ArticleAnaesthesia2022
Defining complexity in anaesthesia: description and validation of the Oxford Anaesthetic Complexity (OxAnCo) score.
Article in Anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasing demand for surgery and anaesthesia has created an imperative to manage anaesthetic workforce and caseload. This may include changes to distribution of cases amongst anaesthetists of different grades, including non-physician anaesthetists. To achieve this safely, an assessment of case complexity is essential. We present a novel system for scoring complexity of cases in anaesthesia, the Oxford Anaesthetic Complexity score. This integrates patient, anaesthetic, surgical and systems factors, and is different from assessments of risk. We adopted an end-user development approach to the design of the score, and validated it using a dataset of anaesthetic cases. Across 688 cases, the median (IQR [range]) complexity score was 19 (17-22 [15-33]). Cases requiring a consultant anaesthetist had a significantly higher median (IQR [range]) score than those requiring a senior trainee at 22 (20-25 [15-33]) vs. 19(17-21 [15-28]), p < 0.001. Cases undertaken in a tertiary acute hospital had a significantly higher score than those in a district general hospital, the median (IQR [range]) scores being 20 (17-22 [15-33]) vs. 17 (16-19 [17-28]), p < 0.001. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis showed good prediction of complexity sufficient to require a consultant anaesthetist, with area under the curve of 0.84. Any rise in complexity above baseline (score > 15) was strongly predictive of a case too complex for a junior trainee (positive predictive value 0.93). The Oxford Anaesthetic Complexity score can be used to match cases to different grades of anaesthetist, and can help in defining cases appropriate for the expanding non-physician anaesthetist workforce.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35974666What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.