[Implementation of emergency classifications-Where do we stand? : Results of a nationwide survey].

4区 医学 Q3 Medicine Anaesthesist Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2021-05-18 DOI:10.1007/s00101-021-00971-2
A Brosin, P Kropp, D A Reuter, M Janda
{"title":"[Implementation of emergency classifications-Where do we stand? : Results of a nationwide survey].","authors":"A Brosin,&nbsp;P Kropp,&nbsp;D A Reuter,&nbsp;M Janda","doi":"10.1007/s00101-021-00971-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to determine the current state of implementation of the recommendations for the classification of emergency surgery published in 2016 by the German societies of anesthesiology (BDA/DGAI), surgery (BDC/DGCH) and operating room management (VOPM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on these societies' recommendations, various organizational issues were explored using an online questionnaire that was limited to German operating room (OR) managers and coordinators for hospitals that had surgical programs and at least 200 hospital beds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 550 hospitals were contacted and 274 participated in the survey (49.8%). Of these 70.7% reported that they had implemented the recommendations, and 15.2% were aware of the recommendations but did not consistently apply them. Of the participating OR managers and coordinators that had either implemented or were aware of the recommendations, 78.2% agreed that the standardized definition of medical emergencies led to improvements in emergency treatment but 33.6% stated that the defined response intervals for emergency categories induced a certain degree of subjectivity in categorizing emergencies. Additional in-house guidelines specifically for the most frequent surgeries were or would be welcomed by 80.1% of the respondents and 39.1% of the surveyed hospitals had already implemented such guidelines. Of the OR managers and coordinators, 62.9% were informed about their emergency volumes and 47.3% stated that they regularly assessed them. There was no dedicated capacity for emergency care in 65.2% of hospitals. Of the respondents 3.9% stated that a separate emergency OR was reserved with a freely available team, which, during core operating hours, could be used for interdisciplinary emergency care and 26.2% of hospitals considered the capacity required for emergency procedures when planning the OR program or determining OR capacities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The recommendations for classifying emergency operations are an essential and generally accepted control mechanism in OR coordination. They simplify interdisciplinary coordination and communication when dynamically incorporating emergency procedures into an OR program. Most OR managers and coordinators view the recommendations as improving the speed of action in emergency care. To support the adoption of emergency classifications within an organization it may be advisable to incorporate them into the OR statutes and integrate them within the hospital information systems. The majority of participants supported additional specifications based on medical indicators for classifying the most frequent emergency operations. Being cognizant of key metrics concerning in-house emergency volume represents a crucial basis for interdisciplinary OR management and emergency care integration. Contrary to common perception, blocking fixed OR capacities remains the exception. When establishing a concept to provide emergency capacity, it is advisable to align developments with demand calculations based on in-house figures and to emphasize interdisciplinary participation and consensus.</p>","PeriodicalId":50796,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesist","volume":"70 12","pages":"1003-1010"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00101-021-00971-2","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-021-00971-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to determine the current state of implementation of the recommendations for the classification of emergency surgery published in 2016 by the German societies of anesthesiology (BDA/DGAI), surgery (BDC/DGCH) and operating room management (VOPM).

Methods: Based on these societies' recommendations, various organizational issues were explored using an online questionnaire that was limited to German operating room (OR) managers and coordinators for hospitals that had surgical programs and at least 200 hospital beds.

Results: A total of 550 hospitals were contacted and 274 participated in the survey (49.8%). Of these 70.7% reported that they had implemented the recommendations, and 15.2% were aware of the recommendations but did not consistently apply them. Of the participating OR managers and coordinators that had either implemented or were aware of the recommendations, 78.2% agreed that the standardized definition of medical emergencies led to improvements in emergency treatment but 33.6% stated that the defined response intervals for emergency categories induced a certain degree of subjectivity in categorizing emergencies. Additional in-house guidelines specifically for the most frequent surgeries were or would be welcomed by 80.1% of the respondents and 39.1% of the surveyed hospitals had already implemented such guidelines. Of the OR managers and coordinators, 62.9% were informed about their emergency volumes and 47.3% stated that they regularly assessed them. There was no dedicated capacity for emergency care in 65.2% of hospitals. Of the respondents 3.9% stated that a separate emergency OR was reserved with a freely available team, which, during core operating hours, could be used for interdisciplinary emergency care and 26.2% of hospitals considered the capacity required for emergency procedures when planning the OR program or determining OR capacities.

Conclusion: The recommendations for classifying emergency operations are an essential and generally accepted control mechanism in OR coordination. They simplify interdisciplinary coordination and communication when dynamically incorporating emergency procedures into an OR program. Most OR managers and coordinators view the recommendations as improving the speed of action in emergency care. To support the adoption of emergency classifications within an organization it may be advisable to incorporate them into the OR statutes and integrate them within the hospital information systems. The majority of participants supported additional specifications based on medical indicators for classifying the most frequent emergency operations. Being cognizant of key metrics concerning in-house emergency volume represents a crucial basis for interdisciplinary OR management and emergency care integration. Contrary to common perception, blocking fixed OR capacities remains the exception. When establishing a concept to provide emergency capacity, it is advisable to align developments with demand calculations based on in-house figures and to emphasize interdisciplinary participation and consensus.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
[实施紧急分类-我们在哪里?[全国性调查的结果]。
背景:本研究旨在确定2016年由德国麻醉学学会(BDA/DGAI)、外科学会(BDC/DGCH)和手术室管理学会(VOPM)发布的急诊手术分类建议的实施现状。方法:基于这些协会的建议,使用一份仅限于拥有外科项目和至少200张病床的医院的德国手术室(OR)经理和协调员的在线问卷,探讨了各种组织问题。结果:共联系医院550家,参与调查的医院274家,占49.8%。其中70.7%的人报告说他们已经实施了这些建议,15.2%的人知道这些建议,但没有一贯地应用这些建议。在参与调查的实施或了解这些建议的手术室管理人员和协调员中,78.2%的人认为,医疗紧急情况的标准化定义改善了紧急治疗,但33.6%的人认为,确定的紧急类别响应间隔导致了对紧急情况分类的一定程度的主观性。80.1%的受访者表示欢迎或将欢迎针对最常见手术的额外内部指引,而39.1%的受访医院已经实施了此类指引。在手术室管理人员和协调员中,62.9%的人被告知他们的紧急情况,47.3%的人表示他们定期对其进行评估。65.2%的医院没有专门的急救能力。在答复者中,3.9%的人表示,保留了一个单独的急诊手术室,并配备了可免费使用的团队,在核心营业时间可用于跨学科急诊护理,26.2%的医院在规划手术室方案或确定手术室能力时考虑了急诊程序所需的能力。结论:应急操作分类建议是手术室协调中必不可少的、被普遍接受的控制机制。当动态地将紧急程序纳入手术室计划时,它们简化了跨学科的协调和沟通。大多数手术室管理人员和协调员认为这些建议提高了急诊护理的行动速度。为了支持在组织内采用急诊分类,建议将其纳入手术室法规并将其整合到医院信息系统中。大多数与会者支持根据医疗指标制定额外的规范,以便对最常见的紧急行动进行分类。认识到内部急诊量的关键指标是跨学科手术室管理和急诊护理整合的重要基础。与通常的看法相反,阻塞固定的OR能力仍然是例外。在确立提供应急能力的概念时,建议将发展与基于内部数字的需求计算结合起来,并强调跨学科的参与和共识。
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
Anaesthesist
Anaesthesist 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Der Anaesthesist is an internationally recognized journal de­aling with all aspects of anaesthesia and intensive medicine up to pain therapy. Der Anaesthesist addresses all specialists and scientists particularly interested in anaesthesiology and it is neighbouring areas. Review articles provide an overview on selected topics reflecting the multidisciplinary environment including pharmacotherapy, intensive medicine, emergency medicine, regional anaesthetics, pain therapy and medical law. Freely submitted original papers allow the presentation of relevant clinical studies and serve the scientific exchange. Case reports feature interesting cases and aim at optimizing diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Review articles under the rubric ''Continuing Medical Education'' present verified results of scientific research and their integration into daily practice.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of the effects of total intravenous anesthesia and inhalation anesthesia on postoperative cognitive recovery. [Respiratory support in COVID-19: all in due time!] [COVID-19: a chance for digitalization of teaching? : Report of experiences and results of a survey on digitalized teaching in the fields of anesthesiology, intensive care, emergency, pain and palliative medicine at the University of Leipzig]. [Perioperative management of the brain-dead organ donor : Anesthesia between ethics and evidence]. [Noninvasive respiratory support and invasive ventilation in COVID‑19 : Where do we stand today?]
×
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