Transport Rates and Prehospital Intervals for an EMS Telemedicine Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency medical services (EMS) facilitated telemedicine encounters have been proposed as a strategy to reduce transports to hospitals for patients who access the 9-1-1 system. It is unclear which patient impressions are most likely able to be treated in place. It is also unknown if the increased time spent facilitating the telemedicine encounter is offset by the time saved from reducing the need for transport. The objective of this study was to determine the association between the impressions of EMS clinicians of the patients' primary problems and transport avoidance, and to describe the effects of telemedicine encounters on prehospital intervals. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of EMS records from two commercial EMS agencies in New York and Tennessee. For each EMS call where a telemedicine encounter occurred, a matched pair was identified. Clinicians' impressions were mapped to the corresponding category in the International Classification of Primary Care, 2nd edition (ICPC-2). Incidence and rates of transport avoidance for each category were determined. Prehospital interval was calculated as the difference between the time of ambulance dispatch and back-in-service time. RESULTS: Of the 463 prehospital telemedicine evaluations performed from March 2021 to April 2022, 312 (67%) avoided transports to the hospital. Respiratory calls were most likely to result in transport avoidance (p = 0.018); no other categories had statistically significant transport rates. Four hundred sixty-one (99.6%) had matched pairs identified and were included in the analysis. When compared to the matched pair, telemedicine without transport was associated with a prehospital interval reduction in 68% of the cases with a median reduction of 16 min; this is significantly higher than telemedicine with transport when compared to the matched pair with a median interval increase in 27 min. Regardless of transport status, the prehospital interval was a median of 4 min shorter for telemedicine encounters than non-telemedicine encounters (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: In this study, most telemedicine evaluations resulted in ED transport avoidance, particularly for respiratory issues. Telemedicine interventions were associated with a median four-minute decrease in prehospital interval per call. Future research should investigate the long-term effects of telemedicine on patient outcomes.

Intraoperative Cardiac Arrest.

Cardiac arrest in the operating room and in the immediate postoperative period is a potentially catastrophic event that is almost always witnessed and is frequently anticipated. Perioperative crises and perioperative cardiac arrest, although often catastrophic, are frequently managed in a timely and directed manner because practitioners have a deep knowledge of the patient's medical condition and details of recent procedures. It is hoped that the approaches described here, along with approaches for the rapid identification and management of specific high-stakes clinical scenarios, will help anesthesiologists continue to improve patient outcomes.

Documentation of individualized preoperative risk assessment: a multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Individual surgical risk assessment (ISRA) enhances patient care experience and outcomes by informing shared decision-making, strengthening the consent process, and supporting clinical management. Neither the use of individual pre-surgical risk assessment tools nor the rate of individual risk assessment documentation is known. The primary endpoint of this study was to determine the rate of physician documented ISRAs, with or without a named ISRA tool, within the records of patients with poor outcomes. Secondary endpoints of this work included the effects of age, sex, race, ASA class, and time and type of surgery on the rate of documented presurgical risk. METHODS: The records of non-obstetric surgical patients within 22 community-based private hospitals in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada, and Wyoming, between January 1 and December 31, 2017, were evaluated. A two-sample proportion test was used to identify the difference between surgical documentation and anesthesiology documentation of risk. Logistic regression was used to analyze both individual and group effects associated with secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-six of 140,756 inpatient charts met inclusion criteria (0.54%, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.58%). ISRAs were documented by 16.08% of surgeons and 4.76% of anesthesiologists (p < 0.0001, 95% CI -0.002 to 0.228). Cardiac surgeons documented ISRAs more frequently than non-cardiac surgeons (25.87% vs 16.15%) [p = 0.0086, R-squared = 0.970%]. Elective surgical patients were more likely than emergency surgical patients (19.57 vs 12.03%) to have risk documented (p = 0.023, R-squared = 0.730%). Patients over the age of 65 were more likely than patients under the age of 65 to have ISRA documentation (20.31 vs 14.61%) [p = 0.043, R-squared = 0.580%]. Only 10 of 756 (1.3%) records included documentation of a named ISRA tool. CONCLUSIONS: The observed rate of documented ISRA in our sample was extremely low. Surgeons were more likely than anesthesiologists to document ISRA. As these individualized risk assessment discussions form the bedrock of perioperative informed consent, the rate and quality of risk documentation must be improved.

Outcomes in Ambulatory Anesthesia: Measuring What Matters.

Health care professionals see measurement through their own eyes and biases. This article makes the patient central to what is measured. Patient-reported experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures are of the utmost importance. In addition, as clinicians continue to evolve how they measure what really matters, they need to be mindful of the time taken from direct patient care to achieve these activities. In addition, and most important, clinicians must ensure that all measures are designed to ensure that population health is improved, that patient experience and outcomes are enhanced, and that the cost of care is reduced.

Perioperative Quality Initiative consensus statement on intraoperative blood pressure, risk and outcomes for elective surgery.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative mortality is now rare, but death within 30 days of surgery remains surprisingly common. Perioperative myocardial infarction is associated with a remarkably high mortality. There are strong associations between hypotension and myocardial injury, myocardial infarction, renal injury, and death. Perioperative arterial blood pressure management was thus the basis of a Perioperative Quality Initiative consensus-building conference held in London in July 2017. METHODS: The meeting featured a modified Delphi process in which groups addressed various aspects of perioperative arterial pressure. RESULTS: Three consensus statements on intraoperative blood pressure were established. 1) Intraoperative mean arterial pressures below 60-70 mm Hg are associated with myocardial injury, acute kidney injury, and death. Injury is a function of hypotension severity and duration. 2) For adult non-cardiac surgical patients, there is insufficient evidence to recommend a general upper limit of arterial pressure at which therapy should be initiated, although pressures above 160 mm Hg have been associated with myocardial injury and infarction. 3) During cardiac surgery, intraoperative systolic arterial pressure above 140 mm Hg is associated with increased 30 day mortality. Injury is a function of arterial pressure severity and duration. CONCLUSIONS: There is increasing evidence that even brief durations of systolic arterial pressure <100 mm Hg and mean arterial pressure <60-70 mm Hg are harmful during non-cardiac surgery.

Perioperative fluid therapy: a statement from the international Fluid Optimization Group.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative fluid therapy remains a highly debated topic. Its purpose is to maintain or restore effective circulating blood volume during the immediate perioperative period. Maintaining effective circulating blood volume and pressure are key components of assuring adequate organ perfusion while avoiding the risks associated with either organ hypo- or hyperperfusion. Relative to perioperative fluid therapy, three inescapable conclusions exist: overhydration is bad, underhydration is bad, and what we assume about the fluid status of our patients may be incorrect. There is wide variability of practice, both between individuals and institutions. The aims of this paper are to clearly define the risks and benefits of fluid choices within the perioperative space, to describe current evidence-based methodologies for their administration, and ultimately to reduce the variability with which perioperative fluids are administered. METHODS: Based on the abovementioned acknowledgements, a group of 72 researchers, well known within the field of fluid resuscitation, were invited, via email, to attend a meeting that was held in Chicago in 2011 to discuss perioperative fluid therapy. From the 72 invitees, 14 researchers representing 7 countries attended, and thus, the international Fluid Optimization Group (FOG) came into existence. These researches, working collaboratively, have reviewed the data from 162 different fluid resuscitation papers including both operative and intensive care unit populations. This manuscript is the result of 3 years of evidence-based, discussions, analysis, and synthesis of the currently known risks and benefits of individual fluids and the best methods for administering them. RESULTS: The results of this review paper provide an overview of the components of an effective perioperative fluid administration plan and address both the physiologic principles and outcomes of fluid administration. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that both perioperative fluid choice and therapy be individualized. Patients should receive fluid therapy guided by predefined physiologic targets. Specifically, fluids should be administered when patients require augmentation of their perfusion and are also volume responsive. This paper provides a general approach to fluid therapy and practical recommendations.