Variations in assessment and certification in postgraduate anaesthesia training: a European survey.

BACKGROUND: Postgraduate specialty training has traditionally been based on a time- and rotation-based model, but competency-based models are emerging. Because anaesthesia training evolves differently across Europe, variations in assessment and certification processes are expected, but the extent of similarities and differences is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare anaesthesia training programmes in Europe, focusing on assessment and certification processes. METHODS: We performed an online survey among national representatives of the Union of European Medical Specialists/European Board of Anaesthesiology. RESULTS: All 36 countries participated. Duration of training had a median of 5 yr (range 2.75-7). Mean number of different assessment tools was 7.45 (range 4-13), with more tools being used in competency-based programmes [mean 9.1 (sd 2.97) vs 7.0 (sd 1.97); P=0.03]. Most countries had a nationally uniform certification process. Based on a qualitative analysis of the survey findings, a categorization of countries emerged, reflecting the approach to assessment and certification. We observed two main streams of countries with an underlying knowledge or procedural focus within a time- and rotation-based apprenticeship model. These main streams are evolving, to different extents, towards a third orientation, competency-based training. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment and certification processes in European anaesthesia training are diverse. In many countries, a time-based apprenticeship model is evolving towards a competency-based certification process. This diversity precludes comparison of competence of graduating anaesthetists across Europe.

Long-term outcomes and cost effectiveness of high-dose dexamethasone for cardiac surgery: a randomised trial.

Prophylactic intra-operative administration of dexamethasone may improve short-term clinical outcomes in cardiac surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of dexamethasone versus placebo. Patients included in the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled DExamethasone for Cardiac Surgery (DECS) trial were followed up for 12 months after their cardiac surgical procedure. In the DECS trial, patients received a single intra-operative dose of dexamethasone 1 mg.kg-1 (n = 2239) or placebo (n = 2255). The effects on the incidence of major postoperative events were evaluated. Also, overall costs for the 12-month postoperative period, and cost effectiveness, were compared between groups. Of 4494 randomised patients, 4457 patients (99%) were followed up until 12 months after surgery. There was no difference in the incidence of major postoperative events, the relative risk (95%CI) being 0.86 (0.72-1.03); p = 0.1. Treatment with dexamethasone reduced costs per patient by £921 [€1084] (95%CI £-1672 to -137; p = 0.02), mainly through reduction of postoperative respiratory failure and duration of postoperative hospital stay. The probability of dexamethasone being cost effective compared with placebo was 97% at a threshold value of £17,000 [€20,000] per quality-adjusted life year. We conclude that intra-operative high-dose dexamethasone did not have an effect on major adverse events at 12 months after cardiac surgery, but was associated with a reduction in costs. Routine dexamethasone administration is expected to be cost effective at commonly accepted threshold levels for cost effectiveness.

Effects of the introduction of the WHO "Surgical Safety Checklist" on in-hospital mortality: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of implementation of the WHO's Surgical Safety Checklist on mortality and to determine to what extent the potential effect was related to checklist compliance. BACKGROUND: Marked reductions in postoperative complications after implementation of a surgical checklist have been reported. As compliance to the checklists was reported to be incomplete, it remains unclear whether the benefits obtained were through actual completion of a checklist or from an increase in overall awareness of patient safety issues. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 25,513 adult patients undergoing non-day case surgery in a tertiary university hospital. Hospital administrative data and electronic patient records were used to obtain data. In-hospital mortality within 30 days after surgery was the main outcome and effect estimates were adjusted for patient characteristics, surgical specialty and comorbidity. RESULTS: After checklist implementation, crude mortality decreased from 3.13% to 2.85% (P = 0.19). After adjustment for baseline differences, mortality was significantly decreased after checklist implementation (odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98). This effect was strongly related to checklist compliance: the OR for the association between full checklist completion and outcome was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.28-0.70), compared to 1.09 (95% CI, 0.78-1.52) and 1.16 (95% CI, 0.86-1.56) for partial or noncompliance, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the WHO Surgical Checklist reduced in-hospital 30-day mortality. Although the impact on outcome was smaller than previously reported, the effect depended crucially upon checklist compliance.

The accuracy of trained nurses in pre-operative health assessment: results of the OPEN study.

We quantified the accuracy of trained nurses to correctly assess the pre-operative health status of surgical patients as compared to anaesthetists. The study included 4540 adult surgical patients. Patients' health status was first assessed by the nurse and subsequently by the anaesthetist. Both needed to answer the question: 'is this patient ready for surgery without additional work-up, Yes/No?' (primary outcome). The secondary outcome was the time required to complete the assessment. Anaesthetists and nurses were blinded for each other's results. The anaesthetists' result was the reference standard. In 87% of the patients, the classifications by nurses and anaesthetists were similar. The sensitivity of the nurses' assessment was 83% (95% CI: 79-87%) and the specificity 87% (95% CI: 86-88%). In 1.3% (95% CI: 1.0-1.6%) of patients, nurses classified patients as 'ready' whereas anaesthetists did not. Nurses required 1.85 (95% CI: 1.80-1.90) times longer than anaesthetists. By allowing nurses to serve as a diagnostic filter to identify the subgroup of patients who may safely undergo surgery without further diagnostic workup or optimisation, anaesthetists can focus on patients who require additional attention before surgery.

Role of history and physical examination in preoperative evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Since reports have shown that outpatient preoperative evaluation increases the quality of care and cost-effectiveness, an increasing number of patients are being evaluated purely on an outpatient basis. To improve cost-effectiveness, it would be appealing if those patients who are healthy and ready for surgery without additional testing could be easily distinguished from those who require more extensive evaluation. This paper examines whether published studies provide sufficient data to determine how detailed preoperative history taking and physical examination need to be in order to assess the health of surgical patients and to meet the objective of easy and early distinction. METHODS: A MEDLINE search was conducted from 1991 to 2000 with respect to preoperative patient history and physical examination. Altogether, 213 articles were found, of which 29 were selected. Additionally, 38 cross-references, 7 articles on additional testing and 4 recently published papers were used. RESULTS: It is questionable to what extent an extensive history is relevant for anaesthesia and long-term prognosis. With respect to physical examination, it seems unreasonable to diagnose valvular heart disease based on cardiac auscultation only, and it is unclear which method should be used to predict the difficulty of endotracheal intubation. The benefits of routine testing for all surgical patients before operation are extremely limited and are not advocated. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of detail of preoperative patient history and the value of physical examination to obtain a reasonable estimate of perioperative risk remains unclear. Although not evidence based, a thorough history taking and physical examination of all patients before surgery seems important until more evidence-based guidelines become available. Diagnostic and prognostic prediction studies may provide this necessary evidence.

Randomized controlled trial of total intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus inhalation anesthesia with isoflurane-nitrous oxide: postoperative nausea with vomiting and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: To assess the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol versus inhalational anesthesia with isoflurane-nitrous oxide, the authors performed a randomized trial in 2,010 unselected surgical patients in a Dutch academic institution. An economic evaluation was also performed. METHODS: Elective inpatients (1,447) and outpatients (563) were randomly assigned to inhalational anesthesia with isoflurane-nitrous oxide or TIVA with propofol-air. Cumulative incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was recorded for 72 h by blinded observers. Cost data of anesthetics, antiemetics, disposables, and equipment were collected. Cost differences caused by duration of postanesthesia care unit stay and hospitalization were analyzed. RESULTS: Total intravenous anesthesia reduced the absolute risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting up to 72 h by 15% among inpatients (from 61% to 46%, P < 0.001) and by 18% among outpatients (from 46% to 28%, P < 0.001). This effect was most pronounced in the early postoperative period. The cost of anesthesia was more than three times greater for propofol TIVA. Median duration of stay in the postanesthesia care unit was 135 min after isoflurane versus 115 min after TIVA for inpatients (P < 0.001) and 160 min after isoflurane versus 150 min after TIVA for outpatients (P = 0.039). Duration of hospitalization was equal in both arms. CONCLUSION: Propofol TIVA results in a clinically relevant reduction of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with isoflurane-nitrous oxide anesthesia (number needed to treat = 6). Both anesthetic techniques were otherwise similar. Anesthesia costs were more than three times greater for propofol TIVA, without economic gains from shorter stay in the postanesthesia care unit

Assessment of spinal cord ischemia by means of evoked potential monitoring during thoracoabdominal aortic surgery.

Besides renal failure and mesenteric infarction, spinal cord ischemia is the most dreaded complication after thoracoabdominal aortic surgery. Several techniques have been developed to improve neurologic outcome of these massive surgical procedures, including pharmacologic adjuncts, epidural cooling, distal aortic perfusion, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, and reattachment of segmental arteries. The authors developed a technique to assess spinal cord integrity as part of the surgical protocol, dictating operative strategies to restore blood supply to the endangered grey matter. Monitoring motor evoked potentials (MEPs) was performed in experimental studies and in 170 patients with a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. The surgical protocol included left heart bypass and cerebrospinal fluid drainage, and MEP monitoring was applied to identify critical intercostal and lumbar arteries. Based on MEPs, the aggressive surgical approach resulted in a significant reduction of neurologic complications (2.3%).