Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
J Perianesth Nurs ; 33(5): 676-680, 2018 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30236575

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To determine the nonclinical causes of delayed discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). DESIGN: A prospective observational study. METHODS: Over a 2-month period, data were collected on 576 patients who were transferred to the clinical areas from PACU after surgery. Patients were considered ready for discharge after they had achieved a satisfactory discharge score. FINDINGS: The most common documented reason for nonclinical delayed discharge was lack of available transport (45.5%; n = 310) followed by bed availability (13%; n = 89) and the receiving registered nurse's readiness to accept a transfer from PACU (7.3%; n = 50). CONCLUSIONS: Nonclinical delays account for a considerable extension of a patient's time in PACU. The findings of this study suggest that understanding and addressing the causes of delayed discharge in PACU may help to improve patient flow and reduce discharge times. Future research should include the cost associated with these delays and assess the effectiveness of interventions introduced to eliminate such delays.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/methods , Anesthesia Recovery Period , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Recovery Room/statistics & numerical data , Clinical Audit , Humans , Length of Stay , Postanesthesia Nursing , Prospective Studies
2.
BMC Surg ; 12: 14, 2012 Jul 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22817672

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients having arthroscopic shoulder surgery frequently experience periods of inadvertent hypothermia. This common perioperative problem has been linked to adverse patient outcomes such as myocardial ischaemia, surgical site infection and coagulopathy. International perioperative guidelines recommend patient warming, using a forced air warming device, and the use of warmed intraoperative irrigation solutions for the prevention of hypothermia in at-risk patient groups. This trial will investigate the effect of these interventions on patients' temperature, thermal comfort, and total recovery time. METHOD/DESIGN: The trial will employ a randomised 2 x 2 factorial design. Eligible patients will be stratified by anaesthetist and block randomised into one of four groups: Group one will receive preoperative warming with a forced air warming device; group two will receive warmed intraoperative irrigation solutions; group three will receive both preoperative warming and warmed intraoperative irrigation solutions; and group four will receive neither intervention. Participants in all four groups will receive active intraoperative warming with a forced air warming device. The primary outcome measures are postoperative temperature, thermal comfort, and total recovery time. Primary outcomes will undergo a two-way analysis of variance controlling for covariants such as operating room ambient temperature and volume of intraoperative irrigation solution. DISCUSSION: This trial is designed to confirm the effectiveness of these interventions at maintaining perioperative normothermia and to evaluate if this translates into improved patient outcomes. AUSTRALIAN NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER: ACTRN12610000591055.


Subject(s)
Arthroscopy , Hypothermia/prevention & control , Intraoperative Complications/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Shoulder Joint/surgery , Elective Surgical Procedures , Hot Temperature/therapeutic use , Humans , Intraoperative Care , Preoperative Care , Therapeutic Irrigation
3.
J Perianesth Nurs ; 27(1): 18-24, 2012 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22264617

ABSTRACT

Preoperative forced-air warming is one way of preventing inadvertent perioperative hypothermia. There is scant evidence, however, on the best warming method or the acceptability of these methods to patients. This pilot study compared two warming protocols: one that commenced at maximum temperature and was titrated down as requested (A) and one that commenced at near body temperature and was titrated up as tolerated (B). A crossover design was used in which each participant (n=10) received both protocols sequentially. The mean device temperature and length of time spent at maximum settings were greater for protocol A (43°C±0°C vs 41°C±1°C, P=.003; and 60±0 vs 41.5±2.8 minutes, P=.004). There was no difference in thermal comfort scores, participant temperature, or sweating between the two protocols. When asked, participants preferred protocol A to B (70% to 30%). Starting at higher device settings appears the more favorable of the two approaches.


Subject(s)
Fever , Hypothermia/prevention & control , Preoperative Care , Cross-Over Studies , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...