Mapping Anaesthetic Syringe Labelling Practices, Perceived Standards Alignment and Educational Needs Among Anaesthesia Trainees and Technicians in India: A National Online Cross-Sectional Survey.

Background: Unlabelled or incompletely labelled anaesthetic syringes create preventable wrong-drug risk. This study evaluated syringe labelling practices, perceived standards alignment and educational needs among anaesthesia trainees and technicians in India. Methods: A national online cross-sectional survey was conducted across India from February to May 2025 using non-probability recruitment through professional networks and academic forums. Because recruitment did not use a closed centre-specific sampling frame, the number invited, exact number of contributing centres and conventional response rate were not available. An expert-reviewed and pilot-tested 21-item questionnaire assessed labelling frequency, timing, label completeness, exposure to unlabelled syringes, response behaviour, training, barriers and improvement priorities. Formal quantitative psychometric indices were not estimated. Data were summarized descriptively, and an exploratory Chi-square test assessed the unadjusted association between formal training and consistent labelling. Results: Of 421 complete responses, 344 (81.7%) respondents handled anaesthetic syringes daily. Consistent labelling was reported by 391 (92.9%), but pre-labelling of empty syringes was reported by 71 (16.9%). Expiry date documentation was never performed by 179 (42.5%), and only 111 (26.4%) included expiry details as a label component. Exposure to unlabelled or improperly labelled syringes occurred frequently or occasionally in 177 (42.1%). Although 278 (66.0%) discarded such syringes, the remainder used verification, self-labelling or confirmation-based workarounds. Formal training was reported by 361 (85.8%); an exploratory unadjusted analysis indicated an association with consistent labelling (P=0.039). Participant-level demographic and institutional covariates were unavailable for adjusted analysis. Only 137 (32.5%) perceived their practice as fully aligned with recommended standards. Conclusions: High self-reported labelling frequency coexisted with clinically important gaps in timing, completeness and disposal-related safety behaviour. The findings identify potentially important targets for structured training, readily available standardized labels, protocol reinforcement, audit-feedback cycles and safer workflow design. Because the study was cross-sectional and self-reported, the observed training association should not be interpreted as causal.