Articles: outcome-assessment-health-care.
-
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.
-
Multicenter Study Clinical Trial
The Canadian four-centre study of anaesthetic outcomes: III. Are anaesthetic complications predictable in day surgical practice?
To understand better the factors important to the safety of anaesthesia provided for day surgical procedures, we analyzed the intraoperative and immediate postoperative course of patients at four Canadian teaching hospitals' day treatment centres. After excluding those who received only monitored anaesthesia care, there were 6,914 adult (non-obstetrical) patients seen over a twelve-month period in 1988-89. The rate of adverse outcome consequent to their care was identified by a comprehensive surveillance system which included review of anaesthetic records (four hospitals) and follow-up telephone calls (two hospitals). ⋯ Patients judged obese, or inadequately fasted, were found to experience a greater rate of recovery problems as well as discomfort. While the low response rate (36%) to the telephone interviews created a sampling bias, the high rate of patient dissatisfaction among those reached is disconcerting. We conclude that day surgical patients with preoperative medical conditions, even when optimally managed, are at higher risk for adverse events in the perioperative period.
-
We discuss some of the challenges facing hospitals in developed nations, with special attention to the need to monitor and evaluate hospital performance. In particular, there is a need for quality indicators that measure the effects of treatment, and are risk-adjusted, so that valid comparisons of outcomes can be made across hospitals that treat different types of patients. ⋯ We discuss the uses of these tools for identifying problems and for monitoring outcomes of care within a hospital, including screening medical records for peer review, identifying variations in outcomes across various subgroups of physicians, and comparing changes in outcomes following various changes in the delivery system. Possible applications at the regional, national and international levels are then discussed, with special emphasis on the use of these tools for measuring the size of the gap between the efficacy of a technology, as determined through randomized controlled trials under stringent protocols, and the effectiveness of the same technology once it is exported, and then used under true practice conditions in another country.
-
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.
-
Meta Analysis
Prearrest predictors of survival following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis.
The success rate of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) varies with the patient population studied. Prearrest variables have been used to identify groups of patients with a particularly low rate of survival following CPR. The purpose of this study was to use the technique of meta-analysis to identify prearrest variables associated with a decreased rate of survival to the time of discharge following CPR of hospitalized patients. ⋯ The identification of prearrest variables that are associated with decreased survival following CPR will assist clinicians when they counsel their patients regarding do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. In addition, the further refinement of a predictive tool such as the modified Pre-Arrest Morbidity Index can help clinicians to identify patients for whom CPR is futile. Such an instrument must be validated on an independent data set before it can be considered for clinical application.