Preoperative screening and risk assessment in the ambulatory surgery patient

Inpatient Versus Outpatient Surgery: A Comparison of Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity in Elective Operations

BACKGROUND

Operations performed outpatient offer several benefits. The prevalence of outpatient operations is growing. Consequently, the proportion of patients with multiple comorbidities undergoing outpatient surgery is increasing. We compared 30-day mortality and overall morbidity between outpatient and inpatient elective operations.

METHODS

Using the 2005-2018 ACS-NSQIP database, we evaluated trends in percent of hospital outpatient operations performed over time, and the percent of operations done outpatient versus inpatient by CPT code. Patient characteristics were compared for outpatient versus inpatient operations. We compared unadjusted and risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and morbidity for inpatient and outpatient operations.

RESULTS

A total of 6,494,298 patients were included. The proportion of outpatient operations increased over time, from 37.8% in 2005 to 48.2% in 2018. We analyzed the 50 most frequent operations performed outpatient versus inpatient 25-75% of the time (n = 1,743,097). Patients having outpatient operations were younger (51.6 vs 54.6 years), female (70.3% vs 67.3%), had fewer comorbidities, and lower ASA class (I-II, 69.3% vs. 59.9%). On both unadjusted and risk-adjusted analysis, 30-day mortality and overall morbidity were less likely in outpatient versus inpatient operations.

CONCLUSION

In this large multi-specialty analysis, we found that patients undergoing outpatient surgery had lower risk of 30-day morbidity and mortality than those undergoing the same inpatient operation. Patients having outpatient surgery were generally healthier, suggesting careful patient selection occurred even with increasing outpatient operation frequency. Patients and providers can feel reassured that outpatient operations are a safe, reasonable option for selected patients.

The Collective Influence of Social Determinants of Health on Individuals Who Underwent Lumbar Spine Revision Surgeries: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the collective effect of social determinants of health (SDH) on lumbar spine revision surgery outcomes using a retrospective cohort study design.

METHODS

Data from the Quality Outcomes Database were used, including 7889 adults who received lumbar spine revision surgery and completed 3 and 12 months' follow-up. The SDH of interest included race/ethnicity, educational attainment, employment status, insurance payer, and sex. A stepwise regression model using each number of SDH conditions present (0 of 5, 1 of 5, 2 of 5, ≥3 of 5) was used to assess the collective influence of SDH. The odds of demonstrating a minimum clinically important difference was evaluated in back and leg, disability, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at 3-months and 12-months follow-up.

RESULTS

An additive effect for SDH was found across all outcome variables at 3 and 12 months. Individuals with ≥3 SDH were at the lowest odds of meeting the minimum clinically important difference of each outcome. At 12 months, individuals with ≥3 SDH had a 67%, 65%, 71%, 65%, and 46% decrease in the odds of a clinically meaningful outcome in back and leg pain, disability, quality of life, and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care teams should evaluate SDH in individuals who may be considered for lumbar spine revision surgery. Viewing social factors in aggregate may be useful as a screening tool for lumbar spine revision surgeries to identify at risk patients who may require pre-emptive care strategies and postoperative resources to mitigate these risks.

A Cohort Study of the Surgical Risks and Prediction of Complications in Surgical Tracheostomies

BACKGROUND

Current protocols favor percutaneous tracheostomies over open procedures. We analyzed the effects of this conversion from the open approach to the percutaneous procedure in terms of relevant clinical status, complications, and mortality in surgical open tracheostomies. Relevant laboratory and clinical parameters, potentially associated with complications, were also examined.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of clinical, laboratory data and outcome of surgical tracheostomy during the two eras. Investigate potential pertinent predictive parameters associated with complications.

METHODS

A single center retrospective case series of consecutive patients who underwent surgical tracheostomy between the years 2006-2009 ("early era") and 2016-2020 ("late era").

RESULTS

The study included 304 patients, 160 in the "early" and 144 in the "late" era. Despite a 78% increase in patient volume in the intensive care units, there was a 55% decrease in surgical tracheostomy during the "late era". Significantly more patients with structural deformities (p < 0.001), insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004), extreme (high and low) body weight (p = 0.006), anemia (p < 0.001) and coagulation disorders (p < 0.001), were referred for an open tracheostomy during the "late era". The complication rate was significantly higher during the "late era" (11.7 vs. 2.5%, OR 6.09 CI 95% [1.91-19.39], p = 0.001). Diabetes mellitus (p = 0.005), anemia (p = 0.033), malnutrition (p = 0.017), thrombocytopenia (p = 0.002) and poor renal function, (p = 0.008), were all significantly associated with higher complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk assessment and training programs must reflect the decrease in surgical volume of open tracheostomies and consequently reduced experience. The increase of a patient subset characterized by pertinent comorbidities should reflect this change.

Reliability of patient-reported comorbidities: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Self-reported questionnaires have become a widely adopted method of reviewing patients in clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to determine the reliability of patient-reported comorbidities and to identify which patient factors influence the reliability. Included studies assessed the reliability of at least one patient-reported comorbidity against their medical record or clinical assessment as gold standard. Twenty-four eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Only endocrine diseases (Cohen's Kappa Coefficient (CKC) 0.81 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.85)), consisting of diabetes mellitus (CKC 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.86)) and thyroid disease (CKC 0.68 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.86)), showed good-to-excellent reliability. Factors most frequently reported to influence concordance included age, sex and educational level.This systematic review demonstrated poor-to-moderate reliability for most systems, except for endocrine which showed good-to-excellent reliability. Although patient self-reporting can be a useful guide to clinical management, several patient factors were demonstrated to affect reliability therefore it should be avoided as a standalone measure.

Identifying Risks and Opportunities in Outpatient Surgical Patient Safety: A Qualitative Analysis of Veterans Health Administration Staff Perceptions

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about patient safety risks in outpatient surgery. Inpatient surgical adverse events (AEs) risk factors include patient- (e.g., advanced age), process- (e.g., inadequate preoperative assessment), or structure-related characteristics (e.g., low surgical volume); however, these factors may differ from outpatient care where surgeries are often elective and in younger/healthier patients. We undertook an exploratory qualitative research project to identify risk factors for AEs in outpatient surgery.

METHODS

We developed a conceptual framework of patient, process, and structure factors associated with surgical AEs on the basis of a literature review. This framework informed our semistructured interview guide with (1) open-ended questions about a specific outpatient AE that the participant experienced and (2) outpatient surgical patient safety risk factors in general. We interviewed nationwide Veterans Health Administration surgical staff. Results were coded on the basis of categories in the conceptual framework, and additional themes were identified using content analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen providers representing diverse surgical roles participated. Ten reported witnessing an AE, and everyone provided input on risk factors in our conceptual framework. We did not find evidence that patient race/age, surgical technique, or surgical volume affected patient safety. Emerging factors included patient compliance, postoperative patient assessments/instruction, operating room equipment needs, and safety culture.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical staff are familiar with AEs and patient safety problems in outpatient surgery. Our results show that processes of care undertaken by surgical providers, as opposed to immutable patient characteristics, may affect the occurrence of AEs. The factors we identified may facilitate more targeted research on outpatient surgical AEs.

The preoperative risk tool SURPAS accurately predicts outcomes in emergency surgery

BACKGROUND

The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) uses eight variables to accurately predict postoperative complications but has not been sufficiently studied in emergency surgery. We evaluated SURPAS in emergency surgery, comparing it to the Emergency Surgery Score (ESS).

METHODS

SURPAS and ESS estimates of 30-day mortality and overall morbidity were calculated for emergency operations in the 2009-2018 ACS-NSQIP database and compared using observed-to-expected plots and rates, c-indices, and Brier scores. Cases with incomplete data were excluded.

RESULTS

In 205,318 emergency patients, SURPAS underestimated (8.1%; 35.9%) while ESS overestimated (10.1%; 43.8%) observed mortality and morbidity (8.9%; 38.8%). Each showed good calibration on observed-to-expected plots. SURPAS had better c-indices (0.855 vs 0.848 mortality; 0.802 vs 0.755 morbidity), while the Brier score was better for ESS for mortality (0.0666 vs. 0.0684) and for SURPAS for morbidity (0.1772 vs. 0.1950).

CONCLUSIONS

SURPAS accurately predicted mortality and morbidity in emergency surgery using eight predictor variables.

Effect of PreAnaesThesia Computerized Health (PATCH) Assessment on Duration of Nurse-Patient Consultation and Patient Experience: A Pilot Trial

Preanaesthesia health assessment is gradually transitioning from paper-based, face-to-face assessment to digitized assessment, self-administered by the patient. This transition could potentially optimize the various goals of assessment, notably facilitating the efficient collection of the patient's health information. We have previously developed and validated a tablet application (PreAnaesThesia Computerized Health assessment application or "PATCH") for patients to conduct preanaesthesia self-assessment. In a randomized controlled trial, we sought to compare the duration of nurse-patient consultation and patient satisfaction between patients who underwent PATCH self-assessment vs. standard care nurse-led assessment. Fifty-two elective surgical patients were randomized to complete either PATCH assessment or standard care nurse-led assessment at an outpatient preoperative clinic. The duration of nurse-patient consultation was subsequently noted for all patients who also completed a satisfaction survey. The mean (SD) nurse-patient consultation times in the PATCH and standard care groups were comparable, at 11.5 (3.6) min and 12.2 (2.9) min, respectively (p = 0.703). Overall satisfaction scores were also comparable, at 23.9 and 27.0 respectively (p = 0.451) for the PATCH and standard nurse assessment groups. Favorable perceptions of PATCH among users ranged between 41.7% and 79.2%. In conclusion, PATCH self-assessment can feasibly be introduced into current practice with comparable nurse-patient consultation times and patient satisfaction.

Measuring and Improving the Quality of Preprocedural Assessments

BACKGROUND

Preprocedural assessments are used by anesthesia providers to optimize perioperative care for patients undergoing invasive procedures. When these assessments are performed in advance by providers who are not caring for the patient during the procedure, there is an additional layer of complexity in ensuring that the workup meets the needs of the primary anesthesia care team. In this study, anesthesia providers were asked to rate the quality of preprocedural assessments prepared by other providers to evaluate anesthesia care team satisfaction.

METHODS

Quality ratings for preprocedural assessments were collected from anesthesia providers on the day of surgery using an electronic quality assurance tool from January 9, 2014 to October 21, 2014. Users could rate assessments as "exemplary," "satisfactory," or "unsatisfactory." Free text comments could be entered for any of the quality ratings chosen. A reviewer trained in clinical anesthesia categorized all comments as "positive," "constructive," or "neutral" and conducted in-depth chart reviews triggered by 67 "constructive" comments submitted during the first 3 months of data collection to further subcategorize perceived deficiencies in the preprocedural assessments. In May 2014, providers were asked to participate in a midpoint survey and provide general feedback about the preprocedural process and evaluations.

RESULTS

37,611 procedures requiring anesthesia were analyzed. Of the 17,522 (46.6%) cases with a rated preprocedural assessment, anesthesia providers rated 3828 (21.8%) as "exemplary," 13,454 (76.8%) as "satisfactory," and 240 (1.4%) as "unsatisfactory." The monthly proportion of "unsatisfactory" ratings ranged from 3.1% to 0% over the study period, whereas the midpoint survey showed that anesthesia providers estimated that the number of unsatisfactory evaluations was 11.5%. Preprocedural evaluations performed on inpatients received significantly better ratings than evaluations performed on outpatients by the preadmission testing clinic or phone program (P < .0001). The most common reason given for "unsatisfactory" ratings was a perception of "missing information" (49.2%). Chart reviews revealed that inadequate documentation was in reality the most common deficiency in preprocedural evaluations (35 of 67 reviews, 52.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The overwhelming majority of preprocedural assessments performed at our institution were considered satisfactory or exemplary by day-of-surgery anesthesia providers. This was demonstrated by both the case-by-case ratings and midpoint survey. However, the perceived frequency of "unsatisfactory" evaluations was worse when providers were asked to reflect on the quality of preprocedural evaluations generally versus rate them individually. Analysis of comments left by providers allowed us to identify specific and actionable areas for improvement. This method can be used by other institutions to identify systemic deficiencies in the preprocedural evaluation process.

Patient Selection for Day Case-eligible Surgery

Background:

Due to economic pressures and improvements in perioperative care, outpatient surgical procedures have become commonplace. However, risk factors for outpatient surgical morbidity and mortality remain unclear. There are no multicenter clinical data guiding patient selection for outpatient surgery. The authors hypothesize that specific risk factors increase the likelihood of day case-eligible surgical morbidity or mortality.

Methods:

The authors analyzed adults undergoing common day case-eligible surgical procedures by using the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2010. Common day case-eligible surgical procedures were identified as the most common outpatient surgical Current Procedural Terminology codes provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Medicare publications. Study variables included anthropometric data and relevant medical comorbidities. The primary outcome was morbidity or mortality within 72 h. Intraoperative complications included adverse cardiovascular events; postoperative complications included surgical, anesthetic, and medical adverse events.

Results:

Of 244,397 surgeries studied, 232 (0.1%) experienced early perioperative morbidity or mortality. Seven independent risk factors were identified while controlling for surgical complexity: overweight body mass index, obese body mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of transient ischemic attack/stroke, hypertension, previous cardiac surgical intervention, and prolonged operative time.

Conclusions:

The demonstrated low rate of perioperative morbidity and mortality confirms the safety of current day case-eligible surgeries. The authors obtained the first prospectively collected data identifying risk factors for morbidity and mortality with day case-eligible surgery. The results of the study provide new data to advance patient-selection processes for outpatient surgery.

Validity of patient-reported comorbidities before total knee and hip arthroplasty in patients older than 65 years

Obtaining preoperative medical histories in elderly patients can be challenging, and tools have been developed to aid in history gathering. The purpose of this study is to determine the agreement between patient- and physician-reported histories before total knee or hip arthroplasty. Three hundred eighty-two patients older than 65 years completed a preoperative morbidity assessment form preoperatively. Sensitivity, specificity, κ, and agreement were calculated for each dichotomous response. Diabetes (κ = 0.77) and lung disease (κ = 0.68) had substantial agreement. Fourteen comorbidities ranged from slight to moderate agreement. Osteoarthritis and peripheral vascular disease had no agreement. These results highlight the incongruence between patient- and physician-reported comorbidities and emphasizes the need for detailed histories by health care professionals for medically complicated elderly patients preoperatively.

Anesthesia protocol for heel pressure ulcer debridement

Heel ulcers are clinically challenging. Limited subcutaneous tissue covering the calcaneus bone makes the heel vulnerable to pressure injury. Adequate debridement of fibrotic, infected, and necrotic tissue is essential for healing. The authors report a standardized anesthesia protocol using regional anesthesia with sedation rather than general anesthesia for heel debridement.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anaesthesiologists is an upcoming sedation regimen in several countries throughout Europe. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nevertheless, this issue remains highly controversial. The aim of this evidence- and consensus-based set of guideline is to provide non-anaesthesiologists with a comprehensive framework for propofol sedation during digestive endoscopy. This guideline results from a collaborative effort from representatives of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). These three societies have endorsed the present guideline.The guideline is published simultaneously in the Journals Endoscopy and European Journal of Anaesthesiology.

The need for preoperative psychological risk assessment

Adverse psychological outcomes are more prevalent among patients undergoing elective, appearance-altering surgery than are physical complications. Patients may experience depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or an exacerbation of preexisting symptoms related to body dysmorphic disorder. Some have directed anger against themselves or against the operating surgeon with suicide, litigation, harassment, and homicide, all well documented. Although there are well-established protocols to conduct medical and anesthetic risk stratification, such protocols do not exist for psychological risk assessment (PRA). The literature related to this is reviewed, the need for PRA is discussed, and an approach to PRA for dentists and surgeons is proposed.