ASA-PS classification assignment showed significant disagreement between internal medicine and anesthesia providers (Kappa 0.170), but near-perfect agreement among anesthesia providers (Kappa 0.863).
Observational (n=101)
No
There is significant inter-specialty disagreement in ASA-PS classification between internal medicine and anesthesia providers, highlighting the need for standardized training to ensure accurate preoperative risk stratification.
Estimación del efecto: Kappa 0.170 (95% CI -0.001, 0.340)
valor p: p=0.034
BACKGROUND: The American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification is not intended to predict risk, but increasing ASA-PS class has been associated with increased perioperative mortality. The ASA-PS class is being used by many institutions to identify patients that may require further workup or exams preoperatively. Studies regarding the ASA-PS classification system show significant variability in class assignment by anesthesiologists as well as providers of different specialties when provided with short clinical scenarios. Discrepancies in the ASA-PS accuracy have the potential to lead to unnecessary testing and cancelation of surgical procedures. Our study aimed to determine whether these differences in ASA-PS classification were present when actual patients were evaluated rather than previously published scenario-based studies. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed for patients >/= 65 years of age undergoing elective total hip or total knee replacements. One hundred seventy-seven records were reviewed of which 101 records had the necessary data. The outcome measures noted were the ASA-PS classification assigned by the internal medicine clinic provider, the ASA-PS classification assigned by the Pre-Anesthesia Unit (PAU) clinic provider, and the ASA-PS classification assigned on the day of surgery (DOS) by the anesthesia provider conducting the anesthetic care. RESULTS: = 0.025). Low kappa values were obtained confirming the inter-observer variation in the application of the ASA-PS classification of patients by providers of different specialties Kappa of 0.170 (- 0.001, 0.340) and 0.156 (- 0.015, 0.327). CONCLUSIONS: There was disagreement in the ASA-PS class designation between two providers of different specialties when evaluating the same patients with access to full medical records. When the anesthesia-run PAU and the anesthesia assigned DOS ASA-PS class designations were evaluated, there was agreement. This agreement was seen between anesthesia providers regardless of education or training level. The difference in the application of the ASA-PS classification in our study appeared to be reflective of department membership and not reflective of the individual provider's level of training.
Knuf et al. (Tue,) conducted a observational in Elective total hip or total knee replacement (n=101). ASA-PS classification by internal medicine provider vs. ASA-PS classification by anesthesia provider was evaluated on Agreement in ASA-PS classification between internal medicine and PAU providers (Kappa 0.170, 95% CI -0.001, 0.340, p=0.034). ASA-PS classification assignment showed significant disagreement between internal medicine and anesthesia providers (Kappa 0.170), but near-perfect agreement among anesthesia providers (Kappa 0.863).