PACU bypass after outpatient knee surgery is associated with fewer unplanned hospital admissions but more phase II nursing interventions.

BACKGROUND: The authors recently proposed a recovery scoring system for outpatients receiving regional anesthesia (RA) or general anesthesia (GA). This scoring system was designed to allow qualifying patients to be directly routed to the phase II (step-down) recovery unit instead of the traditional postanesthesia care unit (PACU). We report PACU bypass rates using these criteria, and the extent to which PACU bypass was associated with (1) required nursing interventions in the step-down recovery unit, and (2) successful same-day discharge. METHODS: Day-of-surgery outcomes were studied for 894 outpatients undergoing outpatient sports medicine surgery on the lower extremity. We determined PACU-bypass rates, nursing interventions in the step-down recovery unit for common symptoms, and unplanned hospital admissions. Using logistic regression, we analyzed step-down nursing interventions based on PACU requirement versus PACU bypass, and anesthesia techniques used (GA vs. not, peripheral nerve blocks vs. not). RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent (778/894) of all patients bypassed PACU. Of PACU-bypass patients, 241/778 (31%) required step-down nursing interventions. Of patients requiring PACU, only 19/116 (16%) required additional interventions in step-down (P < 0.001). PACU-bypass patients were almost three times more likely (odds ratio 2.9,P < 0.001) to require at least one nursing intervention in the step-down unit, when compared with patients requiring PACU. Fewer unplanned admissions were required by patients who bypassed PACU (odds ratio = 0.3,P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: For outpatient lower extremity surgery, applying our PACU-bypass criteria led to an 87% PACU bypass rate with no reportable adverse events.

Retrospective evaluation of unanticipated admissions and readmissions after same day surgery and associated costs.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of unanticipated admissions and readmissions, and to characterize the associated reasons and costs. DESIGN: Retrospective medical records database analysis. SETTING: University teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Any patient undergoing same day surgery (SDS) during a 12-month period. MEASUREMENTS: All nonelective return visits to the hospital within 30 days and the reasons for return were identified. MAIN RESULTS: There were a total of 20,817 patients who underwent SDS in 1999; 1,195 (5.7%) of these returned to the hospital within 30 days or were admitted directly after surgery. Of those unanticipated admissions and readmissions, 313 (1.5%) were directly related to the original SDS procedure. The mean age of these patients was 51 years, 164 (52%) were female, and 266 (85%) were Caucasian. Pain was the most commonly reported reason for return, occurring in 120 (38%) patients who had an unanticipated admission or readmission. After controlling for SDS volume, the general surgery service had the highest rate of unanticipated admissions or readmissions (3.2%), followed by otolaryngology (3.1%) and urology (2.9%). Of the 120 patients returning with unanticipated admissions and readmissions due to pain, 46 (38%) had orthopedic procedures during their index SDS. Mean charges for patients with unanticipated admissions and readmission due to pain were $1,869 +/- $4,553 per visit, whereas charges for nonpain related readmissions were $12,000 +/- $36,886. CONCLUSION: At our teaching institution, approximately 1.5% of patients undergoing outpatient ambulatory surgery return within 30 days due to problems directly related to the original surgical procedure. Pain accounted for more than one third of return visits, incurring significant costs. Efforts to manage pain should focus not only on pain in the hospital but also anticipation of pain-related issues on discharge.

Evaluation of prescribing practices: risk of lactic acidosis with metformin therapy.

BACKGROUND: The risk of lactic acidosis during metformin therapy is linked to specific and well-documented conditions that constitute contraindications or precautions to use of the agent. We conducted a retrospective evaluation of metformin use to determine whether prescribing practices are in accord with published contraindications and precautions. METHODS: All patients admitted to the hospital during a 6-month period who received at least 1 dose of metformin were identified through hospital pharmacy records. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were then evaluated to determine whether metformin was prescribed to patients possessing any of the risk factors associated with development of lactic acidosis. RESULTS: We identified 263 hospitalizations involving 204 patients who received at least 1 dose of metformin during inpatient admission. Patients had at least 1 absolute contraindication to metformin therapy in 71 admissions (27%). In 29 (41%) of these 71 admissions, treatment with metformin continued despite the contraindication. The most common contraindication, elevated serum creatinine concentration, was present or developed during 32 admissions (12%); however, metformin use was appropriately discontinued in only 8 (25%) of these 32 patients. Of the precautions against metformin use, concomitant administration of cationic agents was the most common, occurring in 97 admissions (37%). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients are treated with metformin despite having clinical conditions that place them at risk for developing lactic acidosis. To minimize this risk, it is essential that prescribers develop a better understanding of the prescribing guidelines for metformin.