Comparative efficacy of ultrasound-guided and stimulating popliteal-sciatic perineural catheters for postoperative analgesia

Perineural catheter insertion using ultrasound guidance alone is a relatively new approach. Previous studies have shown that ultrasound-guided catheters take less time to place with high placement success rates, but the analgesic efficacy compared with the established stimulating catheter technique remains unknown. We tested the hypothesis that popliteal-sciatic perineural catheter insertion relying exclusively on ultrasound guidance results in superior postoperative analgesia compared with stimulating catheters. Preoperatively, subjects receiving a popliteal-sciatic perineural catheter for foot or ankle surgery were assigned randomly to either ultrasound guidance (bolus via needle with non-stimulating catheter insertion) or electrical stimulation (bolus via catheter). We used 1.5% mepivacaine 40 mL for the primary surgical nerve block and 0.2% ropivacaine (basal 8 mL·hr−1; bolus 4 mL; 30 min lockout) was infused postoperatively. The primary outcome was average surgical pain on postoperative day one. Forty of the 80 subjects enrolled were randomized to each treatment group. One of 40 subjects (2.5%) in the ultrasound group failed catheter placement per protocol vs nine of 40 (22.5%) in the stimulating catheter group (P = 0.014). The difference in procedural duration (mean [95% confidence interval (CI)]) was −6.48 (−9.90 - −3.05) min, with ultrasound requiring 7.0 (4.0-14.1) min vs stimulation requiring 11.0 (5.0-30.0) min (P < 0.001). The average pain scores of subjects who provided data on postoperative day one were somewhat higher for the 33 ultrasound subjects than for the 26 stimulation subjects (5.0 [1.0-7.8] vs 3.0 [0.0-6.5], respectively; P = 0.032), a difference (mean [95%CI]) of 1.37 (0.03-2.71). For popliteal-sciatic perineural catheters, ultrasound guidance takes less time and results in fewer placement failures compared with stimulating catheters. However, analgesia may be mildly improved with successfully placed stimulating catheters. Clinical trial registration number NCT00876681

Impact of Accreditation on the Quality of Healthcare Services: a Systematic Review of the Literature

<b>Background and Objective:</b> Accreditation is usually a voluntary program in which trained external peer reviewers evaluate a healthcare organization&#x2032;s compliance and compare it with pre-established performance standards. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of accreditation programs on the quality of healthcare services <b>Methods :</b> We did a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the impact of accreditation programs on the quality of healthcare services. Several databases were systematically searched, including Medline, Embase, Healthstar, and Cinhal. <b>Results</b>: Twenty-six studies evaluating the impact of accreditation were identified. The majority of the studies showed general accreditation for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), trauma, ambulatory surgical care, infection control and pain management; and subspecialty accreditation programs to significantly improve the process of care provided by healthcare services by improving the structure and organization of healthcare facilities. Several studies showed that general accreditation programs significantly improve clinical outcomes and the quality of care of these clinical conditions and showed a significant positive impact of subspecialty accreditation programs in improving clinical outcomes in different subspecialties, including sleep medicine, chest pain management and trauma management. <b>Conclusions</b>: There is consistent evidence that shows that accreditation programs improve the process of care provided by healthcare services. There is considerable evidence to show that accreditation programs improve clinical outcomes of a wide spectrum of clinical conditions. Accreditation programs should be supported as a tool to improve the quality of healthcare services