ABSTRACT
The transition from in-person to digital preoperative patient education requires effective methods for evaluating patients' understanding of the perioperative process, risks, and instructions to ensure informed consent. A knowledge questionnaire covering different anaesthesia techniques and instructions could fulfil this need. We constructed a set of items covering common anaesthesia techniques requiring informed consent and developed the Rotterdam Anaesthesia Knowledge Questionnaire (RAKQ) using a structured approach and Item Response Theory. A team of anaesthetists and educational experts developed the initial set of 60 multiple-choice items, ensuring content and face validity. Next, based on exploratory factor analysis, we identified seven domains: General Anaesthesia-I (regarding what to expect), General Anaesthesia-II (regarding the risks), Spinal Anaesthesia, Epidural Anaesthesia, Regional Anaesthesia, Procedural sedation and analgesia, and Generic Items. This itemset was filled out by 577 patients in the Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, and Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Based on factor loadings (≥0.25) and considering clinical relevance this initial item set was reduced to 50 items, distributed over the seven domains. Each domain was processed to produce a separate questionnaire. Through an iterative process of item selection to ensure that the questionnaires met the criteria for Item Response Theory modelling, 40 items remained in the definitive set of seven questionnaires. Finally, we developed an Item Response Theory model for each questionnaire and evaluated its reliability. 1-PL and 2-PL models were chosen based on best model fit. No item misfit (S-χ2, p<0.001 = misfit) was detected in the final models. The newly developed RAKQ allows practitioners to assess their patients' knowledge before consultation to better address knowledge gaps during consultation. Moreover, they can decide whether the level of knowledge is sufficient to obtain digital informed consent without face-to-face education. Researchers can use the RAKQ to compare new methods of patient education with traditional methods.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia , Psychometrics , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires , Psychometrics/methods , Female , Male , Netherlands , Middle Aged , Adult , Aged , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Patient Education as Topic , Informed ConsentABSTRACT
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 361â719 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.
