Office-based anesthesia: safety and outcomes.

The increasing volume of office-based medical and surgical procedures has fostered the emergence of office-based anesthesia (OBA), a subspecialty within ambulatory anesthesia. The growth of OBA has been facilitated by numerous trends, including innovations in medical and surgical procedures and anesthetic drugs, as well as improved provider reimbursement and greater convenience for patients. There is a lack of randomized controlled trials to determine how office-based procedures and anesthesia affect patient morbidity and mortality. As a result, studies on this topic are retrospective in nature. Some of the early literature broaches concerns about the safety of office-based procedures and anesthesia. However, more recent data have shown that care in ambulatory settings is comparable to hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, especially when offices are accredited and their proceduralists are board-certified. Office-based suites can continue to enhance the quality of care that they deliver to patients by engaging in proper procedure and patient selection, provider credentialing, facility accreditation, and incorporating patient safety checklists and professional society guidelines into practice. These strategies aiming at patient morbidity and mortality in the office setting will be increasingly important as more states, and possibly the federal government, exercise regulatory authority over the ambulatory setting. We explore these trends, their implications for patient safety, strategies for minimizing patient complications and mortality in OBA, and future developments that could impact the field.

Concepts for the Development of a Customizable Checklist for Use by Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Checklists are tools that are developed to complete tasks by drawing on specific and relevant knowledge and supporting communication at critical times. If checklists were designed specifically for patient use, they could promote patient engagement, potentially leading to improved quality of care. Physicians of all specialties, nurses, patients, patient advocates, and administrators can take an active role in checklist development and dissemination. METHODS: Our method to investigate concepts in developing a customizable patient checklist included a literature search concerning existing checklists and resources currently available to patients. Literature containing expert opinion regarding checklists, professional organization statements, and patients and providers were consulted. RESULTS: A template for designing a patient checklist was developed incorporating methods from previous literature and resources regarding checklists. This template includes a development, drafting, and validation phase. Sample content for inclusion in potential checklists for patients with diabetes and patients undergoing anesthesia was devised. CONCLUSIONS: Developed by physicians with input from patients and other involved health-care providers such as nurses, this relatively novel concept of a patient's checklist creates a role for the patient to ensure their own safety. With increasing attention to high-quality and cost-effective health care, patient satisfaction surveys will be assessed to rate overall health care. Further development of checklists will need to be guided by specific medical conditions and acceptance by patients and providers. Providers can use these checklists as a method to gauge a patient's understanding of an intervention, solidify the patient-doctor relationship, and improve patient safety.

The use of in-situ simulation to improve safety in the plastic surgery office: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: Simulation-based interventions and education can potentially contribute to safer and more effective systems of care. We utilized in-situ simulation to highlight safety issues, regulatory requirements, and assess perceptions of safety processes by the plastic surgery office staff. METHODS: A high-fidelity human patient simulator was brought to an office-based plastic surgery setting to enact a half-day full-scale, multidisciplinary medical emergency. Facilitated group debriefings were conducted after each scenario with special consideration of the principles of team training, communication, crisis management, and adherence to evidence-based protocols and regulatory standards. Abbreviated AHRQ Medical Office Safety Culture Survey was completed by the participants before and after the session. RESULTS: The in-situ simulations had a high degree of acceptance and face validity according to the participants. Areas highlighted by the simulation sessions included rapid communication, delegation of tasks, location of emergency materials, scope of practice, and logistics of transport. The participant survey indicated greater awareness of patient safety issues following participation in simulation and debriefing exercises in 3 areas (P < 0.05): the need to change processes if there is a recognized patient safety issue (100% vs 75%), openness to ideas about improving office processes (100% vs 88%), and the need to discuss ways to prevent errors from recurring (88% vs 62%). CONCLUSIONS: Issues of safety and regulatory compliance can be assessed in an office-based setting through the short-term (half-day) use of in-situ simulation with facilitated debriefing and the review of audiovisual recordings by trained facilities inspectors.

Effect of an office-based surgical safety system on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To implement a customizable checklist in an interdisciplinary, team-based plastic surgery setting to reduce surgical complications. METHODS: We examined the effects on patient outcomes and documentation of a customizable, office-based surgical safety checklist. On the basis of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist, we developed a 28-element, perioperative checklist for use in the office-based surgical setting. The checklist was implemented in an office-based plastic surgery practice with an already high standard of care. We recorded baseline, prechecklist rates for each checklist item and postoperative adverse outcomes via a retrospective chart review of 219 cases. After an education program and 30-day run-in period, a prospective, post-checklist implementation chart review was initiated (n = 184), with outcome data compared to the baseline. RESULTS: The total number of complications per 100 patients decreased from 15.1 to 2.72 after checklist implementation (P < .0001), for an absolute risk reduction of 12.4. The proportion of patients with one or more complications decreased from 11.9% to 2.72% (P = .0006). Site and side marking increased from 69.9% prechecklist to 97.8% (P < .0001). Medical optimization increased from 90.9% to 99.5% (P < .0001). Emergency medical services (EMS) policy confirmation, case-specific equipment availability, anticipation of estimated blood loss, and verbal confirmation of local anesthetic toxicity precautions increased from 0% to 90.0% (P < .0001), 92.4% (P < .0001), 82.1% (P < .0001), and 91.3% (P < .0001), respectively. Assessment of patient satisfaction increased from 57.1% to 90.8% (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a customizable checklist was associated with a reduction in surgical complications in an office-based plastic surgery practice with an already high standard of care.