Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33338259›Full record

ArticleAnaesthesia2021

Perceptions of UK clinicians towards postoperative critical care.

S Hashim, D J N Wong, L Farmer, S K Harris, S R Moonesinghe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anaesthesia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Critical care and pandemic preparedness and response.British journal of anaesthesia · 2023
    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.

S HashimUniversity College London Medical School, London, UK.
D J N WongDepartment of Anaesthesia, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
L FarmerHealth Services Research Centre, National Institute for Academic Anaesthesia, Royal College of Anaesthetists, London, UK.
S K HarrisUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
S R MoonesingheSurgical Outcomes Research Centre, Centre for Peri-operative Medicine, Department for Targeted Intervention, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and IrelandNIHR Local Clinical Research Networks; Health FoundationRoyal College of AnaesthetistsRoyal College of Anaesthetists, and the University College London Hospitals (UCLH) National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre in the UKThe London Clinic Hospital and the UCLH NIHR Surgical Outcomes Research Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postoperative critical care is a finite resource that is recommended for high-risk patients. Despite national recommendations specifying that such patients should receive postoperative critical care, there is evidence that these recommendations are not universally followed. We performed a national survey aiming to better understand how patients are risk-stratified in practice; elucidate clinicians' opinions about how patients should be selected for critical care; and determine factors which affect the actual provision of postoperative critical care. As part of the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project, epidemiology of critical care after surgery study, we distributed a paper survey to anaesthetists, surgeons and intensivists providing peri-operative care during a single week in March 2017. We collected data on respondent characteristics, and their opinions of postoperative critical care provision, potential benefits and real-world challenges. We undertook both quantitative and qualitative analyses to interpret the responses. We received 10,383 survey responses from 237 hospitals across the UK. Consultants used a lower threshold for critical care admission than other career grades, indicating potentially more risk-averse behaviour. The majority of respondents reported that critical care provision was inadequate, and cited the value of critical care as being predominantly due to higher nurse: patient ratios. Use of objective risk assessment tools was poor, and patients were commonly selected for critical care based on procedure-specific pathways rather than individualised risk assessment. Challenges were highlighted in the delivery of peri-operative critical care services, such as an overall lack of capacity, competition for beds with non-surgical cases and poor flow through the hospital leading to bed 'blockages'. Critical care is perceived to provide benefit to high-risk surgical patients, but there is variation in practice about the definition and determination of risk, how patients are referred and how to deal with the lack of critical care resources. Future work should focus on evaluating 'enhanced care' units for postoperative patients, how to better implement individualised risk assessment in practice, and how to improve patient flow through hospitals.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAnesthetistsClinical Decision-MakingCritical CareHealth Care SurveysHumansPatient SelectionPhysiciansPostoperative CareSurgeonsUnited Kingdomanaesthesiacritical careenhanced careperi-operativepostoperative caresurgery

Identifiers

PMID33338259
PMCPMC7898787

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.