Patients’ Experiences of Intraoperative Care During Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Under Local Anesthesia

Influence of Anesthetic Techniques on Perioperative Outcomes after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to explore the influence of anesthetic techniques on perioperative outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a Chinese population.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed in patients after elective EVAR for infrarenal AAA at our single center. Patients were classified into general anesthesia (GA), regional anesthesia (RA), and local anesthesia (LA) groups. The primary outcomes (30-day mortality and morbidity) and secondary outcomes [procedure time, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and length of hospital stay (LOS)] were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

From January 2006 to December 2015, 486 consecutive patients underwent elective EVAR at our center. GA was used in 155 patients (31.9%), RA in 56 (11.5%), and LA in 275 (56.6%). The GA patients had fewer respiratory comorbidities, shorter and more angulated proximal necks, and more concomitant iliac aneurysms. LA during EVAR was significantly associated with a shorter procedure time (GA, P < 0.001; RA, P < 0.001) and shorter LOS (GA, P = 0.002; RA, P = 0.001), but a higher MAP (GA, P < 0.001; RA, P < 0.001) compared with GA and RA. LA was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiac (odds ratio (OR) 4.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-15.04), pulmonary (OR 5.37, 95% CI 1.58-18.23), and systemic complications (OR 4.15, 95% CI 1.85-9.33) compared with GA. RA was also associated with a decreased risk of systemic complications (OR 4.74, 95% CI 1.19-18.92) compared with GA. There was no difference in the 30-day mortality, neurologic complications, renal complications, and intraoperative extra procedures among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthetic techniques for EVAR have no influence on the 30-day mortality. LA for EVAR appears to be beneficial concerning the procedure time, LOS, and 30-day systemic complications for patients after elective EVAR for infrarenal AAA in the Chinese population.

Patient experience of preheated and room temperature skin disinfection prior to cardiac device implantation: A randomised controlled trial

Background:

Clinically, patients often comment on the coolness of the skin disinfectant. However, scarce evidence is available regarding patients’ experience during intraoperative skin disinfection.

Aims:

The aim of this study was to describe and compare intraoperative patient experiences with preheated and room temperature skin disinfectant.

Method:

This randomised controlled trial included 220 patients undergoing cardiac device implantation. Patients allocated to preheated (36°C) or room temperature (20°C) chlorhexidine in 70% ethanol verbally answered an open-ended question regarding their experience with the skin disinfection. Results were assessed using a qualitative approach with comparative quantification.

Results:

The analysis resulted in nine categories describing the patients’ experiences with preheated and room temperature skin disinfection. Most of the patients described the skin disinfection process as a negative experience, which consisted of six categories: cold, smell, change in temperature, unpleasant, wet and painful. In addition, two neutral categories of response (nothing in particular and neither pleasant nor unpleasant) and one positive response (pleasant) emerged through the analysis. Preheated skin disinfection yielded significantly fewer negative experiences in the category cold (85% vs. 15%, P<0.0001) and significantly more positive experiences (66% vs. 34%, P<0.002). Neutral categories (neither pleasant nor unpleasant 65% vs. 35%, P=0.01, nothing in particular 74% vs. 26%, P<0.001) dominated after preheated skin disinfection.

Conclusion:

The use of preheated skin disinfection promotes a positive patient experience with skin disinfection.

Trial registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02260479 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=preheated+skin+disinfection ).

Comfort Theory in Practice-Nurse Anesthetists' Comfort Measures and Interventions in a Preoperative Context

PURPOSE

The Comfort Theory proposes a systematic work approach to respond to patients' holistic needs. The usefulness of the Comfort Theory in the perioperative setting should be investigated. The aim of this study was to describe and analyze the nurse anesthetist's comfort measures in the preoperative context on the basis of the Comfort Theory DESIGN: Qualitative observational study METHODS: Semi-structured, clinical observation data collection in the preoperative context and deductive thematic analysis FINDINGS: The nurse anesthetist's comfort measures in the preoperative phase in the operating room department aim to ensure the patient's needs of relief, ease and transcendence in the physical, psycho-spiritual, environmental and socio-cultural contexts CONCLUSIONS: The application of the Comfort Theory to daily work in the preoperative phase is of value for the nurse anesthetist in becoming more aware of the individual holistic needs of the patient and in this way adapting and initiating comfort measures and interventions.

Translation, adaptation and psychometric validation of the Good Perioperative Nursing Care Scale (GPNCS) with surgical patients in perioperative care

AIM

To test the psychometric validity of the Good Perioperative Nursing Care Scale (GPNCS), a self-administered questionnaire, following translation and adaptation.

INTRODUCTION

Patients' satisfaction with and experience of nursing care in orthopaedic or perioperative settings are currently not routinely measured and few standardized patient-reported experience measurement tools exist for these settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cross-sectional survey. The 34-question, seven-factor questionnaire was translated, adapted, and face-validated; the translated version was then validated with a group of surgical patients in perioperative settings. The internal consistency of the translated version was validated and tested using confirmatory factor analysis combined with Cronbach's alpha.

RESULTS

In the orthopaedic department of a regional public hospital, 361 acute, traumatic and elective surgical patients were screened for eligibility; 215 were included. The full-scale model fit estimates were moderate. Factor loadings typically ranged from 0.65 to 0.97, except for the questions concerning Technical Skills (0.38-0.63) and Nursing Process (0.28). The Cronbach's alpha value for the total scale score was 0.92, with subfactors ranging from 0.72 to 0.87.

CONCLUSION

Providing evidence for quality, or lack thereof, the Danish version of the GPNCS is a valid tool for measuring surgical patients' experiences with perioperative nursing care. The electronic version proved practical.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The validated Danish version of the tool will help healthcare professionals to identify areas of nursing care that need improvement, facilitate international benchmarking of units and enable comparison of care quality, nationally and internationally.

Positive impact on heat loss and patient experience of preheated skin disinfection: a randomised controlled trial

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of preheated (36 °C) and room-temperature (20 °C) skin disinfectant solution on skin temperature and patients' experience of the skin disinfection process.

BACKGROUND

To prevent surgical site infections, it is important to disinfect skin prior to invasive surgery. In clinical practice, conscious patients often comment on the coldness of the preoperative skin disinfection solution. Evidence is lacking, as to whether preheated skin disinfectant has any positive effects during preoperative skin disinfection.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

A total of 220 patients undergoing pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, or cardiac resynchronisation therapy under local anaesthesia were included and randomly allocated to preheated or room-temperature skin disinfection. Skin temperature was assessed before and after skin disinfection at the planned incision site; in addition, three study-specific questions were used to assess how patients experienced the temperature.

RESULTS

Patients experienced the skin disinfection process with preheated disinfectant as significantly more pleasant. They felt less cold and reported increased satisfaction with the temperature of the solution compared to patients who were disinfected with room-temperature solution. Skin disinfection with preheated solution also yielded a significantly higher mean skin temperature compared to room-temperature solution.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative skin disinfection with preheated disinfectant may prevent heat loss and contributes to a more pleasant experience for patients.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Skin disinfection with preheated skin disinfectant is an easy and inexpensive nursing intervention that has a positive impact on heat loss and on patients' experience of the disinfection process.