[Preoperative risk evaluation of adult patients prior to elective non-cardiac surgery: follow-up survey of the recommendations published in 2010]. / Präoperative Risikoevaluation erwachsener Patienten vor elektiven, nichtkardiochirurgischen Eingriffen: Follow-up-Umfrage zu den 2010 publizierten Empfehlungen.

BACKGROUND: The joint recommendations of the German Societies of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Surgery and Internal Medicine on preoperative evaluation of adult patients prior to elective, non-cardiac surgery published in November 2010 were the first practical and comprehensive guidelines for preoperative evaluation available to anesthetists in Germany. AIM: This study was carried out to analyze the state of implementation of these guidelines into clinical practice as well as changes in strategies for assessing perioperative risk from the viewpoint of anesthesia personnel in Germany. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 25-item questionnaire concerning general characteristics of workplaces, cognizance, reasonability and convenience of the joint recommendations was developed as an online survey. Furthermore, changes in strategies for preoperative evaluation were polled. RESULTS: A total of 1,840 anesthetists completed the questionnaire. The results showed that 84.2 % were acquainted with the joint recommendations, 57.3 % evaluated them as completely reasonable and 18.2 % as partly reasonable. A total of 71.4 % indicated that the joint recommendations were implemented completely or partly in their department strategies for preoperative evaluation. From the viewpoint of personnel, anamnesis and physical examination were performed more frequently by 25.7 % while routine diagnostic testing was ordered less frequently by 39.1 %. Advantages by implementing the joint recommendations (e.g. simplification for medical staff and patients, decrease of costs, reduction of radiological examinations) were seen by 45.5 %. Problems, such as increasing expenditure of time and personnel due to implementation were mentioned by 20.3 %. CONCLUSION: The joint recommendations are well known and positively rated among anesthetists in Germany responding to the questionnaire reflecting an effective implementation process over the last 2 years. The anesthetists who completed the questionnaire stated that the use of the recommendations leads to a more reasonable approach in preoperative risk evaluation which contributes to an increase in patient safety and satisfaction.

Long-term effects of a perioperative safety checklist from the viewpoint of personnel.

BACKGROUND: While positive short-term effects of the use of safety checklists have previously been reported by personnel, it is unclear to which extent these effects are maintained for a long-term period. The aim of the present study was to evaluate perioperative safety standards and the quality of interprofessional cooperation from the viewpoint of the involved personnel for up to 2 years following the introduction of a safety checklist. METHODS: A survey of 99 co-workers in the departments of anaesthesiology and traumatology was conducted using a 19-point questionnaire concerning perioperative safety-relevant aspects and the quality of interprofessional cooperation before and at 3, 18, and 24 months after the introduction of a safety checklist. RESULTS: Verification of written consent for surgery (P < 0.01), clear marking of the surgical site (P < 0.01), and time management (P < 0.05) were rated more positively over time by the anaesthesiologists and nurses. Items involving communication were rated less positively after 18 and 24 months than at 3 months. Orthopaedic surgeons rated being better informed about the patients (P < 0.05), the planned operation (P < 0.01), and the assignment of tasks during surgery (P < 0.01) progressively more positively over the time. CONCLUSIONS: Some positive effects concerning the perioperative organisation and management were rated more positively even 2 years after checklist implementation. However, interprofessional communication and cooperation did not show long-term improvement from staff members' point of view. Probably longer lasting effects for the latter aspects could be achieved by repeated instruction and communication training.

[Quality management in acute pain therapy: results from a survey of certified hospitals]. / Qualitätsmanagement in der Akutschmerztherapie : Ergebnisse einer Befragung TÜV-zertifizierter Kliniken.

AIM: Systems for and methods of quality management are increasingly being implemented in public health services. The aim of our study was to analyze the current state of the integrated quality management concept "quality management acute pain therapy" of the TÜV Rheinland® (TÜV) after a 5-year project period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: General characteristics of the participating hospitals, number of departments certified by the TÜV and implementation of structures and processes according to the TÜV guidelines were evaluated by a mail questionnaire. Furthermore, positive and negative aspects concerning the effects of certification were evaluated by the hospitals' representatives of certification. RESULTS: A total of 36 questionnaires were returned. Since 2006 the number of certified hospitals (2011: n = 48) and surgical departments (2011: n = 202) has increased continuously. The number of certified medical departments is low (2011: n = 39); however, in the last 3 years, it has increased by about 200-300% annually. Standard operative procedures for pain therapy and measurement of pain intensity at regular intervals were implemented in all certified clinics (100%). Although 41% take part in the benchmarking project QUIPS (Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Therapy), 24% do not systematically check the quality of the outcome of pain management. Acceptance of the new pain therapy concepts among nursing staff was rated positively (ratio positive:negative 16:1); however, acceptance among physicians was rated negatively (1:15). CONCLUSION: Certification by the TÜV leads to sustainable implementation of quality management principles. Future efforts should focus on better integration of physicians in acute pain therapy and the development of an integrated tool to measure patients' outcome.

[Preoperative risk evaluation of adult patients for elective, noncardiac surgical interventions. Results of an on-line survey on the status in Germany]. / Präoperative Risikoevaluation erwachsener Patienten vor elektiven, nichtkardiochirurgischen Eingriffen. Ergebnisse einer Onlinebefragung zum Status in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: While assessing the medical history and physical examination are the cornerstones of preoperative risk evaluation, the importance of "routine" testing has been critically discussed in recent studies. The joint recommendations of the German Societies of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Surgery and Internal Medicine for preoperative evaluation of adult patients prior to elective, non-cardiac surgery, which were published in November 2010, are the first comprehensive practice guidelines for preoperative evaluation in Germany. Aim of this study was to analyze former strategies for assessing perioperative risk at anaesthesia departments in Germany. METHODS: A 29-item questionnaire concerning general hospital characteristics, strategies for preoperative evaluation and cognizance of the joint recommendations was developed as an online survey. In particular the reasons for technical assessment were surveyed (i.e. routine, patient age or pre-existing conditions, risk of operation being performed). In certain questions multiple answers were permitted. All hospitals with departments of anaesthesiology in Germany were included. Data are presented as percentages. RESULTS: A total of 396 hospitals (35.6%) completed the questionnaire. Physical examination is not performed regularly (37%) but only when indicated by the medical history. Criteria for performing preoperative electrocardiograms are comorbidities of the cardiovascular (80.1%) and pulmonary systems (42.2%) as well as patient age (52.8%) and as routine measures (10.1%). Laboratory testing was performed as a routine (43.2%) because of patient age (52.8%) or pre-existing conditions (37.3%). Preoperative chest x-ray was carried out when the medical history or physical examination suggest intrathoracic pathologies (81.3%) or was based on patient age (35.9%). The majority of hospitals (89.1%) plan to implement the joint recommendations for preoperative evaluation in the future. CONCLUSION: According to the joint recommendations preoperative testing is more and more directed to patients with an increased perioperative risk which is clinically indicated by medical history and physical examination. However, routine or age-related medical testing is still a frequently used strategy. German medical societies should focus on advanced implementation strategies to change current practices in order to avoid unnecessary diagnostic procedures and to increase patient safety and satisfaction.

The implementation of a perioperative checklist increases patients' perioperative safety and staff satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of the 'Surgical Safety Checklist' caused a significant reduction in the incidence of complications and mortality among patients undergoing surgery. The aim of the present study was to evaluate perioperative safety standards and the quality of interprofessional cooperation before and after the introduction of a safety checklist from staff members' point of view. METHODS: Employees' attitude concerning safety-relevant aspects of the perioperative period, work processes, and quality of interprofessional cooperation was surveyed before and 3 months after introducing an adapted form of the 'Surgical Safety Checklist' by a 19-item questionnaire. RESULTS: After the implementation of the checklist, the cognizance of the names and functions of the individual operating room (OR) staff members, verification of the patient's written consent for surgery, indication for antibiotics before the surgical incision, and the quality of interprofessional cooperation were rated more positively. Traumatology physicians were more convinced that all artifacts had been removed from the surgical field. Finally, communication about intraoperative complications had improved. CONCLUSIONS: Our attitude surveys demonstrate that from the OR staff's perspective, in the perioperative setting, safety-relevant factors can be handled significantly better and with greater awareness by implementing a safety checklist as proposed by the World Health Organization.