Evaluation of the Duration of Preanesthesia Consultation: Prospective and Multicenter Study.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures
Anesthesia Department, Hospital
Comorbidity
Critical Care
Elective Surgical Procedures
Female
Humans
Linear Models
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Education as Topic
Preoperative Care
Prospective Studies
Referral and Consultation
/ statistics & numerical data
Socioeconomic Factors
Specialization
Young Adult
Journal
Anesthesia and analgesia
ISSN: 1526-7598
Titre abrégé: Anesth Analg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1310650
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2022
01 03 2022
Historique:
entrez:
18
2
2022
pubmed:
19
2
2022
medline:
22
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The time allocated to the preanesthesia consultation (PAC) of a patient undergoing an elective surgical procedure is an important factor to optimize consultation sessions. The main objective of this study was to build a model predictive of the duration of the PAC. We prospectively studied 1007 patients undergoing a PAC from January 2016 to June 2018 in 4 different hospitals. A general linear model was fitted to predict the overall duration of the PAC. Secondary models predicted the time spent on clinical evaluation and the time assigned to delivering information. After exclusion of 40 patients with major data inconsistencies, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) overall duration of the PAC was 11.2 (5.8) minutes, split into 6.8 (4.1) minutes of information and 4.4 (2.7) minutes of clinical evaluation. It was, respectively, 11.4 (5.9), 6.9 (4.2), and 4.4 (2.7) in the 924 patients ≥16 years of age and, respectively, 8.3 (2.3), 4.3 (1.8), and 4.1 (1.8) in 43 children. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, the number of comorbidities or treatment, surgery discipline, and context (ambulatory, conventional hospitalization, and intensive care unit) were significantly correlated to PAC time. In the 924 adult patients, the models had an R2 adjusted for overfitting at 0.47 for the total duration of PAC, 0.45 for the clinical examination time, and 0.24 for the information time. The estimated residual standard deviations were, respectively, 4.3, 3.1, and 2.7 minutes. The predictive performances of the model explaining the overall duration of PAC were average (R2 = 0.47) and should be confirmed by further studies to use it for optimizing the organization of the consultation by individualizing the time dedicated to each consultation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The time allocated to the preanesthesia consultation (PAC) of a patient undergoing an elective surgical procedure is an important factor to optimize consultation sessions. The main objective of this study was to build a model predictive of the duration of the PAC.
METHODS
We prospectively studied 1007 patients undergoing a PAC from January 2016 to June 2018 in 4 different hospitals. A general linear model was fitted to predict the overall duration of the PAC. Secondary models predicted the time spent on clinical evaluation and the time assigned to delivering information.
RESULTS
After exclusion of 40 patients with major data inconsistencies, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) overall duration of the PAC was 11.2 (5.8) minutes, split into 6.8 (4.1) minutes of information and 4.4 (2.7) minutes of clinical evaluation. It was, respectively, 11.4 (5.9), 6.9 (4.2), and 4.4 (2.7) in the 924 patients ≥16 years of age and, respectively, 8.3 (2.3), 4.3 (1.8), and 4.1 (1.8) in 43 children. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, the number of comorbidities or treatment, surgery discipline, and context (ambulatory, conventional hospitalization, and intensive care unit) were significantly correlated to PAC time. In the 924 adult patients, the models had an R2 adjusted for overfitting at 0.47 for the total duration of PAC, 0.45 for the clinical examination time, and 0.24 for the information time. The estimated residual standard deviations were, respectively, 4.3, 3.1, and 2.7 minutes.
CONCLUSIONS
The predictive performances of the model explaining the overall duration of PAC were average (R2 = 0.47) and should be confirmed by further studies to use it for optimizing the organization of the consultation by individualizing the time dedicated to each consultation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35180166
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005889
pii: 00000539-202203000-00010
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
496-504Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 International Anesthesia Research Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Lemmens LC, van Klei WA, Klazinga NS, et al. The effect of national guidelines on the implementation of outpatient preoperative evaluation clinics in Dutch hospitals. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2006;23:962–970.
Décret no 94-1050 du 5 décembre 1994 relatif aux conditions techniques de fonctionnement des établissements de santé en ce qui concerne la pratique de l’anesthésie et modifiant le code de la santé publique (troisième partie: Décrets). 94-1050 Dec 5, 1994.
Practice advisory for preanesthesia evaluation: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preanesthesia Evaluation. Surv Anesthesiol. 2003;47:45
Fischer SP. Cost-effective preoperative evaluation and testing. Chest. 1999;115:96S–100S.
Roizen MF. More preoperative assessment by physicians and less by laboratory tests. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:204–205
ANAES. Information des patients : recommandations destinées aux médecins. [Internet]. 2000. Accessed January 2, 2022. www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_267005/information-des-patients-2000-recommandations.pdf .
Dexter F. Design of appointment systems for preanesthesia evaluation clinics to minimize patient waiting times: a review of computer simulation and patient survey studies. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:925–931.
Hepner DL, Bader AM, Hurwitz S, Gustafson M, Tsen LC. Patient satisfaction with preoperative assessment in a preoperative assessment testing clinic. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:1099–1105.
Verma DR, Wee MYK, Hartle DA, et al. Membership of the working party. 37. https://rcoa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2019-09/Guideline_preoperative_assessment_patient_preparation_anaesthetist_2010_final.pdf
Halaszynski TM, Juda R, Silverman DG. Optimizing postoperative outcomes with efficient preoperative assessment and management. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:S76–S86.
Blitz JD, Kendale SM, Jain SK, Cuff GE, Kim JT, Rosenberg AD. Preoperative evaluation clinic visit is associated with decreased risk of in-hospital postoperative mortality. Anesthesiology. 2016;125:280–294.
Fischer SP. Development and effectiveness of an anesthesia preoperative evaluation clinic in a teaching hospital. Anesthesiology. 1996;85:196–206.
Pollard JB, Zboray AL, Mazze RI. Economic benefits attributed to opening a preoperative evaluation clinic for outpatients. Anesth Analg. 1996;83:407–410.
Schuster M, Standl T, Wagner JA, Berger J, Reimann H, Am Esch JS. Effect of different cost drivers on cost per anesthesia minute in different anesthesia subspecialties. Anesthesiology. 2004;101:1435–1443.
Schiff JH, Frankenhauser S, Pritsch M, et al. The Anesthesia Preoperative Evaluation Clinic (APEC): a prospective randomized controlled trial assessing impact on consultation time, direct costs, patient education and satisfaction with anesthesia care. Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76:491–499.
van Klei WA, Hennis PJ, Moen J, Kalkman CJ, Moons KG. The accuracy of trained nurses in pre-operative health assessment: results of the OPEN study. Anaesthesia. 2004;59:971–978.
Dexter F, Witkowski TA, Epstein RH. Forecasting preanesthesia clinic appointment duration from the electronic medical record medication list. Anesth Analg. 2012;114:670–673.
Hawes RH, Andrzejowski JC, Goodhart IM, Berthoud MC, Wiles MD. An evaluation of factors influencing the assessment time in a nurse practitioner-led anaesthetic pre-operative assessment clinic. Anaesthesia. 2016;71:273–279.
Edward GM, Das SF, Elkhuizen SG, et al. Simulation to analyse planning difficulties at the preoperative assessment clinic. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:195–202.
Jackson KI, Gibby GL, van der Aa JJ, Arroyo AA, Gravenstein JS. The efficiency of preoperative evaluation: a comparison of computerized and paper recording systems. J Clin Monit. 1994;10:189–193.
Parker BM, Tetzlaff JE, Litaker DL, Maurer WG. Redefining the preoperative evaluation process and the role of the anesthesiologist. J Clin Anesth. 2000;12:350–356.