouraged to behave ‘normally’ in respect of their aseptic practice,” but that “the open-label nature of the study may have influenced them to be more fastidious.”
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large