ArticleBMC anesthesiology2022
Knowledge, safety, and teamwork: a qualitative study on the experiences of anaesthesiologists and nurse anaesthetists working in the preanaesthesia assessment clinic.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examining resilience, moral sensitivity, and work engagement among Chinese anesthesia nurses.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Intraoperative pain management for patients undergoing medication-assisted rehabilitation: a scoping review.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Observational
- Navigating the complex dynamics of anesthesiologists' professional identity formation in the context of their specialty training program: a phenomenographic perspective.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- The construction of patient quality management model in oral post anesthesia care unit in China: a grounded theory approach.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe preanaesthesia assessment clinic (PAC) has been shown to contribute to safe anaesthesia assessment in hospitals. In the PAC, patients are assessed with an interview and can also ask relevant questions about anaesthesia. The intention is to ensure that patients are comprehensively prepared for the surgery and hospital stay. Although earlier studies have assessed the effects of PAC, attitudes and satisfaction of the healthcare personnel working in PAC remain unknown. Thus, this study aimed to examine the experiences of anaesthesiologists and nurse anaesthetists working in PACs as well as to explore barriers and facilitators in this context.
methodsA descriptive qualitative approach was used to explore the experiences of anaesthesiologists and nurse anaesthetists working in PACs. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted using face-to-face, telephone, or digital platforms in five hospitals in west, south, and north Norway between 2020 and 2021. The interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed according to Braun and Clarke's six-steps semantic reflexive analysis.
resultsFour themes and nine subthemes were identified through an active analysis process, including developing competence in clinical anaesthesia practice, identifying barriers and facilitators influencing collaboration and teamwork, improving patient safety and outcomes through structured assessment, and identifying other organisational factors affecting the delivery of healthcare to surgical patients.
conclusionsWorking in the PAC contributed to competence development among the personnel. Additionally, teamwork was considered important for the proper functioning of the PAC. Patient safety was perceived as improved owning to the structured assessment in PAC, with patients getting the opportunity to improve their knowledge and being more involved in the upcoming anaesthesia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.