Wilderness First Responder Medical Clearance - A Scoping Review with Recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Due to environmental extremes, as well as the nature of the work itself, wilderness first responders are at risk of incurring medical events in the line of duty. There currently do not exist standardized and scientifically supported methods to screen for a wilderness first responder's risk of incurring a medical event. METHODS: We performed multiple scoping reviews using PubMed and CINAHL. The reviews covered six medical screening criteria based on previous recommendations from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the US Forest Service, and we grouped our reviews into two categories: articles that addressed objective screening criteria, and articles that addressed subjective findings with the first responder. RESULTS: Of the objective criteria, our reviews identified 21 articles addressing the ability to screen for risk of incurring a medical event by evaluation of a first responder's heart rate, 12 by blood pressure assessment, and 56 by assessment of body temperature. Of the subjective criteria we identified 19 articles focused on self-assessment, 34 articles on the use of standardized tools to assess for fatigue and sleepiness, and two articles on assessment of a first responder's urine to determine level of dehydration. We also identified seven additional articles through a hand search. Overall, there were 151 articles identified in our scoping reviews. These articles were largely of low quality, consisting mostly of case series without comparison groups. CONCLUSION: There is a dearth of high-quality research into the medical assessment of first responders. We recommend that this paper, and measures discussed within it, be used as a starting point in the development of an evidence-based assessment protocol for wilderness first responders. We also recommend the development of a national database of medical events incurred by wilderness first responders to facilitate higher-quality research of screening protocols in this community.

Streamlining orthopaedic trauma surgical care: do all patients need medical clearance?

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative medical optimization is necessary for safe and efficient care of the orthopaedic trauma patient. To improve care quality and value, a preoperative matrix was created to more appropriately utilize subspecialty consultation and avoid unnecessary consults, testing, and operating room delays. Our study compares surgical variables before and after implementation of the matrix to assess its utility. METHODS: A retrospective review of all orthopaedic trauma cases 6 months before and after the use of the matrix (2/2021-8/2021) was conducted an urban, level one trauma centre in collaboration with internal medicine, cardiology, anaesthesia, and orthopaedics. Patients were separated into two cohorts based on use of the matrix during the initial orthopaedic consultation. Logistic regressions were performed to limit significant differences in comorbidities. Independent samples t-tests and Chi-squared tests were used to compare means and proportions, respectively, between the two cohorts. RESULTS: In total, 576 patients were included in this study (281 pre- and 295 post-matrix implementation). Use of the matrix resulted in no significant difference in time to OR, LOS, readmissions, or ER visits; however, it resulted in 18% fewer overall preoperative consults for general trauma, and 25% fewer pre-operative consults for hip fractures. Older patients were more likely to require a consult regardless of matrix use. When controlling for comorbidities, patients with renal disease were at higher risk for increased LOS. CONCLUSION: Use of an orthopaedic surgical matrix to predict preoperative subspecialty consultation is easy to implement and allows for better care utilization without a corresponding increase in complications and readmissions. Follow-up studies are needed to reassess the relationships between matrix use and a potential decrease in ER to OR time, and validate its use.

Screening Electrocardiograms Have Low Utility in Medical Clearance Before Pediatric Inpatient Psychiatric Admission.

OBJECTIVES: Children presenting to the emergency department (ED) requiring psychiatric admission often undergo screening electrocardiograms (ECG) as part of the medical clearance process. The diagnostic yield of screening ECGs for this purpose has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical utility of screening ECGs in children and adolescents requiring acute inpatient psychiatric admission. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study of patients aged 5 to 18 years who did not have documented indications for ECG and underwent screening ECG before psychiatric inpatient admission over a 2-year period was conducted. Abnormal ECGs were identified via chart review and were reinterpreted by a pediatric cardiologist to determine potential significance to psychiatric care. Impact on treatment and disposition was examined. RESULTS: From January 2018 through December 2019, 252 eligible pediatric patients had a screening ECG in the ED before psychiatric admission. Twenty-one (8.3%) of these ECGs were interpreted as abnormal, and 6 (2.4%) were determined to be potentially relevant to psychiatric care in the setting of specific medication use. The abnormal ECG interpretations resulted in additional workup and/or cardiology consultation for 7 (2.7%) patients but had no impact on psychiatric admission. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of concerning individual or family history or cardiac symptoms, routine screening ECGs as part of medical clearance for psychiatric admission are not warranted given the low yield of meaningful findings. The decision to obtain an ECG should be made with careful consideration of medical history and in the presence of specific indications.

Medical Clearance for Common Dental Procedures.

Medical consultations before dental procedures present opportunities to integrate cross-disciplinary preventive care and improve patient health. This article presents recommendations related to patients with certain medical conditions who are planning to undergo common dental procedures, such as cleanings, extractions, restorations, endodontic procedures, abscess drainage, and mucosal biopsies. Specifically, prophylactic antibiotics are not recommended for preventing prosthetic joint infections or infectious endocarditis except in certain circumstances. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies typically should not be suspended for common dental treatments. Elective dental care should be avoided for six weeks after myocardial infarction or bare-metal stent placement or for six months after drug-eluting stent placement. It is important that any history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic therapies be communicated to the dentist. Ascites is not an indication for initiating prophylactic antibiotics before dental treatment, and acetaminophen is the analgesic of choice for patients with liver dysfunction or cirrhosis who abstain from alcohol. Nephrotoxic medications should be avoided in patients with chronic kidney disease, and the consultation should include the patient's glomerular filtration rate. Although patients undergoing chemotherapy may receive routine dental care, it should be postponed when possible in those currently undergoing head and neck radiation therapy. A detailed history of head and neck radiation therapy should be provided to the dentist. Multimodal, nonnarcotic analgesia is recommended for managing acute dental pain.

Retrospective Cohort Study on the Optimal Timing of Orogastric Tube/Nasogastric Tube Insertion in Infants With Pyloric Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic pyloric stenosis in infants can cause a buildup of gastric contents. Orogastric tubes (OGTs) or nasogastric tubes (NGTs) are often placed in patients with pyloric stenosis before surgical management to prevent aspiration. However, exacerbation of gastric losses may lead to electrolyte abnormalities that can delay surgery, and placement has been associated with increased risk of postoperative emesis. Currently, there are no evidence-based guidelines regarding OGT/NGT placement in these patients. This study examines whether OGT/NGT placement before arrival in the operating room was associated with a longer time to readiness for surgery as defined by normalization of electrolytes. Secondary outcomes included time from surgery to discharge and ability to tolerate feeds by 6 hours postoperatively in patients with and without early OGT/NGT placement. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, data were extracted from the medical records of 481 patients who underwent pyloromyotomy for infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis from March 2013 to June 2016. Multivariable linear regression and Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to evaluate the association between placement of an OGT/NGT at the time of admission with increased time to readiness for surgery (defined as the time from admission to the first set of normalized laboratory values) and increased time from surgery to discharge. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between early OGT/NGT placement and the ability to tolerate oral intake at 6 hours postsurgery. Analyses were adjusted for site differences. RESULTS: Among patients admitted with electrolyte abnormalities, those with an OGT/NGT placed on presentation required more time until their serum electrolytes were at acceptable levels for surgery by regression analysis (19.2 hours difference; 95% confidence interval, 10.05-28.41; P < .001), after adjusting for site. Overall, patients who had OGTs/NGTs placed before presentation in the operating room had a longer length of stay from surgery to discharge than those without (38.8 hours difference; 95% confidence interval, 25.35-52.31; P < .001), after adjusting for site. OGT/NGT placement before surgery was not associated with failure to tolerate oral intake within 6 hours of surgery after adjusting for site, corrected gestational age, and baseline serum electrolytes. CONCLUSIONS: OGT/NGT placement on admission for pyloric stenosis is associated with a longer time to electrolyte correction in infants with abnormal laboratory values on presentation and, subsequently, a longer time until they are ready for surgery. It is also associated with longer postoperative hospital stay but not an increased risk of feeding intolerance within 6 hours of surgical repair.

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair May Provide a Survival Advantage in Patients Deemed Physiologically Ineligible for Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) provides an objective assessment of functional capacity and fitness. It can be used to guide decision making prior to major vascular surgery. The EVAR-2 trial suggested that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients unfit for open repair failed to provide a significant survival advantage over nonsurgical management. The aim of this study is to assess contemporary survival differences between patients with poor CPET measures who underwent EVAR or were not offered surgical intervention. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of CPET results of patients considered for elective infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair were interrogated. Anaerobic threshold (AT) of <11 mL/min/kg was used to indicate poor physical fitness. Hospital electronic records were then reviewed for perioperative, reintervention, and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Between November 2007 and October 2017, 532 aortic aneurysm repairs were undertaken, of which 376 underwent preoperative CPET. Seventy patients were identified as having an AT <11 mL/min/kg. Thirty-seven patients underwent EVAR and 33 were managed nonsurgically. All-cause survival at 1, 3, and 5 years for those patients who underwent EVAR was 97%, 92%, and 81%, respectively. For those not offered surgical intervention survival at the same points was 72%, 48%, and 24% [hazard ratio, HR = 5.13 (1.67-15.82), P = 0.004]. Aneurysm-specific survival at 1, 3, and 5 years for those patients who underwent EVAR was 97%, 94%, and 94%, respectively. Survival at the same time points for those not offered surgical intervention was 90%, 69%, and 39%, respectively [HR = 7.48 (1.37-40.82), P = 0.02]. CONCLUSIONS: In this small, retrospective, single-center, nonrandomized cohort, EVAR may provide a survival advantage in patients with poor physical fitness identified via CPET. Randomized studies with current generation EVAR are required to validate the results shown here.

Frailty in surgical patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current definitions, aetiology, assessment tools and clinical implications of frailty in modern surgical practice. BACKGROUND: Frailty is a critical issue in modern surgical practice due to its association with adverse health events and poor post-operative outcomes. The global population is rapidly ageing resulting in more older patients presenting for surgery. With this, the number of frail patients presenting for surgery is also increasing. Despite the identification of frailty as a significant predictor of poor health outcomes, there is currently no consensus on how to define, measure and diagnose this important syndrome. METHODS: Relevant references were identified through keyword searches of the Cochran, MEDLINE and EMbase databases. RESULTS: Despite the lack of a gold standard operational definition, frailty can be conceptualised as a state of increased vulnerability resulting from a decline in physiological reserve and function across multiple organ systems, such that the ability to withstand stressors is impaired. Multiple studies have shown a strong association between frailty and adverse peri-operative outcomes. Frailty may be assessed using multiple tools; however, the ideal tool for use in a clinical setting has yet to be identified. Despite the association between frailty and adverse outcomes, few interventions have been shown to improve outcomes in these patients. CONCLUSION: Frailty encompasses a group of individuals at high risk of adverse post-operative outcomes. Further work exploring ways to optimally assess and target interventions towards these patients should be the focus of ongoing research.

Quality of Life and Mortality after Endovascular, Surgical, or Conservative Treatment of Elderly Patients Suffering from Critical Limb Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Revascularization to relieve ischemic pain and prevent limb loss is the cornerstone of critical limb ischemia (CLI) treatment; however, not all elderly patients are deemed fit for revascularization. Patient-related outcome measurements are important in these patients. Quality of life (QoL) results regarding the effect of endovascular, surgical, and conservative treatment on the QoL in the elderly are scarce in the current literature. The goal of this study was to explore the outcomes of the different treatment modalities in elderly patients suffering from CLI, with a specific focus on QoL. METHODS: A total of 195 CLI patients ≥70 years were prospectively included between January 2012 and February 2016 and divided into 6 groups (endovascular revascularization, surgical revascularization, and conservative treatment). Two age groups (70-79 and >80 years) were analyzed. Follow-up was performed at 5-7 days, 6 weeks, and 6 months. World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF questionnaire was used to determine QoL. The Vascular-Physiological and Operative Severity Score for Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity score was noted. QoL was used as the primary end point, with mortality and limb salvage as the secondary end points. RESULTS: Six-month mortality was significantly lower in surgically treated patients aged 70-79 years (4%) as compared with endovascular (24%, P = 0.001) or conservative treatment (25%, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in 6-month mortality in patients >80 years among endovascularly (38%), surgically (15%), and conservatively treated patients (27%). QoL significantly increased at all follow-up moments in surgically treated patients between 70 and 79 years and at 6 months in endovascularly treated patients. Conservatively treated patients did not improve their QoL in this age group. All patients aged >80 years, including conservatively treated patients, showed significantly improved QoL results at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients judged fit for surgery may benefit the most from surgical revascularization, reporting low mortality rates, low adverse events and significantly gained QoL in multiple domains. However, all 3 treatment modalities have significantly increased physical health at 6 months. Conservative therapy seems to be an acceptable treatment option in patients unfit for revascularization with gained physical health at 6 months.

Rapid Methods for Routine Frailty Assessment during Vascular Surgery Clinic Visits.

BACKGROUND: Frailty assessment can help vascular surgeons predict perioperative risk and long-term mortality for their patients. Unfortunately, comprehensive frailty assessments take too long to integrate into clinic workflow. This study was designed to evaluate 2 rapid methods for assessing frailty during vascular clinics-a short patient-reported survey and a provider-reported frailty scale. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 159 patients presenting to an academic medical center vascular surgery clinic between May and November 2016. Patients underwent frailty assessment using 2 rapid methods: (1) the Frail Nondisabled (FiND) survey (5 questions) and (2) the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS; 9-point scale from robust to severely frail). These were followed by administering the Fried Index, a validated frailty assessment method with 5 measures (weight loss, exhaustion, grip strength, walking speed, and activity level). The correlation between Fried scores (reference standard) with frailty diagnoses derived from FiND and CFS was analyzed using the Spearman-rank test, Cohen's kappa, sensitivity/specificity tests, and receiver operating curves. RESULTS: The evaluated cohort included 87 (55%) females, a mean age of 61 years, 126 (79%) preoperative patients, and 32 (20%) categorized as frail using the Fried Index criteria. The FiND survey was very sensitive (91%) but less specific for diagnosing frailty. In comparison, the CFS was highly specific (96%) for diagnosing frailty and exhibited high inter-rater reliability between surgeon and medical assistant scores (kappa: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72-0.87; P < 0.001). There was moderate correlation between frailty assigned using the Fried Index and the CFS (rho: 0.41-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty can be quickly and effectively assessed during vascular surgery clinic using a combination of patient-reported (FiND) and provider-reported (CFS) methods to improve diagnostic accuracy. Implementing routine frailty assessment into clinic workflow can be a valuable tool for risk prediction and surgical decision-making.

Determinants and Outcome of Decision Making Among Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) improves survival and quality of life in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), but despite clear indications for surgical treatment a significant proportion of patients do not undergo AVR. The study aim was to identify clinical variables associated with the decision to perform AVR, and to assess the prognostic effect of surgery versus medical treatment in patients with severe AS adjusted for significant confounders and effect modifiers. METHODS: A prospective observational study of consenting patients aged >18 years who were under consideration for AVR at the authors' tertiary teaching hospital was conducted. The main outcomes of the study were treatment decisions and survival. RESULTS: Among 480 patients with severe AS who were evaluated, 351 had surgical AVR, 38 had transcatheter AVR, and 91 were declined operative treatment. Typically, non-operated patients were older, were in a lower NYHA class, had fewer symptoms, a lower peak aortic jet velocity, a higher NT-proBNP level, and a lower physical summary score (SF-36). Higher age showed the strongest correlation against AVR (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.87-0.94). One-, three-, and five-year cumulative survival rates, respectively, were 95%, 87%, and 73% among operated patients, and 82%, 47%, and 27% among non-operated patients. The median survival time was 1,604 days (95% CI 1,554-1,655) in operated patients versus 1,090 days (95% CI 954-1,226) in non-operated patients (p <0.001). The effect of operation on mortality was shown to depend on the interaction with diabetes, when adjusted for significant confounders (i.e., age, atrial fibrillation, NT-proBNP, hs-Troponin T, and NYHA class). An effect of AVR on mortality was found in patients without diabetes (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.19-0.468; p <0.001), but not among patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Supplemental and better parameters to improve patient selection are warranted. Surgical AVR shows a greater prognostic effect in patients without diabetes.

The Implementation of a Preoperative Transthoracic Echocardiography Consult Service by Anesthesiologists.

We describe a preoperative transthoracic echocardiography consult service led by anesthesiologists. The implementation process and the patient cohort are described. Preoperative transthoracic echocardiographic examinations were mostly performed in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery and in patients with a higher calculated mortality risk. All transthoracic echocardiographic examinations were interpreted by anesthesiologists.

Patient-Centered Anesthesia Triage System Predicts ASA Physical Status.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to validate a patient-centered anesthesia triage system (PCATS) by examining its association with, and predictive value of, ASA physical status (PS) classification. ASA PS classification is a widely used indicator of health status and the predictor of risk of perioperative complications. Thus, ASA PS is a good triage point such that healthy surgical patients (ASA PS I and II) undergoing low-complexity surgery are assessed by telephone, whereas less-healthy patients (ASA PS III and IV) or those patients undergoing highly complex surgery are seen in person at a presurgical clinic. However, ASA PS is not commonly available in electronic health records or easily determined by nonanesthesiologists. PCATS criteria, including the number of prescription medications used daily, body mass index (BMI), age, and surgical complexity, are readily available in electronic health records. Nonclinical scheduling personnel can use PCATS to make appropriate preassessment appointments for elective surgical patients before surgery. METHODS: After getting approval from the University of Florida IRB for an exempt study, 300 consecutive patients scheduled in the presurgical clinic over a 1-week span were retrospectively enrolled. Each of the records was reviewed and collated for study identification number, number of prescription medications, BMI, and ASA PS classification assigned on the day of surgery. In addition, a surgical complexity score was assigned to each procedure (high, moderate, minimal).The association between PCATS and individual PCATS criteria and ASA PS was assessed by χ test. The utility of PCATS to discriminate between ASA PS classifications was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves as well as other indicators of clinical validity: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and positive clinical utility index ([CIU+] = sensitivity × PPV) and negative CIU ([CIU-] = specificity × PPV). RESULTS: BMI (P = .002), age (P = .01), surgical complexity (P < .0001), and number of prescriptions (P < .001) were significantly associated with ASA PS. Definitions included as PCATS criteria were BMI > 35, age > 80 years, 5 or more prescriptions, and high surgical complexity. Eighty-seven percent of patients with any PCATS criterion were ASA PS classification III or IV. From ROC curve analysis, PCATS emerged as a significant, and moderately good, predictor of ASA PS class (area under the curve = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.83). PCATS was highly sensitive (0.88, 95% CI, 0.84-0.92) and specific (0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86), and had excellent utility in confirmation/case finding (CUI+ = 0.83, 95% CI, 0.82-0.84) and moderate utility in screening out cases (CUI- = 0.43, 95% CI, 0.41-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: PCATS serves as a useful, and valid, predictor of ASA PS classification. Thus, it may also serve as a tool to triage patients to an appropriate venue for preoperative assessment that can be utilized by nonclinical schedulers. Using a simple tool such as PCATS may help streamline the presurgical patient experience and improve clinic staff utilization.

Preoperative Evaluation of the Renal Function before the Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Chronic impaired renal function constitutes a major risk factor of morbi-mortality during the treatment of an abdominal aortic aneurism (AAA). The inflammatory state due to the AAA could result in a reduction in the muscular mass and an overestimation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) with the usual formulas. The objective of this study was to determine if the formulas used to evaluate the estimated GFR were adapted in patients with AAA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2013 and November 2014, we conducted an exploratory study to evaluate the renal function before surgery for AAA in 28 patients. The renal function was evaluated by (1) the dosage of plasmatic creatinine, (2) the GFR estimated with the Cockroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), and chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI) formulas, (3) the creatinine clearance (CC), and (4) the direct measurement of the GFR with a reference method (iohexol clearance). Statistical analysis was carried out to compare and correlate the GFR estimated by the various formulas with the GFR measured by the reference technique. RESULTS: The study included 21 men (75%) and 7 women (25%), with a median age of 76 years (58-89). The measured GFR was correlated with the GFR estimated from the CKD-EPI (rho = 0.78, P < 0.0001), the MDRD (rho = 0.78, P < 0.0001), the Cockroft-Gault (rho = 0.65, P = 0.0002), and CC (rho = 0.86, P < 0.0001). However, there were important individual variations between estimated and measured GFR. As regards the detection of the patients presenting a GFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, the sensitivities of the CKD-EPI, MDRD, Cockroft-Gault formulas and CC were 64%, 64%, 71%, and 70%, respectively. Specificities were 71%, 79%, 57%, and 100%, respectively. The estimation of the GFR by the CKD-EPI formula had the lowest bias (-3.0). Bland-Altman plots indicated that the estimation of the GFR by the CKD-EPI formula had the best performance in comparison with the other methods. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a statistical correlation between the measurement of the GFR and the various formulas available to estimation the GFR among AAA patients. The CKD-EPI formula is most appropriate. However, there were important individual variations between the measurement and the estimations of the GFR. A larger scale study is necessary to determine the profile of the patients with a risk of error in the estimation of the GFR. The French recommendations on the evaluation of the renal function before AAA treatment remain based on serum creatinine and should be revalued.

Patients with Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Have Become Higher Risk.

BACKGROUND: Independent risk factors such as age, loss of consciousness, elevated serum creatinine, low hemoglobin, and electrocardiogram evidence of ischemia have previously been shown to predict mortality after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). With an aging Australian population, we sought to determine if patients presenting with rAAA now had more predictive risk factors for mortality and whether these factors remain predictive of mortality. METHODS: The records of all patients presenting with rAAA between January 1985 to December 1993 (past era, group 1) and January 2007 to December 2011 (modern era, group 2) were retrieved. A database of independent risk factors, repair method, and mortality was constructed. Comparisons were made between the 2 groups, where a P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Hundred and eighty-eight patients presented with rAAA in the past era, of which 154 were then prepared for repair. 60 patients presented in the modern group, in which 38 patients were then prepared for repair. Proportionally, more patients in the modern era group were rejected for surgery compared to the past era group, (22/60 vs. 34/188; P = 0.004) Rejection was based on both medical comorbidities as well as patient/family and surgeon preferences. The in-hospital mortality rate for patients undergoing repair remained unchanged between the groups at 39%. Age was the only predictive factor that differed between the modern and past era groups (median age: 81 vs. 72 respectively, P < 0.001). However, this equated to more risk factors per patient in the modern group compared to the past era (2 vs. 1, respectively, P < 0.001). When stratified by 0, 1, 2, and 3 + risk factors present, there was a trend toward lower mortality in the modern group per strata. Univariate and multivariate analysis of the risk factors in the modern group demonstrated that low blood hemoglobin was the only risk factor independently predictive of mortality in the modern group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the modern era group are older and presenting with more predictive risk factors for mortality after rAAA. This has seen an increased rate of rejection for surgery. However, mortality rates following rAAA repair remain unchanged. These results suggest that the previously identified predictive risk factors need to be adjusted.

The current level of shared decision-making in anesthesiology: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) seeks to involve both patients and clinicians in decision-making about possible health management strategies, using patients' preferences and best available evidence. SDM seems readily applicable in anesthesiology. We aimed to determine the current level of SDM among preoperative patients and anesthesiology clinicians. METHODS: We invited 115 consecutive preoperative patients, visiting the pre-assessment outpatient clinic of the department of Anesthesiology at the Academic Medical Center of Amsterdam. Inclusion criteria were patients who needed surgery in the arms, lower abdomen or legs, and in whom three anesthesia techniques were feasible. The SDM-level of the consultation was scored objectively by independent observers who judged audio-recordings of the consultation using the OPTION5-scale, ranging from 0% (no SDM) to 100% (optimum SDM), as well as subjectively by patients (using the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE questionnaires) and clinicians (SDM-Q-Doc questionnaire). Objective and subjective SDM-levels were assessed on five-point and six-point Likert scales, respectively. Both scores were expressed as percentages. RESULTS: Data of 80 patients could be analysed. Objective SDM-scores were low (30.5%). Subjective scores of the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE were high among patients (91.7% and 96.3%, respectively) and among clinicians (SDM-Q-Doc; 84.3%). Apparently, they appreciated satisfaction rather than SDM, being poorly aware of what SDM entails. CONCLUSION: The level of SDM in an outpatient anesthesiology clinic where preoperative patients receive information about various possible anesthesia options, was found to be low. Thus, there is room for improving the level of SDM. Some suggestions are given how this can be achieved.

Perioperative Risk Adjustment for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Are Simple Clinically Driven Models Sufficient?

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in value-based health care in the United States. Statistical analysis of large databases can inform us of the factors associated with and the probability of adverse events and unplanned readmissions that diminish quality and add expense. For example, increased operating time and high blood urea nitrogen (BUN) are associated with adverse events, whereas patients on antihypertensive medications were more likely to have an unplanned readmission. Many surgeons rely on their knowledge and intuition when assessing the risk of a procedure. Comparing clinically driven with statistically derived risk models of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) offers insight into potential gaps between common practice and evidence-based medicine. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does a statistically driven model better explain the variation in unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge when compared with an a priori five-variable model selected based on expert orthopaedic surgeon opinion? (2) Does a statistically driven model better explain the variation in adverse events within 30 days of discharge when compared with an a priori five-variable model selected based on expert orthopaedic surgeon opinion? METHODS: Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify 4030 individuals older than 17 years of age who had TSA in which osteoarthritis was the primary etiology. A logistic regression model for adverse event and unplanned readmission within 30 days was constructed using (1) five variables chosen a priori based on clinic expertise (age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥ 3, body mass index, smoking status, and diabetes mellitus); and (2) by entering all variables with p < 0.10 in bivariate analysis. We then excluded 870 patients (22%) based on preoperative factors felt to make large discretionary surgery unwise to focus our research on appropriate procedures. Infirm patients have more pressing needs than alleviation of shoulder pain and stiffness. Among the remaining 3160 patients, logistic regression models for adverse event and unplanned readmission within 30 days were constructed in a similar manner to the complete models. The five a priori risk factors used in each model based on clinical expertise were selected by consensus of an expert orthopaedic surgeon panel. RESULTS: When patients unfit for discretionary surgery were excluded, the clinically driven model found no risk factors and accounted for 1.4% of the variation in unplanned readmission. In contrast, the statistically driven model explained 4.6% of the variation and found operating time (hours) (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.53) and hypertension requiring medications (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.01-3.76) were associated with unplanned readmission accounting for all other factors. However, neither the clinically driven model (pseudo R2, 1.4%) nor statistically driven model (pseudo R2, 4.6%) provided much explanatory power. When patients unfit for discretionary surgery were excluded, no factors in the clinically driven model were significant and the model accounted for 0.95% of the variation in adverse events. In the statistically driven model, age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06), men (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.05-2.57), operating time (hours) (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.52), and high BUN (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.35-7.21) were associated with adverse events when accounting for all other factors, explaining 3.3% of the variation. However, neither the clinically driven model (pseudo R2, 0.95%) nor the statistically driven model (pseudo R2, 3.3%) provided much explanatory power. CONCLUSIONS: The observation that a statistically derived risk model performs better than a clinically driven model affirms the value of research based on large databases, although the models derived need to be tested prospectively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians can utilize our results to understand that clinician intuition may not always offer the best risk adjustment and that factors impacting TSA unplanned readmission and adverse events may be best derived from large data sets. However, because current analyses explain limited variation in outcomes, future studies might look to better define what factors drive the variation in unplanned readmission and adverse events.

Development of a Preoperative Patient Clearance and Consultation Screening Questionnaire.

The optimal timing of the preanesthesia evaluation varies with the patient's comorbidities. As anesthesiologists assume a broader role in perioperative care, there may be opportunities to provide additional patient management beyond historical routine anesthesia services. This study was thus undertaken to survey our institutional perioperative clinicians regarding their perceptions of patient medical conditions that (a) need additional time for preoperative clearance by anesthesiology before actually scheduling the date of surgery and (b) warrant additional preoperative evaluation and management services by an anesthesiologist. These data were used to create a pilot version of a Preoperative Patient Clearance and Consultation Screening Questionnaire.

Electronic Care Coordination From the Preoperative Clinic.

Fragmented and variable perioperative care exposes patients to unnecessary risks and handoff errors. The perioperative surgical home aims to optimize quality, value-based care. We performed a retrospective evaluation of how a preoperative assessment center could coordinate care through e-mails sent to a patient's healthcare team that initiate discussion on critical clinical information. During 100 clinic days on which 8122 patients were evaluated, 606 triggered e-mails, with a potential impact on 19 elements across the perioperative care spectrum. Four cases were canceled, and 42 cases were rescheduled. By fostering information exchange, these communications could advance patient-centered, value-enhanced quality and safety outcomes.