• Br J Anaesth · Sep 2024

    Implementation of a software-based decision support tool for guideline-appropriate preoperative evaluation: a prospective agreement study.

    • Simone M Kagerbauer, Jennifer Wißler, Dimislav I Andonov, Bernhard Ulm, Gerhard Schneider, Armin H Podtschaske, Manfred Blobner, and Bettina Jungwirth.
    • Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany; Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
    • Br J Anaesth. 2024 Sep 1; 133 (3): 519529519-529.

    BackgroundGuideline adherence in the medical field leaves room for improvement. Digitalised decision support helps improve compliance. However, the complex nature of the guidelines makes implementation in clinical practice difficult.MethodsThis single-centre prospective study included 204 adult ASA physical status 3-4 patients undergoing elective noncardiac surgery at a German university hospital. Agreement of clearance for surgery between a guideline expert and a digital guideline support tool was investigated. The decision made by the on-duty anaesthetists (standard approach) was assessed for agreement with the expert in a cross-over design. The main outcome was the level of agreement between digital guideline support and the expert.ResultsThe digital guideline support approach cleared 18.1% of the patients for surgery, the standard approach cleared 74.0%, and the expert approach cleared 47.5%. Agreement of the expert decision with digital guideline support (66.7%) and the standard approach (67.6%) was fair (Cohen's kappa 0.37 [interquartile range 0.26-0.48] vs 0.31 [0.21-0.42], P=0.6). Taking the expert decision as a benchmark, correct clearance using digital guideline support was 50.5%, and correct clearance using the standard approach was 44.6%. Digital guideline support incorrectly asked for additional examinations in 31.4% of the patients, whereas the standard approach did not consider conditions that would have justified additional examinations before surgery in 29.4%.ConclusionsStrict guideline adherence for clearance for surgery through digitalised decision support inadequately considered patients, clinical context. Vague formulations, weak recommendations, and low-quality evidence complicate guideline translation into explicit rules.Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT04058769.Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…