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.

Cardiac Arrest in the Operating Room: Part 2-Special Situations in the Perioperative Period.

As noted in part 1 of this series, periprocedural cardiac arrest (PPCA) can differ greatly in etiology and treatment from what is described by the American Heart Association advanced cardiac life support algorithms, which were largely developed for use in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and in-hospital cardiac arrest outside of the perioperative space. Specifically, there are several life-threatening causes of PPCA of which the management should be within the skill set of all anesthesiologists. However, previous research has demonstrated that continued review and training in the management of these scenarios is greatly needed and is also associated with improved delivery of care and outcomes during PPCA. There is a growing body of literature describing the incidence, causes, treatment, and outcomes of common causes of PPCA (eg, malignant hyperthermia, massive trauma, and local anesthetic systemic toxicity) and the need for a better awareness of these topics within the anesthesiology community at large. As noted in part 1 of this series, these events are always witnessed by a member of the perioperative team, frequently anticipated, and involve rescuer-providers with knowledge of the patient and the procedure they are undergoing or have had. Formulation of an appropriate differential diagnosis and rapid application of targeted interventions are critical for good patient outcome. Resuscitation algorithms that include the evaluation and management of common causes leading to cardiac in the perioperative setting are presented. Practicing anesthesiologists need a working knowledge of these algorithms to maximize good outcomes.

Cardiac Arrest in the Operating Room: Resuscitation and Management for the Anesthesiologist: Part 1.

Cardiac arrest in the operating room and procedural areas has a different spectrum of causes (ie, hypovolemia, gas embolism, and hyperkalemia), and rapid and appropriate evaluation and management of these causes require modification of traditional cardiac arrest algorithms. There is a small but growing body of literature describing the incidence, causes, treatments, and outcomes of circulatory crisis and perioperative cardiac arrest. These events are almost always witnessed, frequently known, and involve rescuer providers with knowledge of the patient and their procedure. In this setting, there can be formulation of a differential diagnosis and a directed intervention that treats the likely underlying cause(s) of the crisis while concurrently managing the crisis itself. Management of cardiac arrest of the perioperative patient is predicated on expert opinion, physiologic rationale, and an understanding of the context in which these events occur. Resuscitation algorithms should consider the evaluation and management of these causes of crisis in the perioperative setting.

Anesthesia advanced circulatory life support.

PURPOSE: The constellation of advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) events, such as gas embolism, local anesthetic overdose, and spinal bradycardia, in the perioperative setting differs from events in the pre-hospital arena. As a result, modification of traditional ACLS protocols allows for more specific etiology-based resuscitation. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Perioperative arrests are both uncommon and heterogeneous and have not been described or studied to the same extent as cardiac arrest in the community. These crises are usually witnessed, frequently anticipated, and involve a rescuer physician with knowledge of the patient's comorbidities and coexisting anesthetic or surgically related pathophysiology. When the health care provider identifies the probable cause of arrest, the practitioner has the ability to initiate medical management rapidly. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for management must be predicated on expert opinion and physiological understanding rather than on the standards currently being used in the generation of ACLS protocols in the community. Adapting ACLS algorithms and considering the differential diagnoses of these perioperative events may prevent cardiac arrest.

Clinical practice guidelines for the maintenance of patient physical safety in the intensive care unit: use of restraining therapies--American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2001-2002.

OBJECTIVE: To develop clinical practice guidelines for the use of restraining therapies to maintain physical and psychological safety of adult and pediatric patients in the intensive care unit. PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary, multispecialty task force of experts in critical care practice was convened from the membership of the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the American Association of Critical Care Nurses (AACN). EVIDENCE: The task force members reviewed the published literature (MEDLINE articles, textbooks, etc.) and provided expert opinion from which consensus was derived. Relevant published articles were reviewed individually for validity using the Cochrane methodology (http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/cochrane/ or www.cochrane.org). CONSENSUS PROCESS: The task force met as a group and by teleconference to identify the pertinent literature and derive consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to both the weight of scientific information within the literature and expert opinion. Draft documents were composed by a task force steering committee and debated by the task force members until consensus was reached by nominal group process. The task force draft then was reviewed, assessed, and edited by the Board of Regents of the ACCM. After steering committee approval, the draft document was reviewed and approved by the SCCM Council. CONCLUSIONS: The task force developed nine recommendations with regard to the use of physical restraints and pharmacologic therapies to maintain patient safety in the intensive care unit.

Advances in oral anti arrhythmic therapy: implications for the anaesthetist.

Surgical patients often are receiving antiarrhythmic therapy. Thus, because anaesthetic agents can affect cardiac function and may interact with concurrent antiarrhythmic medications, the anaesthetist should be aware of the electrophysiology associated with dysrhythmias and their management. Tocainide, flecainide, mexiletine, encainide and amiodarone have been introduced recently and each has an unique pattern of bioavailability, metabolism and toxicity. Patients treated with these drugs need special concern as they have abnormal cardiovascular systems and may be at increased risk for perioperative morbidity. In addition, unexpected untoward reactions and toxicity can result from interactions of anaesthetic agents and these drugs. This review discusses normal cardiac electrophysiology, common dysrhythmias and the electrophysiological effects of the newer oral antiarrhythmic drugs.