Jonker P, van den Heuvel S, Hoeks S, Heijkoop È, Stolker RJ, Korstanje JW. Alternatives to the in-person anaesthetist-led preoperative assessment in adults undergoing low-risk or intermediate-risk surgery: A scoping review.
Eur J Anaesthesiol 2023;
40:343-355. [PMID:
36876738 PMCID:
PMC10097490 DOI:
10.1097/eja.0000000000001815]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The design of the optimal preoperative evaluation is a much debated topic, with the anaesthetist-led in-person evaluation being most widely used. This approach is possibly leading to overuse of a valuable resource, especially in low-risk patients. Without compromising patient safety, we hypothesised that not all patients would require this type of elaborate evaluation.
OBJECTIVE
The current scoping review aims to critically appraise the range and nature of the existing literature investigating alternatives to the anaesthetist-led preoperative evaluation and their impact on outcomes, to inform future knowledge translation and ultimately improve perioperative clinical practice.
DESIGN
A scoping review of the available literature.
DATA SOURCES
Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. No date restriction was used.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies in patients scheduled for elective low-risk or intermediate-risk surgery, which compared anaesthetist-led in-person preoperative evaluation with non-anaesthetist-led preoperative evaluation or no outpatient evaluation. The focus was on outcomes, including surgical cancellation, perioperative complications, patient satisfaction and costs.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies with a total of 361 719 patients were included, reporting on various interventions: telephone evaluation, telemedicine evaluation, evaluation by questionnaire, surgeon-led evaluation, nurse-led evaluation, other types of evaluation and no evaluation up to the day of surgery. Most studies were conducted in the United States and were either pre/post or one group post-test-only studies, with only two randomised controlled trials. Studies differed largely in outcome measures and were of moderate quality overall.
CONCLUSIONS
A number of alternatives to the anaesthetists-led in-person preoperative evaluation have already been researched: that is telephone evaluation, telemedicine evaluation, evaluation by questionnaire and nurse-led evaluation. However, more high-quality research is needed to assess viability in terms of intraoperative or early postoperative complications, surgical cancellation, costs, and patient satisfaction in the form of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Patient-Reported Experience Measures.
Collapse