Why the study?
Routine preoperative testing for healthy patients undergoing low-risk surgical procedures is not scientifically sound, yet determinants of test-ordering behaviour and barriers to guideline adherence remain unclear.
This protocol outlines a qualitative study to identify barriers and enablers to guideline adherence regarding routine preoperative testing for low-risk surgeries.
May guide de-implementation of routine testing in low-risk surgery; leaves open specific barriers and enablers pending qualitative data.
INTRODUCTION: Current evidence suggests that preoperative tests such as chest X-rays, electrocardiograms and baseline laboratory studies may not be useful for healthy patients undergoing low-risk surgical procedures. Routine preoperative testing for healthy patients having low-risk surgery is not a scientifically sound practice. In this study, we will interview healthcare providers working at medical facilities where low-risk surgical procedures are carried out. This will allow us to gain insight into the determinants of preoperative testing behaviours for healthy patients undergoing low-risk surgeries and their barriers and enablers to guideline adherence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use semistructured interviews with anaesthesiologists, surgeons and preadmission clinic nurses to assess the determinants of preoperative testing behaviours. The interview guide was designed around the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), developed specifically to determine the barriers and enablers to implementing evidence-based guidelines. Interviews will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded according to the TDF. Key themes will be generated for each of the identified domains. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have received ethics approval from the Health Research Ethics Board in Newfoundland and Labrador (HREB #2018.190) for this study. The results of this work will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentation at a healthcare forum and plain-language infographic summaries. Additionally, deidentified data collected and analysed for this study will be available for review from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pike et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: