Why the study?
Rising patient numbers and increasing complexity challenge the sustainability of the preoperative process, prompting evaluation of an electronic screening application to identify patients needing consultation versus low-risk patients.
Does an electronic preoperative screening application accurately identify low-risk patients who can bypass preoperative consultation compared to regular assessment in adult surgical patients?
Does an electronic preoperative screening application accurately identify low-risk patients who can bypass preoperative consultation compared to regular assessment in adult surgical patients?
Electronic preoperative screening has high sensitivity to identify patients needing consultation, allowing low-risk patients to safely bypass the preoperative clinic.
Electronic screening may triage low-risk patients to day-of-surgery evaluation; leaves open impact on safety and workflow efficiency.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Rising patient numbers, with increasing complexity, challenge the sustainability of the current preoperative process. We evaluated whether an electronic screening application can distinguish patients that need a preoperative consultation from low-risk patients that can be first seen on the day of surgery. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Preoperative clinic of a tertiary academic hospital. PATIENTS: 1395 adult patients scheduled for surgery or procedural sedation. INTERVENTIONS: We assessed a novel electronic preoperative screening application which consists of a questionnaire with a maximum of 185 questions regarding the patient's medical history and current state of health. The application provides an extensive health report, including an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification and a recommendation for either consultation by an anesthesiologist at the preoperative clinic or approval for screening on the day of surgery. MEASUREMENTS: The recommendation of the electronic screening system was compared with the regular preoperative assessment using measures of diagnostic accuracy and agreement. Secondary outcomes included ASA-PS classification, patient satisfaction, and the anesthesiologists' opinion on the completeness and quality of the screening report. RESULTS: Sensitivity to detect patients who needed additional consultation was 97.5% (95%CI 91.2-99.7) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.08 (95%CI 0.02-0.32). 407 (29.2%) patients were approved for surgery by both electronic screening and anesthesiologist. In 909 (65.2%) cases, the electronic screening system recommended further consultation while the anesthesiologist approved the patient (specificity 30.9% (95%CI 28.4-33.5); poor level of agreement (ĸ = 0.04)). Agreement regarding ASA-PS classification scores was weak (ĸ = 0.48). The majority of patients (78.0%) felt positive about electronic screening replacing the regular preoperative assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic screening can reliably identify patients who can have their first contact with an anesthesiologist on the day of surgery, potentially allowing a major proportion of patients to safely bypass the preoperative clinic.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blink et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: