Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthésie
-
Multicenter Study Clinical Trial
The Canadian four-centre study of anaesthetic outcomes: I. Description of methods and populations.
The objectives of this study were first to develop and institute a methodology for the study of anaesthetic outcome for parallel use in four teaching hospitals in Canada and second, to compare rates of morbidity and mortality associated with anaesthesia between the four centres. The basic design of the study was occurrence screening with anaesthetists entering data on patient demographics, anaesthetic and surgical factors. Research nurses reviewed anaesthetic records and hospital charts and interviewed patients postoperatively. ⋯ There were major differences found across the hospitals, particularly with regard to volume, patient case-mix, anaesthetic drugs and monitoring used. The use of parallel training, repeated consultations and use of rounds and inservices contributed to the reliability and validity of the data collection. We conclude that outcome surveillance can be instituted in different hospital Departments of Anaesthesia with sufficient confidence to form the basis of comparison of anaesthetic outcome.
-
Multicenter Study Clinical Trial
The Canadian four-centre study of anaesthetic outcomes: II. Can outcomes be used to assess the quality of anaesthesia care?
Since anaesthesia, unlike medical or surgical specialties, does not constitute treatment, this study sought to determine if methods used to assess medical or surgical outcomes (that is the determination of adverse outcome) are applicable to anaesthesia. Anaesthetists collected information on patient, surgical and anaesthetic factors while data on recovery room and postoperative events were evaluated by research nurses. Data on 27,184 inpatients were collected and the analysis of outcomes determined for the intraoperative, post-anaesthetic care unit and postoperative time periods. ⋯ Possible reasons to account for these variations in outcome include compliance in recording events, inadequate case-mix adjustment, differences in interpretation of the variables (despite guidelines) and institutional differences in monitoring, charting and observation protocols. The authors conclude that measuring quality of care in anaesthesia by comparing major outcomes is unsatisfactory since the contribution of anaesthesia to perioperative outcomes is uncertain and that variations may be explained by institutional differences which are beyond the control of the anaesthetist. It is suggested that minor adverse events, particularly those of concern to the patient, should be the next focus for quality improvement in anaesthesia.
-
Perioperative myocardial ischaemia is common in patients who have or are at risk of coronary artery disease, occurring frequently in the pre-, intra- and postoperative periods. The majority of perioperative ischaemic episodes are silent, being unaccompanied by any symptoms of angina. ⋯ Maintenance of haemodynamic stability is important to reduce the incidence of myocardial ischemia, but ischaemia may occur in the absence of adverse haemodynamic changes. Although our efforts have largely been devoted to the prevention and treatment of intraoperative ischaemia, it is hoped that similar efforts outside the operating room in the postoperative period will further improve patient care and outcome.
-
Numerous postoperative analgesic therapies are continuing to develop as interest increases in the control of acute pain, particularly within the specialty of anaesthesia. Further progress will be made in the near future in relation to preemptive analgesia and reduction of postoperative pain by controlling spinal cord plasticity.(41,42) The concept of multimodal or balanced analgesia(43) in which the combined use of specific agents blocking specific segments of the pain pathway is another area which may provide improvements in postoperative analgesia.