Alternatives to the in-person anaesthetist-led preoperative assessment in adults undergoing low-risk or intermediate-risk surgery: A scoping review.
Journal
European journal of anaesthesiology
ISSN: 1365-2346
Titre abrégé: Eur J Anaesthesiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8411711
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2023
01 05 2023
Historique:
medline:
6
4
2023
pubmed:
7
3
2023
entrez:
6
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. A scoping review of the available literature. Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. No date restriction was used. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36876738
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001815
pii: 00003643-202305000-00006
pmc: PMC10097490
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
343-355Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care.
Références
Lee JA. The anaesthetic out-patient clinic. Anaesthesia 1949; 4:169–174.
Nicholson A, Coldwell CH, Lewis SR, et al. Nurse-led versus doctor-led preoperative assessment for elective surgical patients requiring regional or general anaesthesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; CD010160.
Yen C, Tsai M, Macario A. Preoperative evaluation clinics. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2010; 23:167–172.
Blitz JD, Kendale SM, Jain SK, et al. Preoperative evaluation clinic visit is associated with decreased risk of in-hospital postoperative mortality. Anesthesiology 2016; 125:280–294.
Bainbridge D, Martin J, Arango M, et al. Evidence-based Peri-operative Clinical Outcomes Research Group. Perioperative and anaesthetic-related mortality in developed and developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2012; 380:1075–1081.
Braghiroli KS, Einav S, Heesen MA, et al. Perioperative mortality in older patients: a systematic review with a meta-regression analysis and meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Anesth 2021; 69:110160.
Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Molina G, et al. Size and distribution of the global volume of surgery in 2012. Bull World Health Organ 2016; 94:201–209.
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8:19–32.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169:467–473.
Edwards AF, Forest DJ. Preoperative laboratory testing. Anesthesiol Clin 2018; 36:493–507.
Johansson T, Fritsch G, Flamm M, et al. Effectiveness of noncardiac preoperative testing in noncardiac elective surgery: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth 2013; 110:926–939.
Keshavan VH, Swamy CM. Preoperative laboratory testing: a prospective study on comparison and cost analysis. Indian J Anaesth 2016; 60:838–842.
Kirkham KR, Wijeysundera DN, Pendrith C, et al. Preoperative laboratory investigations: rates and variability prior to low-risk surgical procedures. Anesthesiology 2016; 124:804–814.
Ranasinghe P, Perera YS, Senaratne JA, et al. Preoperative testing in elective surgery: is it really cost effective? Anesth Essays Res 2011; 5:28–32.
Kristensen SD, Knuuti J, Saraste A, et al. 2014 ESC/ESA Guidelines on noncardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management: The Joint Task Force on noncardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). Eur Heart J 2014; 35:2383–2431.
Bramer WM, Milic J, Mast F. Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc 2017; 105:84–87.
Harris AD, McGregor JC, Perencevich EN, et al. The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13:16–23.
Sterne J, Savović J, Page M, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366:l4898.
NIH National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Study quality assessment tools. 2021. Available at: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools . [Cited January 2021].
Grant C, Ludbrook GL, O’Loughlin EJ, et al. An analysis of computer-assisted prescreening prior to elective surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 2012; 40:297–304.
Ludbrook G, Seglenieks R, Osborn S, et al. A call centre and extended checklist for prescreening elective surgical patients – a pilot study. BMC Anesthesiol 2015; 15:77.
Ming Teh AH, Turner BS, Tan SB, et al. Effectiveness of an advanced practice nurse-led preoperative telephone assessment. J Nurs Care Qual 2016; 31:191–196.
Subramanian ML, Badami A, Vavrek F, et al. Phone interviews for preoperative medical evaluation for cataract surgery. J Gen Intern Med 2019; 34:1121–1122.
Applegate RL, Gildea B, Patchin R, et al. Telemedicine preanesthesia evaluation: a randomized pilot trial. Telemed J E-health 2013; 19:211–216.
Kamdar NV, Huverserian A, Jalilian L, et al. Development, implementation, and evaluation of a telemedicine preoperative evaluation initiative at a major academic medical center. Anesth Analg 2020; 131:1647–1656.
Lee A, Lum ME, Perry M, et al. Risk of unanticipated intraoperative events in patients assessed at a preanaesthetic clinic. Can J Anaesth 1997; 44:946–954.
Mendes FF, Machado EL, de Oliveira M, et al. Preoperative evaluation: screening using a questionnaire. Braz J Anesthesiol 2013; 63:347–351.
Reeves SW, Tielsch JM, Katz J, et al. A self-administered health questionnaire for the preoperative risk stratification of patients undergoing cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135:599–606.
Tompkins BM, Tompkins WJ, Loder E, et al. A computer-assisted preanesthesia interview: value of a computer-generated summary of patient's historical information in th preanesthesia visit. Anesth Analg 1980; 59:3–10.
van Klei WA, Hennis PJ, Moen J, et al. The accuracy of trained nurses in preoperative health assessment: results of the OPEN study. Anaesthesia 2004; 59:971–978.
Power LM, Thackray NM. Reduction of preoperative investigations with the introduction of an anaesthetist-led preoperative assessment clinic. Anaesth Intensive Care 1999; 27:481–488.
Rutten CL, Post D, Smelt WL. (Outpatient preoperative examination by the anesthesiologist. I. Fewer procedures and preoperative hospital days) Het poliklinische preoperatieve onderzoek door de anesthesioloog. I. Minder verrichtingen en preoperatieve opnamedagen. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1995; 139:1028–1032.
Starsnic MA, Guarnieri DM, Norris MC. Efficacy and financial benefit of an anesthesiologist-directed university preadmission evaluation center. J Clin Anesth 1997; 9:299–305.
Ferschl MB, Tung A, Sweitzer B, et al. Preoperative clinic visits reduce operating room cancellations and delays. Anesthesiology 2005; 103:855–859.
Hariharan S, Chen D, Merritt-Charles L. Evaluation of the utilization of the preanaesthetic clinics in a university teaching hospital. BMC Health Serv Res 2006; 6:59.
Knox M, Myers E, Wilson I, et al. The impact of preoperative assessment clinics on elective surgical case cancellations. Surgeon 2009; 7:76–78.
McKendrick DR, Cumming GP, Lee AJ. A 5-year observational study of cancellations in the operating room: does the introduction of preoperative preparation have an impact? Saudi J Anaesth 2014; 8:S8–S14.
Mendes FF, Telles Mathias LADS, Duval Neto GF, et al. Impact of preoperative outpatient evaluation clinic on performance indicators. Rev Bras Anestesiol 2005; 55:175–187.
Pollard JB, Olson L. Early outpatient preoperative anesthesia assessment: does it help to reduce operating room cancellations? Anesth Analg 1999; 89:502–505.
van Klei WA, Moons KG, Rutten CL, et al. The effect of outpatient preoperative evaluation of hospital inpatients on cancellation of surgery and length of hospital stay. Anesth Analg 2002; 94:644–649. Table of contents.
Epstein RH, Dexter F, Schwenk ES, et al. Bypass of an anesthesiologist-directed preoperative evaluation clinic results in greater first-case tardiness and turnover times. J Clin Anesth 2017; 41:112–119.
Alboim C, Kliemann RB, Soares LE, et al. The impact of preoperative evaluation on perioperative events in patients undergoing cataract surgery: a cohort study. Eye (Basingstoke) 2016; 30:1614–1622.
Kinley H, Czoski-Murray C, George S, et al. Effectiveness of appropriately trained nurses in preoperative assessment: randomised controlled equivalence/noninferiority trial. BMJ 2002; 325:1323.
Vazirani S, Lankarani-Fard A, Liang LJ, et al. Perioperative processes and outcomes after implementation of a hospitalist-run preoperative clinic. J Hosp Med 2012; 7:697–701.
Ireland S, Kent B. Telephone preoperative assessment for adults: a comprehensive systematic review. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep 2012; 10:1452–1503.
Schoen DC, Prater K. Role of telehealth in preanesthetic evaluations. AANA J 2019; 87:43–49.
Halvorsen S, Mehilli J, Cassese S, et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: Developed by the task force for cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC). Eur Heart J 2022; 43:3826–3924.