[Analysis and options for optimization of preoperative assessment for anesthesia at a university hospital]. / Analyse und Möglichkeiten der Optimierung von Prämedikationsgesprächen an einem Universitätsklinikum.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment prior to elective surgery is an important tool in the context of perioperative patient care; however, only a few studies have been carried out to address the processes and problems during preoperative assessment for anesthesia. AIM: Over a period of several weeks all preoperative anesthesia evaluations prior to elective surgery were prospectively recorded in order to generate a data pool with a view to identifying options for process optimization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All preoperative evaluations over a period of 38 working days at the University Medical Center Regensburg were recorded and analyzed with respect to waiting time for the patient and the duration of the preoperative consultation on medication. Also documented were the patient age, ASA score, the faculty carrying out the operation, type and risk of surgery, planned time of surgery, professional experience of the anesthesiologist and the approval status for surgery. In addition, all problems which occurred during the preoperative anesthesia evaluation were documented using a questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall 2233 preoperative assessments for anesthesia were recorded and analyzed. The number of patients attending the preoperative assessment clinic differed markedly in the course of a day and was lower at the end of the week. Approval for surgery with no reservations was given more frequently by anesthesiologists with more than 5 years professional experience and consultants compared to younger colleagues. The main reason for approval with reservations or no approval was the lack of patient records and test results, which should have been presented according to the in-house standard for preoperative assessment for anesthesia. The mean waiting time was 58.6 ± 30.3 min, the mean duration of the patient documentation review and physician-patient consultation together was 33.6 ± 16.3 min. Anesthesiologists with 2-5 years professional experience needed significantly less time for patient documentation reviews and physician-patient consultations than younger and more experienced colleagues. The duration of the preoperative assessment for anesthesia correlated with the ASA score and risks of surgery. CONCLUSION: The analysis of processes and problems in the context of preoperative assessment for anesthesia revealed several options for optimization. Major efforts should be the implementation of an appointment system for the preoperative assessment clinic in order to generate a homogeneous distribution of patients during the course of a day. Furthermore, surgeons and case managers should be requested to refer patients to the preoperative assessment clinic only with complete records and test results according to the in-house standard.

[Intensive care unit-acquired weakness in the critically ill : critical illness polyneuropathy and critical illness myopathy]. / Erworbene Muskelschwäche beim kritisch Kranken : Critical-Illness-Polyneuropathie und Critical-Illness-Myopathie.

Intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW) is a severe complication in critically ill patients which has been increasingly recognized over the last two decades. By definition ICUAW is caused by distinct neuromuscular disorders, namely critical illness polyneuropathy (CIP) and critical illness myopathy (CIM). Both CIP and CIM can affect limb and respiratory muscles and thus complicate weaning from a ventilator, increase the length of stay in the intensive care unit and delay mobilization and physical rehabilitation. It is controversially discussed whether CIP and CIM are distinct entities or whether they just represent different organ manifestations with common pathomechanisms. These basic pathomechanisms, however, are complex and still not completely understood but metabolic, inflammatory and bioenergetic alterations seem to play a crucial role. In this respect several risk factors have recently been revealed: in addition to the administration of glucocorticoids and non-depolarizing muscle relaxants, sepsis and multi-organ failure per se as well as elevated levels of blood glucose and muscular immobilization have been shown to have a profound impact on the occurrence of CIP and CIM. For the diagnosis, careful physical and neurological examinations, electrophysiological testing and in rare cases nerve and muscle biopsies are recommended. Nevertheless, it appears to be difficult to clearly distinguish between CIM and CIP in a clinical setting. At present no specific therapy for these neuromuscular disorders has been established but recent data suggest that in addition to avoidance of risk factors early active mobilization of critically ill patients may be beneficial.