Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26734428›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality improvement reports2015

Improving the quality of the surgical preoperative assessment in a district general hospital.

Jacob Koris, Catherine Hopkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality improvement reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jacob KorisNHS England.
Catherine HopkinsNHS England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At Leicester General Hospital, England, patients are assessed by a team of junior doctors for elective colorectal and hepatobiliary procedures. After a number of same day cancellations, a large discrepancy was identified between the findings at the preoperative assessment clinic and the anaesthetic assessment on the day of surgery. After a multidisciplinary meeting was held, three interventions were decided on with an aim to bring the preoperative assessment in line with the anaesthetic assessment. Firstly, a set of guidelines was written and introduced for the junior doctors to use as a reference when assessing patients. Secondly, a proforma was designed specifically to prompt users to include essential details which were being missed in the assessment, having audited 100 patients' notes. Thirdly, a preoperative investigation "calculator" was recommended for each patient to simplify compliance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance for preoperative assessment. Before and after each intervention was introduced, a cohort of 50 patients were followed looking for differences in findings in the history, examination, investigations, and fitness for surgery between the preoperative assessment in clinic and the anaesthetic assessment on the day of surgery. Initially 68% of patients were compliant for details in the history, 76% for examination, 32% for choice of preoperative investigations, and 100% for fitness for surgery decision. After all three interventions had been introduced, 96% of patients were compliant for history, 94% for examination findings, 88% had the correct choice of preoperative investigations, and 100% had the same decision on fitness for surgery. The interventions described proved to be cheap and effective methods of improving the quality of the preoperative assessment, bringing it in line with the anaesthetic assessment and reducing the risk of same day cancellations.

Identifiers

PMID26734428
PMCPMC4693085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.