ArticleNursing in critical care2026
Effectiveness of the Semi-Automated Post-ANaesthesia Discharge Assessment Tool: A Pre-Post Study Using Propensity Score Matching.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of the Semi-Automated Post-ANaesthesia Discharge Assessment Tool: A Pre-Post Study Using Propensity Score Matching.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDischarge management and workflow efficiency in a postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) can be improved with specific tools assessing discharge readiness. Several authors have found tools to reduce the PACU length of stay (PACU LOS), but results have remained inconsistent.
aimWe analysed the effects of the Post-ANaesthesia Discharge Assessment tool (PANDA) on PACU LOS, operating room (OR) holds, PACU nurses' confidence with the discharge decision and their perception of the tools' implementation. STUDY
designThis pre-post study with a propensity-matched historical control group evaluated the impact of the semi-automatic PANDA tool in a single primary-level hospital. The tool supports discharge decisions in the PACU. Median PACU LOS pre- and post-implementation was compared using nearest-neighbour propensity score matching and weighted linear regression. OR holds were analysed over 20 consecutive days. A structured nurse survey assessed confidence in discharge decisions and perceptions of the tool's implementation.
resultsThe study included 8475 patients (pre n = 4509; post n = 3966) and 19 nurses. Median PACU LOS before implementing the PANDA tool was 114 min (IQR 89-144) compared to 103 min (IQR 79-136) after the implementation. The weighted linear model showed an estimated difference in PACU LOS of -16 min (95% CI from -20 to -12 min, p < 0.001). There were too few OR holds for comparison. PACU nurses' confidence in their discharge decision remained unchanged before and after implementation. The PANDA tool received high ratings for acceptability, appropriateness, compatibility and feasibility.
conclusionImplementing the semi-automated PANDA discharge tool significantly decreased PACU LOS. In addition, PACU nurses reported high acceptance, usefulness and feasibility of the tool. The PANDA discharge tool may optimise routine clinical practice to streamline PACU workflows, support resource allocation and decision-making and promote standardisation. Reducing PACU LOS may also improve patient flow and capacity planning in high-volume settings. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The semi-automated PANDA tool was well received by nurses who perceived it as useful and feasible. Given the significant reduction in PACU length of stay, integrating PANDA into clinical practice may enhance post-surgical patient flow and resource allocation, while its main added value lies in improving standardisation, supporting decision-making and PACU workflow.
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.