Impact of a nurse practitioner-assisted preoperative assessment program on quality

Identification of Preanesthetic History Elements by a Natural Language Processing Engine

BACKGROUND

Methods that can automate, support, and streamline the preanesthesia evaluation process may improve resource utilization and efficiency. Natural language processing (NLP) involves the extraction of relevant information from unstructured text data. We describe the utilization of a clinical NLP pipeline intended to identify elements relevant to preoperative medical history by analyzing clinical notes. We hypothesize that the NLP pipeline would identify a significant portion of pertinent history captured by a perioperative provider.

METHODS

For each patient, we collected all pertinent notes from the institution's electronic medical record that were available no later than 1 day before their preoperative anesthesia clinic appointment. Pertinent notes included free-text notes consisting of history and physical, consultation, outpatient, inpatient progress, and previous preanesthetic evaluation notes. The free-text notes were processed by a Named Entity Recognition pipeline, an NLP machine learning model trained to recognize and label spans of text that corresponded to medical concepts. These medical concepts were then mapped to a list of medical conditions that were of interest for a preanesthesia evaluation. For each condition, we calculated the percentage of time across all patients in which (1) the NLP pipeline and the anesthesiologist both captured the condition; (2) the NLP pipeline captured the condition but the anesthesiologist did not; and (3) the NLP pipeline did not capture the condition but the anesthesiologist did.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients were included in the NLP pipeline input. Free-text notes were extracted from the electronic medical record of these patients for a total of 9765 notes. The NLP pipeline and anesthesiologist agreed in 81.24% of instances on the presence or absence of a specific condition. The NLP pipeline identified information that was not noted by the anesthesiologist in 16.57% of instances and did not identify a condition that was noted by the anesthesiologist's review in 2.19% of instances.

CONCLUSIONS

In this proof-of-concept study, we demonstrated that utilization of NLP produced an output that identified medical conditions relevant to preanesthetic evaluation from unstructured free-text input. Automation of risk stratification tools may provide clinical decision support or recommend additional preoperative testing or evaluation. Future studies are needed to integrate these tools into clinical workflows and validate its efficacy.

Parent Satisfaction With Pediatric Nurse Practitioner Care in Specialty Services

INTRODUCTION

This study examined parent satisfaction with care provided to their children by Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (PNPs) in specialty areas at a tertiary care pediatric hospital.

METHOD

A convenience sample of parents of children cared for by 19 PNPs in different specialty settings completed a confidential survey consisting of demographic information and the Parents' Perception of Satisfaction with Care from the Pediatric Nurse Practitioners Instrument (PPSC-PNP). Data were analyzed using SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY).

RESULTS

The overall PPSC-PNP mean score was 129.82/140. Mean subscale scores ranged from 27.15 to 28.51/30. The general satisfaction score showed a mean score of 18.31/20. No statistical difference was found in parental satisfaction when scores were analyzed by the child's age, parent participant, or patient setting.

DISCUSSION

These findings indicate that parents are highly satisfied with the care their children receive from PNPs across various subspecialties regardless of the child's age and clinical setting.

Factors impacting parental and child satisfaction in the perioperative setting

Understanding the different modifiable and non-modifiable factors and their positive or negative influence on parental and child satisfaction is essential to providing high-quality perioperative care. The purpose of this review is to focus on the perioperative environment and to report the various modifiable and non-modifiable factors that are associated with satisfaction. We found that factors such as quality of clinician-patient communication, clinician attitudes, teamwork, shared decision-making, and improved perioperative information were associated with increased parent and child satisfaction. Interventions such as preparation programs integrating role-play, teaching of coping skills, and family-centered programs were highly rated by parents and children. Healthcare providers and institutions should consider the above variables when treating children and their parents in the perioperative setting.

Pediatric obesity and perioperative medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Childhood obesity is a public health emergency that has reached a pandemic level and imposed a massive economic burden on healthcare systems. Our objective was to provide an update on (1) challenges of obesity definition and classification in the perioperative setting, (2) challenges of perioperative patient positioning and vascular access, (3) perioperative implications of childhood obesity, (3) anesthetic medication dosing and opioid-sparing techniques in obese children, and (4) research gaps in perioperative childhood obesity research including a call to action.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the near axiomatic observation that obesity is a pervasive clinical problem with considerable impact on perioperative health, there have only been a handful of research into the many ramifications of childhood obesity in the perioperative setting. A nuanced understanding of the surgical and anesthetic risks associated with obesity is essential to inform patients' perioperative consultation and their parents' counseling, improve preoperative risk mitigation, and improve patients' rescue process when complications occur.

SUMMARY

Anesthesiologists and surgeons will continue to be confronted with an unprecedented number of obese or overweight children with a high risk of perioperative complications.

Mechanisms of decision-making in preoperative assessment for older adult prostate cancer patients-A qualitative study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Little research exists which investigates the contextual factors and hidden influences that inform surgeons and surgical teams decision-making in preoperative assessment when deciding whether to or not to operate on older adult prostate cancer patients living with aging-associated functional declines and illnesses. The aim of this study is to identify and examine the underlying mechanisms that uniquely shape preoperative surgical decision-making strategies concerning older adult prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

Qualitative methodologies were used that paired ethnographic field observations with semistructured interviews for data collection. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to identify, analyze, and describe patterns in the data.

RESULTS

Factors underlining surgical decision-making originated from the context of two categories: (1) clinical and surgery-specific factors; and (2) non-patient factors. Thematic subcategories included personal experiences, methods of assessment during medical encounters, anticipation of outcomes, perceptions of preoperative assessment instruments for frailty and multimorbidity, routines and workflow patterns, microcultures, and indirect observation and second-hand knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Surgeon's personal experiences has a significant impact on the decision-making processes during preoperative assessments. However, non-patient factors such as institutional microcultures passively and actively influence decision-making process during preoperative assessment.

Designing and Running a Preoperative Clinic

Value in health care has been described as quality divided by cost, where quality is the sum of patient outcomes and experience. A well-run preoperative evaluation clinic (PEC) offers many opportunities to improve the value of the care delivered to patients by reducing the associated costs and improving the quality of care. Certain patient education and medical optimization strategies initiated in the PEC clinic are linked to an improvement in patients' long-term health outcomes. When designing a PEC, it is important to address the PEC's mission and scope with all stakeholders early in the process.

Absence of Association between Preoperative Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rates and Postoperative Outcomes following Elective Gastrointestinal Surgeries: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Preoperative risk stratification and optimising care of patients undergoing elective surgery are important to reduce the risk of postoperative outcomes. Renal dysfunction is becoming increasingly prevalent, but its impact on patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery is unknown although much evidence is available for cardiac surgery. This study aimed to investigate the impact of preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgeries.

Methods

This prospective study included consecutive adult patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgeries attending preassessment screening (PAS) clinics at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEHB) between July and August 2016. Primary outcome measure was 30-day overall complication rates and secondary outcomes were grade of complications, 30-day readmission rates, and postoperative care setting.

Results

This study included 370 patients, of which 11% (41/370) had eGFR of <60 ml/min/1.73 m². Patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m² were more likely to have ASA grade 3/4 (p < 0.001) and >2 comorbidities (p < 0.001). Overall complication rates were 15% (54/370), with no significant difference in overall (p=0.644) and major complication rates (p=0.831) between both groups. In adjusted models, only surgery grade was predictive of overall complications. Preoperative eGFR did not impact on overall complications (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.45–1.54; p=0.2).

Conclusions

Preoperative eGFR does not appear to impact on postoperative complications in patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgeries, even when stratified by surgery grade. These findings will help preassessment clinics in risk stratification and optimisation of perioperative care of patients.

Preoperative Assessment of Patients Undergoing Elective Gastrointestinal Surgery: Does Body Mass Index Matter?

BACKGROUND

At Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEHB), no specific protocol to stratify patients by body mass index (BMI) exists. This study sought to evaluate outcomes following gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery attending preassessment screening clinic (PAS) from August to September 2016 at the QEHB were identified. Primary outcome was postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes were major complications and 30-day readmission rates.

RESULTS

Of 368 patients preassessed, 31% (116/368) were overweight and 35% (130/368) were obese. Median age was 57 (range: 17-93). There was no difference of BMI between the low risk and high risk clinics. Patients in high risk clinic had significantly higher rates of comorbidities, major surgical grades, and malignancy as the indication for surgery. Overall complication rates were 14% (52/368), with 3% (10/368) having major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grades III-IV). Whilst BMI was associated with comorbidity (p = 0.03) and ASA grade (p < 0.001), it was not associated with worse outcomes. Patients attending high risk clinic had significantly higher rates of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery grade was found to be an independent risk factor of complication rates. Use of BMI as an independent factor for preassessment level is not justified from our cohort.

Preoperative Clinics

Preoperative evaluation clinics have been shown to enhance operating room efficiency, decrease day-of-surgery cancellations, reduce hospital costs, and improve the quality of patient care. Although programs differ in staffing, structure, financial support, and daily operations, they share the common goal of preoperative risk reduction in order for patients to proceed safely through the perioperative period. Effective preoperative evaluation occurs if processes are standardized to ensure clinical, regulatory, and accreditation guidelines are met while keeping medical optimization and patient satisfaction at the forefront. Although no universally accepted standard model exists, there are key components to a successful preoperative process.

Development of a nurse-assisted preanesthesia evaluation program for pediatric outpatient anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Historically, anesthesiologists have conducted preanesthesia evaluation, but more recently, nurse practitioners (NPs) are increasingly assisting with the preanesthesia evaluation of children. In the current economic environment for healthcare, strategies to provide superior outcomes and exceptional patient experience at the lowest possible cost are constantly being explored. We examined whether well trained nurses, working alongside NPs, could safely and effectively assist in preanesthesia evaluation. The aim of this quality improvement project was to implement a new model for preanesthesia evaluation for healthy outpatient pediatric patients: nurse-assisted preanesthesia evaluation (NAPE).

METHODS

Using quality improvement methods, Key Driver Diagrams and SMART aims gave direction for the training and clinical implementation of this new process. Using small tests of change and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, we developed a training process and a stepwise process to integrate them into the clinical work flow. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of the total preanesthesia evaluations in which the Anesthesia Nurses assisted. To ensure quality and safety, data on balancing measures and quality metrics were collected.

RESULTS

The weekly percentage of outpatients evaluated by Anesthesia Nurses increased from 0% to 55% within the first 4 months and was then sustained. The remaining patients were evaluated by the Anesthesia NPs. The balancing measures did not show any significant negative effect. Our perioperative quality metrics were also not changed significantly.

CONCLUSION

Using quality improvement methods, we successfully improved the utilization of staff resources by adding an Anesthesia Nurse-assisted preanesthesia evaluation program alongside our NPs to provide outstanding preanesthesia care at the lowest possible cost.

Advanced practice nursing in child maltreatment: practice characteristics

INTRODUCTION

Child maltreatment is a problem of epidemic proportions in the United States. Pediatric nurse practitioners and other advanced practice nurses (APNs) have been caring for maltreated children for decades, yet to date no comprehensive assessment of their practice characteristics or their clinical and academic contributions to the field has been performed. The purpose of this study is to describe the practice characteristics of APNs who care for maltreated children.

METHOD

A descriptive design was used for this study. Child advocacy centers and children's hospitals were contacted to inquire about employment of child maltreatment APNs in their institution, and contact information for the lead APN was obtained. The Nurse Practitioner Survey was then sent to lead APNs by e-mail.

RESULTS

The majority of APNs who work primarily in child maltreatment are pediatric nurse practitioners who work in child advocacy centers. They are providing care to children with physical and/or sexual abuse concerns; however, APNs provide care for children with all types of child maltreatment concerns.

DISCUSSION

APNs play a vital role in the care of abused/neglected children. Their important contributions include not only clinical care but also the provision of clinical and didactic education to other professionals, parents, and the public. Research and publication are also essential to their role.

Patient Satisfaction in Pediatric Surgical Care

Objective

This study seeks to synthesize evidence-based findings related to patient satisfaction as a process measure in pediatric surgical care.

Data Sources

PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

Review Methods

We queried 4 standard search engines (1992-2013) for studies specific to pediatric surgical fields in which patient or parent satisfaction or experience of care was a primary outcome measure. Data were systematically analyzed to determine study characteristics, setting, parent or patient focus, measure of experience, and bias. Two independent investigators independently reviewed all articles.

Results

The initial search yielded 4748 publications (1503 duplicates), of which 170 underwent full-text review. Thirty-five were included for analysis; the majority (24/35,77%) were published in the last 5 years. Studies examined experience of the child (3/35), parent (23/35), or both (9/35). Experience and satisfaction were evaluated either by validated self-assessment instruments (8), by satisfaction tools (8), or by nonstandard institutional or author-developed tools (19). Experience was measured in the outpatient (7), preoperative (11), operative (14), and postoperative (3) care settings. Specific findings were unique to setting; however, in many studies higher satisfaction correlated with education/information giving, health care provider interpersonal behaviors, and facile/efficient care processes.

Conclusion

The patient experience of care is a valuable quality measure that is being more frequently evaluated as a mechanism to improve pediatric surgical care processes. Findings related to patient satisfaction and experience of care may be limited due to lack of measurement using validated tools. Findings from this review may bear significance as patient experience measures become routinely integrated with quality and reimbursement.

Nurse-led versus doctor-led preoperative assessment for elective surgical patients requiring regional or general anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

The organization of elective surgical services has changed in recent years, with increasing use of day surgery, reduced hospital stay and preoperative assessment (POA) performed in an outpatient clinic rather than by a doctor in a hospital ward after admission. Nurse specialists often lead these clinic-based POA services and have responsibility for assessing a patient's fitness for anaesthesia and surgery and organizing any necessary investigations or referrals. These changes offer many potential benefits for patients, but it is important to demonstrate that standards of patient care are maintained as nurses take on these responsibilities.

OBJECTIVES

We wished to examine whether a nurse-led service rather than a doctor-led service affects the quality and outcome of preoperative assessment (POA) for elective surgical participants of all ages requiring regional or general anaesthesia. We considered the evidence that POA led by nurses is equivalent to that led by doctors for the following outcomes: cancellation of the operation for clinical reasons; cancellation of the operation by the participant; participant satisfaction with the POA; gain in participant knowledge or information; perioperative complications within 28 days of surgery, including mortality; and costs of POA. We planned to investigate whether there are differences in quality and outcome depending on the age of the participant, the training of staff or the type of surgery or anaesthesia provided.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and two trial registers on 13 February 2013, and performed reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of participants (adults or children) scheduled for elective surgery requiring general, spinal or epidural anaesthesia that compared POA, including assessment of physical status and anaesthetic risk, undertaken or led by nursing staff with that undertaken or led by doctors. This assessment could have taken place in any setting, such as on a ward or in a clinic. We included studies in which the comparison assessment had taken place in a different setting. Because of the variation in service provision, we included two separate comparison groups: specialist doctors, such as anaesthetists; and non-specialist doctors, such as interns.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological approaches as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration, including independent review of titles, data extraction and risk of bias assessment by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two eligible studies, both comparing nurse-led POA with POA led by non-specialist doctors, with a total of 2469 participants. One study was randomized and the other quasi-randomized. Blinding of staff and participants to allocation was not possible. In both studies, all participants were additionally assessed by a specialist doctor (anaesthetist in training), who acted as the reference standard. In neither study did participants proceed from assessment by nurse or junior doctor to surgery. Neither study reported on cancellations of surgery, gain in participant information or knowledge or perioperative complications. Reported outcomes focused on the accuracy of the assessment. One study undertook qualitative assessment of participant satisfaction with the two forms of POA in a small number of non-randomly selected participants (42 participant interviews), and both groups of participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the care received. This study also examined economic modelling of costs of the POA as performed by the nurse and by the non-specialist doctor based on the completeness of the assessment as noted in the study and found no difference in cost.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no evidence is available from RCTs to allow assessment of whether nurse-led POA leads to an increase or a decrease in cancellations or perioperative complications or in knowledge or satisfaction among surgical participants. One study, which was set in the UK, reported equivalent costs from economic models. Nurse-led POA is now widespread, and it is not clear whether future RCTs of this POA strategy are feasible. A diagnostic test accuracy review may provide useful information.

Using quality improvement methods to optimize resources and maximize productivity in an anesthesia screening and consultation clinic

OBJECTIVES

The anesthesia preoperative screening and evaluation of a patient prior to surgery is a critical element in the safe and effective delivery of anesthesia care. In this era of increased focus on cost containment, many anesthesia practices are looking for ways to maximize productivity while maintaining the quality of the preoperative evaluation process by harnessing and optimizing all available resources. We sought to develop a Nurse Practitioner-assisted Preoperative Anesthesia Screening process using quality improvement methods with the goal of maintaining the quality of the screening process, while at the same time redirecting anesthesiologists time for the provision of nonoperating room (OR) anesthesia. The Nurse practitioner (NP) time (approximately 10 h per week) directed to this project was gained as a result of an earlier resource utilization improvement project within the Department of Anesthesia. The goal of this improvement project was to increase the proportion of patient anesthesia screens conducted by NPs to 50% within 6 months.

METHODS

After discussion with key stakeholders of the process, a multidisciplinary improvement team identified a set of operational factors (key drivers) believed to be important to the success of the preoperative anesthesia screening process. These included the development of dedicated NP time for daily screening, NP competency and confidence with the screening process, effective mentoring by anesthesiologists, standardization of screening process, and communication with stakeholders of the process, that is, surgeons. These key drivers focused on the development of several interventions such as (i) NP education in the preoperative anesthesia screening for consultation process by a series of didactic lectures conducted by anesthesiologists, and NP's shadowing an anesthesiologist during the screening process, (ii) Anesthesiologist mentoring and assessment of NP screenings using the dual screening process whereby both anesthesiologists and NP conducted the screening process independently and results were compared and discussed, (iii) Examination and re-adjustment of NP schedules to provide time for daily screening while preserving other responsibilities, and (iv) Standardization through the development of guidelines for the preoperative screening process. Measures recorded included the percentage of patient anesthesia screens conducted by NP, the percentage of dual screens with MD and NP agreement regarding the screening decision, and the average times taken for the anesthesiologist and NP screening process.

RESULTS

After implementation of these interventions, the percentage of successful NP-assisted anesthesia consultation screenings increased from 0% to 65% over a period of 6 months. The Anesthesiologists' time redirected to non-OR anesthesia averaged at least 8 h a week. The percentage of dual screens with agreement on the screening decision was 96% (goal >95%). The overall average time taken for a NP screen was 8.2 min vs 4.5 min for an anesthesiologist screen. The overall average operating room delays and cancelations for cases on the day of surgery remained the same.

CONCLUSIONS

By applying quality improvement methods, we identified key drivers for the institution of an NP-assisted preoperative screening process and successfully implemented this process while redirecting anesthesiologists' time for the provision of non-OR anesthesia. This project was instrumental in improving the matching of provider skills with clinical need while maintaining superior outcomes at the lowest possible cost.

A national survey on current practice of preanaesthetic assessment in elective surgery patients in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the preanaesthetic assessment prior to elective surgery in hospitals of the Spanish National Health Care System.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional descriptive observational survey was performed. Primary variables were patient characteristics, type of preanaesthetic evaluation and the evaluator, as well as type of support the evaluator received during patient assessment. Secondary variables included the number of operating rooms available for elective surgery, as well as preanaesthesia clinic facilities. Data were analysed by univariate and bivariate descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 214 hospitals of the Spanish Health Care System were invited to participate, and 203 centres responded, with all of them having a preanaesthesia assessment clinic. In 183 of them (90%), elective surgerypatients were interviewed prior to their surgical intervention, and in 202 hospitals (99.5%) a anaesthesiologist physician performed the interview. In 128 hospitals (63%), anaesthesiologists were helped during preoperative assessment by nurses alone (49%) or together with auxillary nurses (14%). In 68 of hospitals (33%) they were supported only by auxillary nurses and in 7 hospitals (3%) they obtained no help at all. In 14 centres (7%) anaesthesia nurses assessed patients directly (under supervision of an anaesthesiologist physician). Hospitals with a higher volume of patients performed more preanaesthesia interviews. Hospitals with more running operating rooms received more nurse support in the preanaesthesia assessment clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

Some kind of preanaesthesia assessment clinic exists in all Anaesthesia Departments of public Spanish hospitals, although there are differences in design and organisation.

The cost-effectiveness of an outpatient anesthesia consultation clinic before surgery: a matched Hong Kong cohort study

Background

Outpatient anesthesia clinics are well established in North America, Europe and Australia, but few economic evaluations have been published. The Perioperative Systems in Hong Kong are best described as a hybrid model of the new and old systems of surgical care. In this matched cohort study, we compared the costs and effects of an outpatient anesthesia clinic (OPAC) with the conventional system of admitting patients to the ward a day before surgery for their pre-anesthesia consultation. A second objective of the study was to determine the patient’s median Willingness To Pay (WTP) value for an OPAC.

Methods

A total of 352 patients were matched (1:1) on their elective surgical procedure to either the clinic group or to the conventional group. The primary outcome was quality of recovery score and overall perioperative treatment cost (US$). To detect a difference in the joint cost-effect relationship between groups, a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) was drawn. A modified Poisson regression model was used to examine the factors associated with patients willing to pay more than the median WTP value for an OPAC.

Results

The quality of recovery scores on the first day after surgery between the clinic and conventional groups were similar (mean difference, -0.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.6 to 0.3; P = 0.57). Although the preoperative costs were less in the clinic group (mean difference, -$463, 95% CI, -$648 to -$278 per patient; P <0.001), the total perioperative cost was similar between groups (mean difference, -$172; 95% CI, -$684 to $340 per patient; P = 0.51). The CEAC showed that we could not be 95% confident that the clinic was cost-effective. Compared to the conventional group, clinic patients were three times more likely to prefer OPAC care (relative risk (RR) 2.75, 95% CI, 2.13 to 3.55; P <0.001) and pay more than the median WTP (US$13) for a clinic consultation (RR 3.27, 95% CI, 2.32 to 4.64; P <0.001).

Conclusions

There is uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of an OPAC in the Hong Kong setting. Most clinic patients were willing to pay a small amount for an anesthesia clinic consultation.

Risk assessment for respiratory complications in paediatric anaesthesia: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Perioperative respiratory adverse events in children are one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality during paediatric anaesthesia. We aimed to identify associations between family history, anaesthesia management, and occurrence of perioperative respiratory adverse events.

METHODS

We prospectively included all children who had general anaesthesia for surgical or medical interventions, elective or urgent procedures at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Australia, from Feb 1, 2007, to Jan 31, 2008. On the day of surgery, anaesthetists in charge of paediatric patients completed an adapted version of the International Study Group for Asthma and Allergies in Childhood questionnaire. We collected data on family medical history of asthma, atopy, allergy, upper respiratory tract infection, and passive smoking. Anaesthesia management and all perioperative respiratory adverse events were recorded.

FINDINGS

9297 questionnaires were available for analysis. A positive respiratory history (nocturnal dry cough, wheezing during exercise, wheezing more than three times in the past 12 months, or a history of present or past eczema) was associated with an increased risk for bronchospasm (relative risk [RR] 8.46, 95% CI 6.18-11.59; p<0.0001), laryngospasm (4.13, 3.37-5.08; p<0.0001), and perioperative cough, desaturation, or airway obstruction (3.05, 2.76-3.37; p<0.0001). Upper respiratory tract infection was associated with an increased risk for perioperative respiratory adverse events only when symptoms were present (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.82-2.31; p<0.0001) or less than 2 weeks before the procedure (2.34, 2.07-2.66; p<0.0001), whereas symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection 2-4 weeks before the procedure significantly lowered the incidence of perioperative respiratory adverse events (0.66, 0.53-0.81; p<0.0001). A history of at least two family members having asthma, atopy, or smoking increased the risk for perioperative respiratory adverse events (all p<0.0001). Risk was lower with intravenous induction compared with inhalational induction (all p<0.0001), inhalational compared with intravenous maintenance of anaesthesia (all p<0.0001), airway management by a specialist paediatric anaesthetist compared with a registrar (all p<0.0001), and use of face mask compared with tracheal intubation (all p<0.0001).

INTERPRETATION

Children at high risk for perioperative respiratory adverse events could be systematically identified at the preanaesthetic assessment and thus can benefit from a specifically targeted anaesthesia management.

FUNDING

Department of Anaesthesia, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Swiss Foundation for Grants in Biology and Medicine, and the Voluntary Academic Society Basel.

A randomized trial comparing sevoflurane and propofol in children undergoing MRI scans

OBJECTIVES

We compared three primary outcomes of pausing the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, emergence quality and respiratory complications.

AIM

To measure and compare the quality between sevoflurane and propofol in children undergoing MRI scans.

BACKGROUND

No randomized controlled trial exists comparing the quality between sevoflurane and propofol for MRI.

METHODS/MATERIALS

Two hundred unpremedicated children (18 months to 7 years) scheduled for brain MRI scans were recruited. After induction with sevoflurane, children were randomized to receive sevoflurane [general anesthesia with sevoflurane (GAS)] via laryngeal mask airway (LMA) or propofol [general anesthesia with propofol (GAP)] bolus and infusion for their scan. The three primary outcomes of pausing the MRI scan (P), agitation (A), and respiratory complications (R) were compared. Timeliness of care was also measured.

RESULTS

No MRI scan pauses were found in 92% and 80% in the GAS and GAP groups. The median and interquartile A scores were 3 (0, 7) in GAS and 0 (0, 4) in GAP groups respectively. There was no difference in respiratory complications between GAS and GAP (P = 0.62). The median and interquartile postanesthesia care unit (PACU) times were 25 (18, 34) for GAS and 31 (25, 44) for GAP (P = 0.0001). The median and interquartile total times were 78 (69, 90) for GAS and 88 (78, 100) for GAP (P = 0.0002).

CONCLUSION

Our study compared the three primary outcomes of pausing, agitation, and respiratory complications between the two groups, and we found no difference in respiratory complications. However, the GAP group had more pausing and less agitation than the GAS group.

[Acute myocardial infarction as an incidental finding: reflections on the preanesthesia evaluation]

A preoperative electrocardiogram in a 16-year-old boy scheduled for surgery for a fractured radius and mandibular condyle after a motorcycle accident showed signs of myocardial ischemia as an incidental finding. Coronary arteriography revealed complete occlusion of the anterior descending artery, confirming a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome with ST elevation, with no myocardial viability. As the patient's general condition was acceptable, to prevent severe functional sequelae, surgery was rescheduled for 17 days later. An axillary block was well tolerated at that time. While indiscriminate ordering of preoperative tests is not recommended in the literature, such testing continues to be practiced in many hospitals, possibly for reasons of organization and legal cover. In our case, the electrocardiogram made it possible to diagnose a severe lesion and adjust the anesthetic technique to suit this situation, thereby possibly preventing devastating consequences. We recommend performing an electrocardiogram on all patients with suspected blunt chest trauma, regardless of the severity of the lesions, particularly in patients scheduled for surgery.

Utility of history and physical updates for ambulatory otolaryngic surgery

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Preoperative assessment is intended to identify anesthetic risk and a patient's appropriateness to undergo a proposed surgery. The timing of these assessments varies among institutions. In our ambulatory surgery center, preoperative reassessments were initially performed within 30 days of surgery (group A). Recently, this changed to require reassessments within 7 days of surgery (group B). Now, the policy mandates a preoperative reassessment within 24 hours (group C). We evaluate whether there are differences in surgical cancellations based on these new reassessment intervals.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective operative log and chart review.

METHODS

We identified 1,108 cases representative of group A. The rate of surgical cancellations for this group was compared with that of the 3,705 cases in group B and the 1,060 cases in group C. Differences were evaluated with a chi test.

RESULTS

Total cancellation rates for groups A, B, and C were 3.0%, 3.3%, and 3.9%, respectively (P = .51). Cancellations secondary to a history and physical examination findings during these preoperative reassessment periods were 0.81%, 0.38%, and 0.66% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancellation rates for patients undergoing ambulatory otolaryngic surgery based on preoperative reassessment intervals of 30 days, 7 days, and 24 hours were similar.