Association Between Handover of Anesthesiology Care and 1-Year Mortality Among Adults Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

A survey and analysis of peri-operative quality indicators promoted by National Societies of Anaesthesiologists in Europe: The EQUIP project

BACKGROUND

To capture preventable peri-operative patient harm and guide improvement initiatives, many quality indicators (QIs) have been developed. Several National Anaesthesiologists Societies (NAS) in Europe have implemented quality indicators. To date, the definitions, validity and dissemination of such quality indicators, and their comparability with validated published indicators are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify all quality indicators promoted by NAS in Europe, to assess their characteristics and to compare them with published validated quality indicators.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study with mixed methods analysis. Using a survey questionnaire, representatives of 37 NAS were asked if their society provided quality indicators to their members and, if so, to provide the list, definitions and details of quality indicators. Characteristics of reported quality indicators were analysed.

SETTING

The 37 NAS affiliated with the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) at the time. Data collection, translations: March 2018 to February 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Representatives of all 37 NAS completed the survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

QIs reported by NAS.

RESULTS

Only 12 (32%) of the 37 NAS had made a set of quality indicators available to their members. Data collection was mandatory in six (16.2%) of the 37 countries. We identified 163 individual quality indicators, which were most commonly descriptive (60.1%), anaesthesia-specific (50.3%) and related to intra-operative care (21.5%). They often measured structures (41.7%) and aspects of safety (35.6%), appropriateness (20.9%) and prevention (16.6%). Patient-centred care (3.7%) was not well covered. Only 11.7% of QIs corresponded to published validated or well established quality indicator sets.

CONCLUSIONS

Few NAS in Europe promoted peri-operative quality indicators. Most of them differed from published sets of validated indicators and were often related to the structural dimension of quality. There is a need to establish a European-wide comprehensive core set of usable and validated quality indicators to monitor the quality of peri-operative care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

No registration.

Association of anesthesia handovers with perioperative and short-term outcomes after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Anesthesiologists transition patient care to combat clinician fatigue and accommodate shift limitations. Studies exploring the association of increased handovers with patient outcomes have conflicting findings. Here, we investigate the association of anesthesia handovers with perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy at a single institution from 2017 to 2022 were stratified by the number of anesthesia attending and nonattending (nurse anesthetist/resident) handovers (0-1 or ≥2). Primary outcomes were intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, in addition to 30-day serious morbidity. Logistic and negative binomial regression models were adjusted for covariates related to patient and case complexity.

RESULTS

A total of 182 patients were included. Median operative time was 720 minutes (interquartile range, 540-900 minutes). Most cases had fewer than 2 attending handovers (n = 147, 81% vs ≥2 handovers n = 35, 19%) and 2 nonattending handovers (n = 120, 71% vs ≥2 handovers n = 53, 29%). In adjusted models, there were no differences in 30-day serious morbidity and intensive care unit or hospital length of stay between the attending handover groups (0-1 vs ≥2). Patients with ≥2 non-attending handovers had similar odds of 30-day serious morbidity compared with the 0-1 group (odds ratio, 1.613, 95% confidence interval, 0.733-3.550, P = .235), but a longer total hospital (incidence rate ratio, 1.301, 95% confidence interval, 1.071-1.579, P = .008) and intensive care unit length of stay (incidence rate ratio 1.548, 95% confidence interval, 1.038-2.049, P = .030).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple anesthesia handovers were not associated with an increased risk of serious morbidity for patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. However, increased handovers (≥2) between nonattending providers was associated with longer hospital and intensive care unit length of stays.

The Impact of Intraoperative Anesthesiology Provider Handovers on Postoperative Complications After Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) Surgery

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to assess the possible association between intraoperative anesthesia team handovers and increased 90-day major complications following HPB surgery.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent HPB surgery. Anesthesiologist handover (AH) occurred when a complete transfer of care to a receiving anesthesiologist. total anesthesia team handovers (TH) occurred when both anesthesiologist and supervised provider transferred care. The primary outcome was 90-day major complications, defined as an ACCORDION score of ≥ 3.

RESULTS

Ninety-day major complications occurred in 35 (21.6%) of TH and 96 (21.9%) of AH patients. With adjustment of other covariates, no significant association was found between AH (OR, 1.358, 95% CI, 0.935-1.973, p = 0.1079) or TH (OR, 1.157, 95% CI, 0.706-1.894, p = 0.5633) and 90-day major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In a high-volume HPB center, anesthesia team handovers were not associated with an increased risk of patients having a major complication within 90 days after HPB surgery.

Effect of standardized EHR-integrated handoff report on intraoperative communication outcomes

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the effectiveness and implementability of a standardized EHR-integrated handoff report to support intraoperative handoffs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A pre-post intervention study was used to compare the quality of intraoperative handoffs supported by unstructured notes (pre) to structured, standardized EHR-integrated handoff reports (post). Participants included anesthesia clinicians involved in intraoperative handoffs. A mixed-method approach was followed, supported by general observations, shadowing, surveys, and interviews.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-one intraoperative permanent handoffs (78 pre, 73 post) were included. One hundred percent of participants in the post-intervention cohort utilized the report. Compared to unstructured, structured handoffs using the EHR-integrated handoff report led to: (1) significant increase in the transfer of information about airway management (55%-78%, P < .001), intraoperative course (63%-86%, P < .001), and potential concerns (64%-88%, P < .001); (2) significant improvement in clinician satisfaction scores, with regards to information clarity and succinctness (4.5-4.7, P = .002), information transfer (3.8-4.2, P = .011), and opportunities for fewer errors reported by senders (3.3-2.5, P < .001) and receivers (3.2-2.4, P < .001); and (3) significant decrease in handoff duration (326.2-262.3 s, P = .016). Clinicians found the report implementation highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible but noted a few areas for improvement to enhance its usability and integration within the intraoperative workflow.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

A standardized EHR-integrated handoff report ensures the effectiveness and efficiency of intraoperative handoffs with its structured, consistent format that-promotes up-to-date and pertinent intraoperative information transfer; reduces opportunities for errors; and streamlines verbal communication. Handoff standardization can promote safe and high-quality intraoperative care.

Year in Review 2022: Noteworthy Literature in Cardiac Anesthesiology

Last year researchers made substantial progress in work relevant to the practice of cardiac anesthesiology. We reviewed 389 articles published in 2022 focused on topics related to clinical practice to identify 16 that will impact the current and future practice of cardiac anesthesiology. We identified 4 broad themes including risk prediction, postoperative outcomes, clinical practice, and technological advances. These articles are representative of the best work in our field in 2022.

Quality indicators for anesthesia and perioperative medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Routine monitoring of care quality is fundamental considering the high reported rates of preventable perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, no set of valid and feasible quality indicators is available as the gold standard for comprehensive routine monitoring of the overall quality of perioperative care. The purpose of this review is to describe underlying difficulties, to summarize current trends and initiatives and to outline the perspectives in support of suitable perioperative quality indicators.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most perioperative quality indicators used in the clinical setting are based on low or no evidence. Evidence-based perioperative quality indicators validated for research purposes are not always applicable in routine care. Developing a core set of perioperative quality indicators for clinical practice may benefit from matching feasible routine indicators with evidence-based indicators validated for research, from evaluating additional new indicators, and from including patients' views.

SUMMARY

A core set of valid and feasible quality indicators is essential for monitoring perioperative care quality. The development of such a set may benefit from matching evidence-based indicators with feasible standard indicators and from including patients' views.

Anesthesiology Patient Handoff Education Interventions: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Anesthesiology provider handoffs are complex, occur frequently, and have been associated with adverse patient outcomes. The authors sought to determine the degree to which anesthesiology handoff studies with educational interventions incorporated tenets of educational best practices.

METHODS

The research team conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature focused on handoff studies with education interventions that included anesthesiology providers. Searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and ERIC (2010-September 2021). Each phase of the article review process included at least two trained independent reviewers. In addition, pairs of trained reviewers abstracted study characteristics RESULTS: Twenty-six articles met inclusion criteria. Two thirds (18/26; 69.2%) were published after 2017, and almost three fourths (19/26; 73.1%) included learners. Education intervention descriptions varied, with only 15.4% (4/26) briefly mentioning education theory, 7.7% (2/26) with clear education objectives, and 7.7% (2/26) assessing curriculum via participant satisfaction. Most (22/26; 84.6%) assessed Kirkpatrick's level 3 (handoff behavior change), and 26.9% (7/26) assessed level 4b (patient outcomes). Medical education quality scores were low (range 6-24, mean 11.3; max 32), with more than half (15/26; 57.7%) receiving scores ≤ 10.

CONCLUSION

Educational interventions demonstrate marked heterogeneity in the use of educational theoretical concepts and established curriculum development best practices. Future studies should report on important aspects of educational interventions, which would allow for comparison across studies, yield the essential data needed to identify handoff education best practices, and improve patient safety.

Comparison of Multidimensional Frailty Instruments for Estimation of Long-term Patient-Centered Outcomes After Cardiac Surgery

Importance

Little is known about the performance of available frailty instruments in estimating patient-relevant outcomes after cardiac surgery.

Objective

To examine how well the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) frailty indicator, the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), and the Preoperative Frailty Index (PFI) estimate long-term patient-centered outcomes after cardiac surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, among residents 18 years and older who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic, mitral or tricuspid valve, or thoracic aorta surgery between October 2008 and March 2017. Long-term care residents, those with discordant surgical encounters, and those receiving dialysis or dependent on a ventilator within 90 days were excluded. Statistical analysis was conducted from July 2021 to January 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was patient-defined adverse cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events (PACE), defined as the composite of severe stroke, heart failure, long-term care admission, new-onset dialysis, and ventilator dependence. Secondary outcomes included mortality and individual PACE events. The association between frailty and PACE was examined using cause-specific hazard models with death as a competing risk, and the association between frailty and death was examined using Cox models. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were determined over 10 years of follow-up for each frailty instrument.

Results

Of 88 456 patients (22 924 [25.9%] female; mean [SD] age, 66.3 [11.1] years), 14 935 (16.9%) were frail according to ACG criteria, 63 095 (71.3%) according to HFRS, and 76 754 (86.8%) according to PFI. Patients with frailty were more likely to be older, female, and rural residents; to have lower income and multimorbidity; and to undergo urgent surgery. Patients meeting ACG criteria (hazard ratio [HR], 1.66; 95% CI, 1.60-1.71) and those with higher HFRS scores (HR per 1.0-point increment, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.10) and PFI scores (HR per 0.1-point increment, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.73-1.78) had higher rates of PACE. Similar magnitudes of association were observed for each frailty instrument with death and individual PACE components. The HFRS had the highest AUROC for estimating PACE during the first 2 years and death during the first 4 years, after which the PFI had the highest AUROC.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings could help to tailor the use of frailty instruments by outcome and follow-up duration, thus optimizing preoperative risk stratification, patient-centered decision-making, candidate selection for prehabilitation, and personalized monitoring and health resource planning in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Effect of Intraoperative Handovers of Anesthesia Care on Mortality, Readmission, or Postoperative Complications Among Adults: The HandiCAP Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Intraoperative handovers of anesthesia care are common. Handovers might improve care by reducing physician fatigue, but there is also an inherent risk of losing critical information. Large observational analyses report associations between handover of anesthesia care and adverse events, including higher mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of handovers of anesthesia care on postoperative morbidity and mortality.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted in 12 German centers with patients enrolled between June 2019 and June 2021 (final follow-up, July 31, 2021). Eligible participants had an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 3 or 4 and were scheduled for major inpatient surgery expected to last at least 2 hours.

INTERVENTIONS

A total of 1817 participants were randomized to receive either a complete handover to receive anesthesia care by another clinician (n = 908) or no handover of anesthesia care (n = 909). None of the participating institutions used a standardized handover protocol.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was a 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, hospital readmission, or serious postoperative complications. There were 19 secondary outcomes, including the components of the primary composite, along with intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay.

RESULTS

Among 1817 randomized patients, 1772 (98%; mean age, 66 [SD, 12] years; 997 men [56%]; and 1717 [97%] with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 3) completed the trial. The median total duration of anesthesia was 267 minutes (IQR, 206-351 minutes), and the median time from start of anesthesia to first handover was 144 minutes in the handover group (IQR, 105-213 minutes). The composite primary outcome occurred in 268 of 891 patients (30%) in the handover group and in 284 of 881 (33%) in the no handover group (absolute risk difference [RD], -2.5%; 95% CI, -6.8% to 1.9%; odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.10; P = .27). Nineteen of 889 patients (2.1%) in the handover group and 30 of 873 (3.4%) in the no handover group experienced all-cause 30-day mortality (absolute RD, -1.3%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 0.2%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.10; P = .11); 115 of 888 (13%) vs 136 of 872 (16%) were readmitted to the hospital (absolute RD, -2.7%; 95% CI, -5.9% to 0.6%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05; P = .12); and 195 of 890 (22%) vs 189 of 874 (22%) experienced serious postoperative complications (absolute RD, 0.3%; 95% CI, -3.6% to 4.1%; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.28; P = .91). None of the 19 prespecified secondary end points differed significantly.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults undergoing extended surgical procedures, there was no significant difference between the patients randomized to receive handover of anesthesia care from one clinician to another, compared with the no handover group, in the composite primary outcome of mortality, readmission, or serious postoperative complications within 30 days.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04016454.