Understanding Anesthesiologists’ Adoption of Evidence-based Neuromuscular Monitoring and Reversal Best Practices

Anesthesiologists are sometimes slow to adopt new technologies despite proven benefits. The authors undertook to understand community anesthesiologists’ perspectives and practices regarding neuromuscular monitoring and reversal. Specifically, they sought to generate evidence for why some guidance-congruent practices— i.e. , quantitative train-of-four monitoring, ulnar nerve stimulation, and evidence-based reversal—remain inconsistently adopted despite robust evidence of patient harm from residual neuromuscular blockade and decades of effort to improve adoption. Thirty-six U.S. community anesthesiologists underwent a detailed qualitative cognitive interview. Analysis revealed four clinician archetypes whose neuromuscular monitoring and reversal practices are shaped by identifiable individual and practice-related biases and device- and system-level barriers. Perceived confidence in sugammadex efficacy was frequently cited as a rationale for omitting quantitative neuromuscular monitoring. The authors propose a research and implementation action agenda to close the evidence-to-practice gap in neuromuscular monitoring and reversal.