Effect of Intraoperative Handovers of Anesthesia Care on Mortality, Readmission, or Postoperative Complications Among Adults: The HandiCAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Intraoperative handovers of anesthesia care are common. Handovers might improve care by reducing physician fatigue, but there is also an inherent risk of losing critical information. Large observational analyses report associations between handover of anesthesia care and adverse events, including higher mortality. Objective: To determine the effect of handovers of anesthesia care on postoperative morbidity and mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted in 12 German centers with patients enrolled between June 2019 and June 2021 (final follow-up, July 31, 2021). Eligible participants had an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 3 or 4 and were scheduled for major inpatient surgery expected to last at least 2 hours. Interventions: A total of 1817 participants were randomized to receive either a complete handover to receive anesthesia care by another clinician (n = 908) or no handover of anesthesia care (n = 909). None of the participating institutions used a standardized handover protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, hospital readmission, or serious postoperative complications. There were 19 secondary outcomes, including the components of the primary composite, along with intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay. Results: Among 1817 randomized patients, 1772 (98%; mean age, 66 [SD, 12] years; 997 men [56%]; and 1717 [97%] with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 3) completed the trial. The median total duration of anesthesia was 267 minutes (IQR, 206-351 minutes), and the median time from start of anesthesia to first handover was 144 minutes in the handover group (IQR, 105-213 minutes). The composite primary outcome occurred in 268 of 891 patients (30%) in the handover group and in 284 of 881 (33%) in the no handover group (absolute risk difference [RD], -2.5%; 95% CI, -6.8% to 1.9%; odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.10; P = .27). Nineteen of 889 patients (2.1%) in the handover group and 30 of 873 (3.4%) in the no handover group experienced all-cause 30-day mortality (absolute RD, -1.3%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 0.2%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.10; P = .11); 115 of 888 (13%) vs 136 of 872 (16%) were readmitted to the hospital (absolute RD, -2.7%; 95% CI, -5.9% to 0.6%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05; P = .12); and 195 of 890 (22%) vs 189 of 874 (22%) experienced serious postoperative complications (absolute RD, 0.3%; 95% CI, -3.6% to 4.1%; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.28; P = .91). None of the 19 prespecified secondary end points differed significantly. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults undergoing extended surgical procedures, there was no significant difference between the patients randomized to receive handover of anesthesia care from one clinician to another, compared with the no handover group, in the composite primary outcome of mortality, readmission, or serious postoperative complications within 30 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04016454.

Patient Preferences for Long-Term Implant Care in Cochlear, Glaucoma and Cardiovascular Diseases.

In the process of developing and implementing innovative implant technologies the consideration of patient preferences can be beneficial for patients, doctors and developers. Nevertheless, in existing literature, there is still scarce knowledge of patients' perspectives on long-term implant care. In this study, three discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were conducted in the context of cochlear implants (CI, n = 92), glaucoma implants (GI, n = 21) and cardiovascular implants (CVI, n = 23), examining the relative importance of attributes of long-term implant care from the patients' perspective. The participants chose between differently shaped options for implant-related care. The attributes of these care options were generated and selected based on previous literature reviews, group discussions and a diary study with patients. The choice data were analyzed via binary logit regression. In CI-DCE, the technological compatibility of the implant with newer implant models, accessories or devices from other manufacturers was highly valued by participants, whereas in GI-DCE the (in)dependency on glaucoma medication post-implantation had the greatest influence on participants' choice behavior. In CVI-DCE, the attribute with the highest relative importance related to the means of securing long-term treatment success. In all three DCE, shared decision making was relatively important for participants. Our results emphasized the importance of an adequate transfer of technological advancements in implant care for promoting patient benefits, such as the availability of comprehensible, understandable, high-quality information about current developments. Similarly, promoting technological health literacy and further pushing the technological compatibility, durability and safety of implants are directions for future implant development in accordance with patients' preferences. Therefore, the participation of implant wearers in the development process is encouraged.

Health Literacy in the Context of Implant Care-Perspectives of (Prospective) Implant Wearers on Individual and Organisational Factors.

The continuous development of medical implants offers various benefits for persons with chronic conditions but also challenges an individual's, and the healthcare system's, ability to deal with technical innovation. Accessing and understanding new information, navigating healthcare, and appraising the role of the implant in body perceptions and everyday life requires health literacy (HL) of those affected as well as an HL-responsive healthcare system. The interconnectedness of these aspects to ethically relevant values such as health, dependence, responsibility and self-determination reinforces the need to address HL in implant care. Following a qualitative approach, we conducted group discussions and a diary study among wearers of a cochlear, glaucoma or cardiovascular implant (or their parents). Data were analysed using the documentary method and grounded theory. The data reveal the perceptions of implant wearers regarding the implant on (1) the ability to handle technical and ambiguous information; (2) dependence and responsibility within the healthcare system; and (3) the ethical aspects of HL. Knowing more about the experiences and values of implant wearers is highly beneficial to develop HL from an ethical perspective. Respective interventions need to initially address ethically relevant values in counselling processes and implant care.