[Cost analysis and potential savings related to the use of preoperative tests in the hospitals of the Canary Islands [Spain]]

The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs).

METHODS

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase, and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists, and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence, and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last 5 years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain "applicability" obtained the worst score 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. "Guidelines' applicability" and "monitoring" were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines' quality.

"Do not do" recommendations of the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Therapy. "Commitment to Quality by Scientific Societies" Project

In April 2013 the Ministry of Health (MSSSI) adopted the project called "Commitment to Quality by Scientific Societies in Spain", in response to social and professional demands for sustainability of the health system. The initiative is part of the activities of the Spanish Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and Services of the National Health System, and is coordinated jointly by the Quality and Cohesion Department, the Aragon Institute of Health Sciences (IACS), and the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI). All the scientific societies in Spain have been included in this project, and its main objective is to reduce the unnecessary use of health interventions in order to agree "do not do" recommendations, based on scientific evidence. The primary objective was to identify interventions that have not proven effective, have limited or doubtful effectiveness, are not cost-effective, or do not have priority. Secondary objectives were: reducing variability in clinical practice, to spread information between doctors and patients to guide decision-making, the appropriate use of health resources and, the promotion of clinical safety and reducing iatrogenesis. The selection process of the 5 "do not do" recommendations was made by Delphi methodology. A total of 25 panellists (all anaesthesiologists) chose between 15 proposals based on: evidence that supports quality, relevance, or clinical impact, and the people they affect. The 5 recommendations proposed were: Do not maintain deep levels of sedation in critically ill patients without a specific indication; Do not perform preoperative chest radiography in patients under 40 years-old with ASA physical status I or II; Do not systematically perform preoperative tests in cataract surgery unless otherwise indicated based on clinical history and physical examination; Do not perform elective surgery in patients with anaemia at risk of bleeding until a diagnostic workup is performed and treatment is given; and not perform laboratory tests (blood count, biochemistry and coagulation) prior to surgery in healthy or low risk patients (ASA I and II) with minimal estimated blood loss.

Guidelines for preoperative assessment: impact on clinical practice and costs

OBJECTIVE

To describe preoperative evaluation in the San Giovanni Battista Hospital in Turin and to forecast the economic impact when preoperative assessment guidelines are implemented.

DESIGN

We enrolled, in a month, 702 consecutive patients, excluding cardiac, thoracic, neuro- and vascular surgery, as well as emergency operations. Preoperative assessment data were collected individually, followed by simulating various applications of guidelines based on: (i) preoperative tests relying on full medical history and physical examination to discriminate preoperative risk patients; (ii) organization of a preoperative evaluation unit and tests before patient hospitalization.

MAIN MEASURES

Mean number of tests prescribed, preoperative assessment cost per patient.

RESULTS

The application of preoperative guidelines would decrease the mean number of tests prescribed from 20 laboratory and 1.9 instrumental to, respectively, 3 and 1.4 per patient. Tests deemed inappropriate by guidelines did not add any relevant clinical information to our study. Economic analysis estimates a reduction of 63% in cost per patient for preoperative tests by introducing guideline criteria (from 69 euros to 26 euros). As regards the cost per patient for preoperative evaluation and hospital stay (115 euros considering only variable costs, 580 euros including all costs), the application of the guidelines would reduce costs by 41-52% according to different cost evaluation approaches for hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative guidelines fully introduced in practice could notably increase efficiency without affecting the quality of care.

Preoperative assessment

Although anaesthetic and surgical procedures should be individualised for every patient, in practice many preoperative protocols and routines are used generally. In this article, we aim to emphasise: why preoperative assessment is important; how it should be done, and by whom; what can be expected; and the importance of test selection based on patients' needs and on scientific evidence of effectiveness. We outline the roles of preoperative medical assessment in otherwise healthy patients. Clinical history, preoperative questionnaires, physical examination, routine tests, individual risk-assessment, and fasting policies are investigated by review of published work. Cost of routine preoperative assessment, the anaesthetist's legal responsibility, and patients'views in the preoperative process are also considered. A thorough clinical preoperative assessment of the patient is more important than routine preoperative tests, which should be requested only when justified by clinical indications. Moreover, this practice eliminates unnecessary cost without compromising the safety and quality of care. Education and training of medical doctors should be more scientifically guided, emphasising the relevance of effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness in clinical decision-making and complemented by audit.