Parkinsonism in Ontario: physician utilization.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Parkinsonism have a progressive disorder requiring substantial expertise to manage effectively. METHODS: Over a six-year period we evaluated physician utilization and related costs for a large, unselected cohort of 15,304 Parkinsonian patients from the general population, comparing them to 30,608 age- and sex-matched controls within a universal health care system in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: On average, 45% of Parkinsonian patients saw neurologists annually. The cumulative rate of at least one neurological consultation was only 59.5% over the six years. Patients aged < 65 had a much greater likelihood of consulting a neurologist (73.3%) compared to those > or = 65 (37.2%). Most Parkinsonian patients (97.2%), regardless of age, saw family physicians/general practitioners each year; 50.4% saw internal medicine consultants. CONCLUSIONS: Parkinsonian patients had increased likelihood of utilizing neurologists, primary care physicians and internists compared to controls; related costs of physicians' services were higher. Further research is necessary to evaluate differences in outcomes and costs between neurologists and other physician service providers.

Parkinsonism in Ontario: increased mortality compared with controls in a large cohort study.

BACKGROUND: PD was associated with increased mortality before levodopa therapy became available. There have been conflicting reports of PD mortality in the modern era. OBJECTIVE: To assess current mortality rates in a large unselected population receiving treatment for parkinsonism (PKM) followed for up to 6 years. METHODS: Cases were identified using linked administrative databases, including physician service and prescription drug claims, generated in Ontario's universal health insurance system. Control subjects were identified from the provincial registry of citizens and age and sex matched to cases. Comparative mortality was evaluated over the 6-year period of the study (1993/94 to 1998/99). The sensitivity of the findings was tested with differing case definitions. RESULTS: In 1993, 15,304 patients with PKM were identified and were age and sex matched to 30,608 control subjects (1:2 ratio). Over the study period, 50.8% (7,779) of the cases with PKM died compared with 29.1% (8,899) of the control subjects. The cases with PKM had an overall mortality odds ratio of 2.5 (95% CI: 2.4, 2.6) compared with the control group. Results were consistent whether cases were defined by physician diagnosis, use of anti-PD drugs, or both criteria. CONCLUSION: Despite modern drug therapy, PKM continues to confer a sharply increased mortality on unselected patients followed for several years.

Cardiovascular events in the postanesthesia care unit: contribution of risk factors.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of four postanesthesia care unit (PACU) cardiovascular events to long-term outcomes (unplanned critical care admission or mortality) and to evaluate the contribution of anesthetic management compared with other perioperative factors in predicting these events. METHODS: For patients admitted to the PACU after receiving general anesthesia (n = 18,380), the risk of long-term outcomes was examined for patients in the PACU with hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, or hypotension. Using logistic regression (P < 0.05), risk factors (grouped as patients, surgical, anesthetic, operating room observations, and other PACU observations) for each cardiovascular event were determined. For each factor grouping, the relative contributions to each cardiovascular event were compared using maximum likelihood chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Patients in the PACU with hypertension or tachycardia had more unplanned critical care admissions (2.6% and 4.0% vs. 0.2% for patients with no events) and greater mortality (1.9% and 2.3% vs. 0.3% and 0.4%) (P < 0.01). For PACU hypertension (rate 2.0%), age, smoking, renal disease, female gender, and angina were significant risk factors. For PACU tachycardia (0.9%), intraoperative tachycardia and dysrhythmia were the major contributors. Patient factors also increased the risk of bradycardia (2.5%); namely age, ASA physical status 1 or 2, and preoperative beta blocker therapy. For hypotension (2.2%), duration of surgery > 2 h, completion after 6 PM, and gynecologic intraabdominal procedures were significant risk factors. Compared to patient, surgical, intraoperative, or PACU observations, anesthetic factors studied (premedication, induction agent, ventilation, use of opioids) provided only a small contribution in predicting these events. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension and tachycardia in the PACU, although infrequent, are associated with increased risk of unplanned critical care admission and mortality. Patient, surgical, intraoperative, or PACU observations contribute more to cardiovascular events in the PACU than do differences in anesthetic management identified in this study.

Critical respiratory events in the postanesthesia care unit. Patient, surgical, and anesthetic factors.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have noted a high incidence of adverse outcomes in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), but few have examined associated factors and patient outcomes. To determine the frequency of acute, unanticipated respiratory problems and to examine the associated patient, surgical, and anesthetic factors, we prospectively collected preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data on 24,157 consecutive PACU patients who received a general anesthetic during a 33-month period. METHODS: A PACU critical respiratory event (CRE), was defined as any unanticipated hypoxemia (hemoglobin oxygen saturation < 90%), hypoventilation (respiratory rate < 8 breaths/min or arterial carbon dioxide tension > 50 mmHg) or upper-airway obstruction (stridor or laryngospasm) requiring an active and specific intervention (ventilation, tracheal intubation, opioid or muscle relaxant antagonism, insertion of oral/nasal airway or airway manipulation). These problems were documented by PACU nurses whereas data on case-mix, surgical factors, and intraoperative management were retrieved from the anesthetic record. Significant patient, surgical, and anesthetic factors were identified by logistic regression analysis. Other morbidity experienced by patients with a CRE was also noted. RESULTS: For patients given general anesthesia the risk of a CRE was 1.3% (hypoxemia 0.9%, hypoventilation 0.2%, airway obstruction 0.2%). Preoperative factors that increase risk were age > 60 yr, male gender, diabetes, and obesity (P < 0.05). Patients who underwent operative procedures on an emergency basis and whose operation was longer than 4 h were also at increased risk, but those undergoing perineal procedures were at lower risk (P < 0.05). Anesthetic risk factors (P < 0.05) included opioid premedication (relative odds 1.8), sedatives preoperatively (2.0), fentanyl > 2.0 micrograms.kg-1.h-1 as the sole opioid (1.9), fentanyl used in combination with morphine (1.6) and atracurium > or = 0.25 mg.kg-1.h-1 (2.2). Patients in whom anesthesia was induced with thiopental (relative odds 2.5), compared with those who received propofol for induction, were also at increased risk of a CRE. Patients with a CRE stayed longer in PACU, had higher rates of unanticipated admissions to the intensive care unit and were more likely to have PACU cardiac problems (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A CRE is relatively rare. Multiple patient and surgical factors and specific aspects of anesthetic management are associated with the occurrence of a CRE in the PACU.

Assessing discomfort after anaesthesia: should you ask the patient or read the record?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of anaesthesia care from the patients' viewpoint compared with the hospital record. DESIGN: Prospective study during 1988-9. SETTING: Four teaching hospitals (A-D) in Canada. PATIENTS: 15,960 inpatients receiving anaesthetic requiring at least an overnight stay, for whom an interview and review of hospital records within 72 hours of surgery were complete. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of postoperative symptoms of discomfort (nausea or vomiting, headache, back pain, sore throat, eye symptoms, and tingling) according to the hospital record versus interview and the relation between symptoms and patients' satisfaction with the anaesthetic experience. RESULTS: The preparation of completed interviews ranged from 31.0% to 72.7%, owing mainly to patients discharge (hospitals A and B) and severity of illness (C and D). Interviewed patients were similar to all inpatients in the hospitals but were younger and healthier and more had had effective operations and were general surgical than cardiovascular or neurosurgical patients. In all, 26% to 46% of patients at the four hospitals reported at least one symptom of discomfort. Agreement between interviews and hospital records was low, symptoms being more commonly reported by interview than in the record (for example, headache was reported for 5.8%-17% of patients compared with 0.3%-3.0% in hospital records). After controlling for case mix patients who reported at least one symptom were 2.91 times (95% confidence interval 1.89 to 4.50) more likely to be dissatisfied with their anaesthetic care than patients who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Anaesthesia services are typically neglected in studies of hospital quality, yet patients express considerable anxiety about anaesthetic care. Monitoring and recording patients' discomfort clearly need to be improved if the quality of anaesthesia is to be properly evaluated.

The postoperative interview: assessing risk factors for nausea and vomiting.

Most studies of postoperative nausea and vomiting have concentrated on single etiologic factors and have not detailed the method of assessing these symptoms. This study used postoperative interview data from patients at four teaching hospitals during 1988-89, to determine 1) risk factors for nausea/vomiting, 2) whether the type of surgery affected the rate of nausea/vomiting among female patients, 3) whether differences in rates across hospitals were due to differences in patient case-mix, and 4) whether there were differences in the rate of nausea/vomiting among the patients of individual anesthesiologists. Research nurses performed 16,000 interviews (59% of all inpatients) from a closed-question standardized format. With a multiple logistic regression that controlled simultaneously for all risk factors, factors associated with increased risk for nausea/vomiting for all patients included younger age, female, lower physical status score, no preoperative medical conditions, nonsmokers, elective procedures, longer duration of anesthesia, inhaled anesthetics, use of intraoperative opioids, and gynecologic or ophthalmologic operations. Among women, risk factors were similar, with minor gynecologic surgery associated with increased risk (relative odds = 2.30). We found marked variations in the rate of nausea/vomiting across hospitals (range, 39% to 73%), and these variations were not explained by the case-mix of patients. The rate of nausea/vomiting varied substantially across anesthesiologists in each hospital and the differences were not explained by differences in the patients they managed. Thus in the time period immediately preceding the introduction of newer antiemetic drugs, we found that the rates of this common problem were persistently high as perceived from the patients' point of view.