Anaesthesiologists' guideline adherence in pre-operative evaluation: a retrospective observational study.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Perioperative Medicine Pub Date : 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1186/s13741-024-00424-5
Simone Maria Kagerbauer, Jennifer Wißler, Manfred Blobner, Ferdinand Biegert, Dimislav Ivanov Andonov, Gerhard Schneider, Armin Horst Podtschaske, Bernhard Ulm, Bettina Jungwirth
{"title":"Anaesthesiologists' guideline adherence in pre-operative evaluation: a retrospective observational study.","authors":"Simone Maria Kagerbauer, Jennifer Wißler, Manfred Blobner, Ferdinand Biegert, Dimislav Ivanov Andonov, Gerhard Schneider, Armin Horst Podtschaske, Bernhard Ulm, Bettina Jungwirth","doi":"10.1186/s13741-024-00424-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surveys suggest a low level of implementation of clinical guidelines, although they are intended to improve the quality of treatment and patient safety. Which guideline recommendations are not followed and why has yet to be analysed. In this study, we investigate the proportion of European and national guidelines followed in the area of pre-operative anaesthetic evaluation prior to non-cardiac surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted this monocentric retrospective observational study at a German university hospital with the help of software that logically links guidelines in such a way that individualised recommendations can be derived from a patient's data. We included routine logs of 2003 patients who visited our pre-anaesthesia outpatient clinic between June 2018 and June 2020 and compared the actual conducted pre-operative examinations with the recommendations issued by the software. We descriptively analysed the data for examinations not performed that would have been recommended by the guidelines and examinations that were performed even though they were not covered by a guideline recommendation. The guidelines examined in this study are the 2018 ESAIC guidelines for pre-operative evaluation of adults undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery, the 2014 ESC/ESA guidelines on non-cardiac surgery and the German recommendations on pre-operative evaluation on non-cardiothoracic surgery from the year 2017.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Performed ECG (78.1%) and cardiac stress imaging tests (86.1%) indicated the highest guideline adherence. Greater adherence rates were associated with a higher ASA score (ASA I: 23.7%, ASA II: 41.1%, ASA III: 51.8%, ASA IV: 65.8%, P < 0.001), lower BMI and age > 65 years. Adherence rates in high-risk surgery (60.5%) were greater than in intermediate (46.5%) or low-risk (44.6%) surgery (P < 0.001). 67.2% of technical and laboratory tests performed preoperatively were not covered by a guideline recommendation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Guideline adherence in pre-operative evaluation leaves room for improvement. Many performed pre-operative examinations, especially laboratory tests, are not recommended by the guidelines and may cause unnecessary costs. The reasons for guidelines not being followed may be the complexity of guidelines and organisational issues. A software-based decision support tool may be helpful.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04843202.</p>","PeriodicalId":19764,"journal":{"name":"Perioperative Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"64"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542447/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perioperative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13741-024-00424-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Surveys suggest a low level of implementation of clinical guidelines, although they are intended to improve the quality of treatment and patient safety. Which guideline recommendations are not followed and why has yet to be analysed. In this study, we investigate the proportion of European and national guidelines followed in the area of pre-operative anaesthetic evaluation prior to non-cardiac surgery.

Methods: We conducted this monocentric retrospective observational study at a German university hospital with the help of software that logically links guidelines in such a way that individualised recommendations can be derived from a patient's data. We included routine logs of 2003 patients who visited our pre-anaesthesia outpatient clinic between June 2018 and June 2020 and compared the actual conducted pre-operative examinations with the recommendations issued by the software. We descriptively analysed the data for examinations not performed that would have been recommended by the guidelines and examinations that were performed even though they were not covered by a guideline recommendation. The guidelines examined in this study are the 2018 ESAIC guidelines for pre-operative evaluation of adults undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery, the 2014 ESC/ESA guidelines on non-cardiac surgery and the German recommendations on pre-operative evaluation on non-cardiothoracic surgery from the year 2017.

Results: Performed ECG (78.1%) and cardiac stress imaging tests (86.1%) indicated the highest guideline adherence. Greater adherence rates were associated with a higher ASA score (ASA I: 23.7%, ASA II: 41.1%, ASA III: 51.8%, ASA IV: 65.8%, P < 0.001), lower BMI and age > 65 years. Adherence rates in high-risk surgery (60.5%) were greater than in intermediate (46.5%) or low-risk (44.6%) surgery (P < 0.001). 67.2% of technical and laboratory tests performed preoperatively were not covered by a guideline recommendation.

Conclusions: Guideline adherence in pre-operative evaluation leaves room for improvement. Many performed pre-operative examinations, especially laboratory tests, are not recommended by the guidelines and may cause unnecessary costs. The reasons for guidelines not being followed may be the complexity of guidelines and organisational issues. A software-based decision support tool may be helpful.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04843202.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
麻醉医师在术前评估中的指南遵守情况:一项回顾性观察研究。
背景:调查显示,尽管临床指南旨在提高治疗质量和患者安全,但其执行率却很低。哪些指南建议未被遵循以及原因尚待分析。在这项研究中,我们调查了在非心脏手术前的术前麻醉评估方面,欧洲和国家指南的执行比例:我们在一家德国大学医院开展了这项单中心回顾性观察研究,并借助软件将指南进行逻辑连接,从而从患者数据中得出个性化建议。我们纳入了 2018 年 6 月至 2020 年 6 月期间在麻醉前门诊就诊的 2003 名患者的常规日志,并将实际进行的术前检查与软件发布的建议进行了比较。我们对数据进行了描述性分析,以了解指南本应推荐但未进行的检查,以及指南建议未涵盖但已进行的检查。本研究中研究的指南是2018年ESAIC关于接受择期非心脏手术的成人术前评估指南、2014年ESC/ESA关于非心脏手术的指南以及2017年德国关于非心胸手术术前评估的建议:已进行的心电图(78.1%)和心脏负荷成像检查(86.1%)对指南的依从性最高。更高的遵守率与更高的ASA评分有关(ASA I:23.7%,ASA II:41.1%,ASA III:51.8%,ASA IV:65.8%,P 65岁。高风险手术的遵守率(60.5%)高于中度风险手术(46.5%)或低风险手术(44.6%)(P 结论:高风险手术的遵守率(60.5%)高于中度风险手术(46.5%)或低风险手术(44.6%):术前评估指南的遵守情况还有待改进。许多术前检查,尤其是实验室检查,并不是指南所建议的,可能会造成不必要的费用。指南未被遵循的原因可能是指南的复杂性和组织问题。基于软件的决策支持工具可能会有所帮助:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04843202。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
3.80%
发文量
55
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Artificial intelligence in anesthesiology: a bibliometric analysis. The relationship between preoperative anemia and length of hospital stay among patients undergoing orthopedic surgery at a teaching hospital in Ethiopia: a retrospective cohort study. Excess hospital length of stay and extra cost attributable to primary prolonged postoperative ileus in open alimentary tract surgery: a multicenter cohort analysis in China. Investigating the effects of pressure support ventilation and positive end-expiratory pressure during extubation on respiratory system complications. The current situation and associated factors of preoperative frailty in elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1