Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31615410›Full record

Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2019

Lack of association between intraoperative handoff of care and postoperative complications: a retrospective observational study.

Vikas N O'Reilly-Shah, Victoria G Melanson, Cinnamon L Sullivan, Craig S Jabaley, Grant C Lynde

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Horner syndrome following high thoracic erector spinae plane block.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Mechanisms of action of the erector spinae plane (ESP) block: a narrative review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Vikas N O'Reilly-ShahDepartment of Anesthesiology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Victoria G MelansonDepartment of Anesthesiology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Cinnamon L SullivanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Craig S JabaleyDepartment of Anesthesiology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Grant C LyndeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. glynde@emory.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2055-3484

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe significance of intraoperative anesthesia handoffs on patient outcomes are unclear. One aspect differentiating the disparate results is the treatment of confounding factors, such as patient comorbidities and surgery time of day. We performed this study to quantify the significance of confounding variables on composite adverse events during intraoperative anesthesia handoffs.

methodsIn this retrospective study, we analyzed data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS NSQIP). We examined the effects of intraoperative handoffs between anesthesia personnel. A total of 12,111 cases performed examined at two hospitals operated by a single healthcare system that were that included in the ACS NSQIP database performed. The presence of attending and anesthetist or resident handoffs, patient age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification, case length, surgical case complexity, and evening/weekend start time were measured.

resultsA total of 2586 of all cases in the NSQIP dataset experienced a handoff during the case. When analyzed as a single variable, attending handoffs were associated with higher rates of adverse outcomes. However, once confounding variables were added into the analysis, attending handoffs and complete care transitions were no longer statistically significant.

conclusionsInclusion of significant covariates is essential to fully understanding the impact provider handoffs have on patient outcomes. Case timing and lengthy case duration are more likely to result in both a handoff and an adverse event. The impact of handoffs on patient outcomes seen in the literature are likely due, in part, to how covariates were addressed.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnesthesiaFemaleHumansIntraoperative CareMaleMiddle AgedPatient HandoffPostoperative ComplicationsQuality ImprovementRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsCommunicationPatient handoffPatient safety

Identifiers

PMID31615410
PMCPMC6794912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.