Idea /

Mode of access: Internet

Evaluation of electronic screening in the preoperative process

Study objective: Rising patient numbers, with increasing complexity, challenge the sustainability of the current preoperative process. We evaluated whether an electronic screening application can distinguish patients that need a preoperative consultation from low-risk patients that can be first seen on the day of surgery. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Preoperative clinic of a tertiary academic hospital. Patients: 1395 adult patients scheduled for surgery or procedural sedation. Interventions: We assessed a novel electronic preoperative screening application which consists of a questionnaire with a maximum of 185 questions regarding the patient's medical history and current state of health. The application provides an extensive health report, including an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification and a recommendation for either consultation by an anesthesiologist at the preoperative clinic or approval for screening on the day of surgery. Measurements: The recommendation of the electronic screening system was compared with the regular preoperative assessment using measures of diagnostic accuracy and agreement. Secondary outcomes included ASA-PS classification, patient satisfaction, and the anesthesiologists' opinion on the completeness and quality of the screening report. Results: Sensitivity to detect patients who needed additional consultation was 97.5% (95%CI 91.2–99.7) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.08 (95%CI 0.02–0.32). 407 (29.2%) patients were approved for surgery by both electronic screening and anesthesiologist. In 909 (65.2%) cases, the electronic screening system recommended further consultation while the anesthesiologist approved the patient (specificity 30.9% (95%CI 28.4–33.5); poor level of agreement (ĸ = 0.04)). Agreement regarding ASA-PS classification scores was weak (ĸ = 0.48). The majority of patients (78.0%) felt positive about electronic screening replacing the regular preoperative assessment. Conclusions: Electronic screening can reliably identify patients who can have their first contact with an anesthesiologist on the day of surgery, potentially allowing a major proportion of patients to safely bypass the preoperative clinic

Evaluation of electronic screening in the preoperative process

Study objective: Rising patient numbers, with increasing complexity, challenge the sustainability of the current preoperative process. We evaluated whether an electronic screening application can distinguish patients that need a preoperative consultation from low-risk patients that can be first seen on the day of surgery. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Preoperative clinic of a tertiary academic hospital. Patients: 1395 adult patients scheduled for surgery or procedural sedation. Interventions: We assessed a novel electronic preoperative screening application which consists of a questionnaire with a maximum of 185 questions regarding the patient's medical history and current state of health. The application provides an extensive health report, including an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification and a recommendation for either consultation by an anesthesiologist at the preoperative clinic or approval for screening on the day of surgery. Measurements: The recommendation of the electronic screening system was compared with the regular preoperative assessment using measures of diagnostic accuracy and agreement. Secondary outcomes included ASA-PS classification, patient satisfaction, and the anesthesiologists' opinion on the completeness and quality of the screening report. Results: Sensitivity to detect patients who needed additional consultation was 97.5% (95%CI 91.2–99.7) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.08 (95%CI 0.02–0.32). 407 (29.2%) patients were approved for surgery by both electronic screening and anesthesiologist. In 909 (65.2%) cases, the electronic screening system recommended further consultation while the anesthesiologist approved the patient (specificity 30.9% (95%CI 28.4–33.5); poor level of agreement (ĸ = 0.04)). Agreement regarding ASA-PS classification scores was weak (ĸ = 0.48). The majority of patients (78.0%) felt positive about electronic screening replacing the regular preoperative assessment. Conclusions: Electronic screening can reliably identify patients who can have their first contact with an anesthesiologist on the day of surgery, potentially allowing a major proportion of patients to safely bypass the preoperative clinic