Search

The 70 recommendations summarize the current status of preoperative risk evaluation of adult patients prior to elective non-cardiothoracic surgery. Based on the joint publications of the German scientific societies for anesthesiology and intensive care medicine (DGAI), surgery (DGCH), and internal medicine (DGIM), which were first published in 2010 and updated in 2017, as well as the European guideline on preoperative cardiac risk evaluation published in 2022, a comprehensive re-evaluation of the recommendation takes place, taking into account new findings, the current literature, and current guidelines of international professional societies. The revised multidisciplinary recommendation is intended to facilitate a structured and common approach to the preoperative evaluation of patients. The aim is to ensure individualized preparation for the patient prior to surgery and thus to increase patient safety. Taking into account intervention- and patient-specific factors, which are indispensable in the preoperative risk evaluation, the perioperative risk for the patient should be minimized and safety increased. The recommendations for action are summarized under "General Principles (A)," "Advanced Diagnostics (B)," and the "Preoperative Management of Continuous Medication (C)." For the first time, a rating of the individual measures with regard to their clinical relevance has been given in the present recommendation. A joint and transparent agreement is intended to ensure a high level of patient orientation while avoiding unnecessary preliminary examinations, to shorten preoperative examination procedures, and ultimately to save costs. The joint recommendation of DGAI, DGCH and DGIM reflects the current state of knowledge as well as the opinion of experts. The recommendation does not replace the individualized decision between patient and physician about the best preoperative strategy and treatment., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESC/ESA) guidelines inform cardiac workup before noncardiac surgery based on an algorithm. Our primary hypotheses were that there would be associations between (i) the groups stratified according to the algorithms and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and (ii) over- and underuse of cardiac testing and MACE., Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort. Major adverse cardiac events were a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, and life-threatening arrhythmia at 30 days. For each cardiac test, pathological findings were defined a priori. We used multivariable logistic regression to measure associations., Results: We registered 359 MACE at 30 days amongst 6976 patients; classification in a higher-risk group using the ESC/ESA algorithm was associated with 30-day MACE; however, discrimination of the ESC/ESA algorithms for 30-day MACE was modest; area under the curve 0.64 (95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.67). After adjustment for sex, age, and ASA physical status, discrimination was 0.72 (0.70-0.75). Overuse or underuse of cardiac tests were not consistently associated with MACE. There was no independent association between test recommendation class and pathological findings (P=0.14 for stress imaging; P=0.35 for transthoracic echocardiography; P=0.52 for coronary angiography)., Conclusions: Discrimination for MACE using the ESC/ESA guidelines algorithms was limited. Overuse or underuse of cardiac tests was not consistently associated with cardiovascular events. The recommendation class of preoperative cardiac tests did not influence their yield., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02573532., (Copyright © 2021 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Children often experience a high level of anxiety before anesthesia, which may lead to poor cooperation during anesthesia induction and negative consequences for the postoperative period. The aim of this study was to obtain knowledge that may improve practice in preparing preschoolers for anesthesia and surgery by analyzing nurse anesthetists' preoperative experiences with children. A focus group interview with nurse anesthetists was conducted. The interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim, and results were analyzed using qualitative text analysis. Three main themes were identified to relieve preschoolers' anxiety: "Making the unknown and scary harmless," "Using oneself," and "Having a lap to sit on." Findings indicate that explanation and preparation through play, as well as experiences of participation and coping, can safeguard children who are feeling anxious. The professional and personal qualities of a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) are important when managing pediatric patients' anxiety. It is essential that CRNAs have the ability to adapt the induction of anesthesia to suit the child individually (and parents). The parents constitute an important collaborator for CRNAs. Young children need explanations and knowledge about what is happening and what to expect. CRNAs should focus on codetermination and participation for preschool children undergoing anesthesia., Competing Interests: Name: Maren Thomasgaard, MSc, RNA Contribution: This author made significant contributions to the conception, synthesis, writing, and final editing and approval of the manuscript to justify inclusion as an author. Disclosures: None. Name: Vibeke Lohne, PhD Contribution: This author made significant contributions to the conception, synthesis, writing, and final editing and approval of the manuscript to justify inclusion as an author. Disclosures: None. Name: Berit Taraldsen Valeberg, PhD, RNA Contribution: This author made significant contributions to the conception, synthesis, writing, and final editing and approval of the manuscript to justify inclusion as an author. Disclosures: None. The authors did not discuss off-label use within the article. Disclosure statements are available for viewing upon request., (Copyright © by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.)

: The purpose of this update of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) guidelines on the pre-operative evaluation of the adult undergoing noncardiac surgery is to present recommendations based on the available relevant clinical evidence. Well performed randomised studies on the topic are limited and therefore many recommendations rely to a large extent on expert opinion and may need to be adapted specifically to the healthcare systems of individual countries. This article aims to provide an overview of current knowledge on the subject with an assessment of the quality of the evidence in order to allow anaesthesiologists all over Europe to integrate - wherever possible - this knowledge into daily patient care. The Guidelines Committee of the ESA formed a task force comprising members of the previous task force, members of ESA scientific subcommittees and an open call for volunteers was made to all individual active members of the ESA and national societies. Electronic databases were searched from July 2010 (end of the literature search of the previous ESA guidelines on pre-operative evaluation) to May 2016 without language restrictions. A total of 34 066 abtracts were screened from which 2536 were included for further analysis. Relevant systematic reviews with meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional surveys were selected. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the level of evidence and to grade recommendations. The final draft guideline was posted on the ESA website for 4 weeks and the link was sent to all ESA members, individual or national (thus including most European national anaesthesia societies). Comments were collated and the guidelines amended as appropriate. When the final draft was complete, the Guidelines Committee and ESA Board ratified the guidelines.

Heart failure (HF) currently affects more than 5 million patients in the United States [1]. Advanced HF is associated with high mortality and poor quality of life. It is estimated that between 5% and 10% of all patients with HF have an advanced form of the disease [1]. Orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) is an accepted therapy for stage D HF [3] (Fig. 1). Unfortunately, the number of patients with the disease exceeds the number of available organs. This makes appropriate patient selection vital in the field of heart transplantation. Anesthetic evaluation of the patient presenting for OHT or mechanical circulatory support (MCS) implantation is a vital component of the patient's perioperative course. Patients often have had extensive diagnostic testing and assessment prior to being listed for OHT or considered for MCS implantation. Because of the often urgent nature of these procedures, the cardiac anesthesiologist must conduct a focused review of the relevant information and perform a focused patient interview and physical exam., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: This review aims to familiarize with the most current findings regarding preoperative evaluation and preparation of morbidly obese patients prior to elective, noncardiac surgery. In the light of the increasing number of surgical patients being morbidly obese, the knowledge of evidence-based preoperative evaluation strategies is profound for a rational approach., Recent Findings: Preoperative evaluation should be carried out with sufficient time before the day of surgery to allow modification of the perioperative management. Medical history-taking and physical examination ought to be performed following a standardized scheme especially focussing on the presence of obstructive sleep apnea. Routine testing for fasting glucose and lipoprotein levels should be performed in order to diagnose a metabolic syndrome. ECG recording should be limited to those patients having one or more additional cardiac risk factors or presenting clinical signs of cardiovascular disease or were planned for intermediate or high-risk surgery. Spirometry should be limited to those patients with obstructive sleep apnea or other respiratory findings., Summary: Synthesis of proper medical history-taking and physical examination as well as detailed search for obstructive sleep apnea and metabolic syndrome are key components of preoperative evaluation. Further testing should be based on the findings of these steps and comprise the cardiac risk of the surgical procedure.

Background: The American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) guidelines for pediatric preoperative fasting have been a standard for well over a decade. However, use of protocols involving an excessive fasting duration exposes patients to the physiological impacts of fluid volume loss., Objectives: The current project aimed to improve fluid supplementation during presurgical fasting in pediatric patients at an academic medical center. Specific objectives were to increase clinical staff knowledge regarding ASA fasting standards and implement them in specific pediatric patient populations., Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System and Getting Research into Practice tools were used. A baseline audit assessed compliance with best practice criteria regarding staff education, patient/family instruction and preoperative fasting times. Intervention outcomes were evaluated in a post implementation criteria audit., Results: Although compliance with fasting less than 12 hours more than doubled, only half of these patients/parents adhered to the guidelines. No excessive fasting events were attributed to a language barrier. There were no insufficient fasting events., Conclusion: Moderate success with fasting compliance was demonstrated when patients/parents were taught the multi-step ASA non per os (nothing by mouth) instructions. This complexity may have contributed to non-compliance and pointed to the need for enhanced teaching strategies. No operative start delays related to insufficient fasting indicated surgical scheduling flexibility was not at risk, and anesthesia providers had adopted the guidelines. Interdisciplinary engagement in this project was significantly impacted by director level communication which will be a key strategy for future implementations.

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine guideline on preoperative screening and assessment of adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on the available clinical evidence on the topic where possible. As very few well-performed randomized studies in this field of perioperative care are available, most of the recommendations were developed by experts in the field through consensus processes involving utilization of evidence grading to indicate the level of evidence upon which recommendations were based. This guideline may not be appropriate for all clinical situations and all patients. The decision whether to follow these recommendations must be made by a responsible physician on an individual basis. Protocols should be developed by individual institutions taking into account the patients' conditions, extent of interventions and available resources. This practice guideline is not intended to define standards of care or represent absolute requirements for patient care. The adherence to these guidelines cannot in any way guarantee successful outcomes and is rather meant to help individuals and institutions formulate plans to better deal with the challenges posed by perioperative patients with OSA. These recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts in the field at the time of publication. While these guidelines will be periodically updated, new information that becomes available between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from guidelines may be justifiable and such deviations should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.

Background: Persistently variable success has been experienced in locally translating even well-grounded national clinical practice guidelines, including in the perioperative setting. We have sought greater applicability and acceptance of clinical practice guidelines and protocols with our novel Perioperative Risk Optimization and Management Planning Tool (PROMPT™). This study was undertaken to survey our institutional perioperative clinicians regarding (a) their qualitative recommendations for (b) their quantitative perceptions of the relative importance of a series of clinical issues and patient medical conditions as potential topics for creating a PROMPT™., Methods: We applied a mixed methods research design that involved collecting, analyzing, and "mixing" both qualitative and quantitative methods and data in a single study to answer a research question. Survey One was qualitative in nature and asked the study participants to list as free text up to 12 patient medical conditions or clinical issues that they perceived to be high priority topics for development of a PROMPT™. Survey Two was quantitative in nature and asked the study participants to rate each of these 57 specific, pre-selected clinical issues and patient medical conditions on an 11-point Likert scale of perceived importance as a potential topic for a PROMPT™. The two electronic, online surveys were completed by participants who were recruited from the faculty in our Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine and Department of Surgery, and the cohort of hospital-employed certified registered nurse anesthetists., Results: A total of 57 possible topics for a PROMPT™ was created and prioritized by our stakeholders. A strong correlation (r = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.89, P < 0.001) was observed between the quantitative clinician survey rating scores reported by the anesthesiologists/certified registered nurse anesthetists versus the surgeons. The quantitative survey displayed strong inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.92, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our qualitative clinician stakeholder survey generated a comprehensive roster of clinical issues and patient medical conditions. Our subsequent quantitative clinician stakeholder survey indicated that there is generally strong agreement among anesthesiologists/certified registered nurse anesthetists and surgeons about the relative importance of these clinical issues and patient medical conditions as potential topics for perioperative optimization and risk management.

Background: Historically, anesthesiologists have conducted preanesthesia evaluation, but more recently, nurse practitioners (NPs) are increasingly assisting with the preanesthesia evaluation of children. In the current economic environment for healthcare, strategies to provide superior outcomes and exceptional patient experience at the lowest possible cost are constantly being explored. We examined whether well trained nurses, working alongside NPs, could safely and effectively assist in preanesthesia evaluation. The aim of this quality improvement project was to implement a new model for preanesthesia evaluation for healthy outpatient pediatric patients: nurse-assisted preanesthesia evaluation (NAPE)., Methods: Using quality improvement methods, Key Driver Diagrams and SMART aims gave direction for the training and clinical implementation of this new process. Using small tests of change and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, we developed a training process and a stepwise process to integrate them into the clinical work flow. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of the total preanesthesia evaluations in which the Anesthesia Nurses assisted. To ensure quality and safety, data on balancing measures and quality metrics were collected., Results: The weekly percentage of outpatients evaluated by Anesthesia Nurses increased from 0% to 55% within the first 4 months and was then sustained. The remaining patients were evaluated by the Anesthesia NPs. The balancing measures did not show any significant negative effect. Our perioperative quality metrics were also not changed significantly., Conclusion: Using quality improvement methods, we successfully improved the utilization of staff resources by adding an Anesthesia Nurse-assisted preanesthesia evaluation program alongside our NPs to provide outstanding preanesthesia care at the lowest possible cost., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Smokers undergoing surgery are at a higher risk of complications than non-smokers. Preoperative evaluation by an anesthesiologist could provide an excellent opportunity to promote smoking cessation. Previous surveys of anesthesiologists have found that self-reported smoking cessation counseling rates have room for improvement, but no study has surveyed patients to obtain more accurate estimates., Methods: A single-center study was conducted from January 2010 to June 2010 in a tertiary teaching hospital. A telephone survey was conducted, which included all adult cigarette smokers who visited the preoperative anesthesia clinic. The survey recorded anesthesiologist-delivered interventions to help patients quit smoking before surgery. At the end of the study period, the self-reported smoking cessation counseling of the anesthesiologist was evaluated by questionnaire., Results: One thousand one hundred and sixty-five patients were evaluated, of which 217 were current smokers with a median pack-year of 15 (interquartile range 5.25-30.00) and 34% were scheduled to undergo major surgery. With regard to preoperative interventions, most anesthesiologists (85%) asked about smoking status, although only 31% advised patients about the health risks of smoking and 23% advised patients to quit before surgery. Provision of assistance to help patients quit was provided in 3% of cases. By contrast, 75% of anesthesiologists stated that they frequently or almost always advised patients about the health risks of smoking., Conclusions: This study shows significant discrepancies between direct patient surveys of preoperative smoking cessation counseling activities by anesthesiologists and the self-reported perceptions of the anesthesiologists. Future studies are urgently needed to evaluate the provision of educational materials and other interventions to improve smoking cessation counseling rates among anesthesiologists and to narrow these discrepancies.

Anesthetic assessment traditionally included a series of laboratory tests intended to detect undiagnosed diseases, and to ensure that the patient undergoes surgery following safety criteria. These tests, without a specific clinical indication, are expensive, of questionable diagnostic value and often useless. In the context of outpatient surgery, recent evidence suggests that patients of any age without significant comorbidity, ASA physical status gradei and grade ii, do not need additional preoperative tests routinely. The aim of the present recommendations is to determine the general indications in which these tests should be performed in ASA gradei and grade ii patients undergoing ambulatory surgery., (Copyright © 2014 Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

To develop a "top-five" list of unnecessary medical services in anesthesiology, we undertook a multistep survey of anesthesiologists, most of whom were in academic practice, and a consequent iterative process with the committees of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. We generated a list of 18 low-value perioperative activities from American Society of Anesthesiologists practice parameters and the literature. Starting with this list and proceeding with a 2-step survey using a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire, we eventually identified 5 common activities that are of low quality or benefit and high cost and have poor evidence supporting their use. The 2 preoperative practices in the top-five list addressed the avoidance of unindicated baseline laboratory studies or diagnostic cardiac stress testing. The 3 intraoperative practices involved the avoidance of the routine use of the pulmonary artery for cardiac surgery and the use of packed red blood cells or colloid when not indicated.

Background: The 2007 American College of Cardiologists/American Heart Association Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiac Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery is the standard for perioperative cardiac evaluation. Recent work has shown that residents and anesthesiologists do not apply these guidelines when tested. This research hypothesized that a decision support tool would improve adherence to this consensus guideline., Methods: Anesthesiology residents at four training programs participated in an unblinded, prospective, randomized, cross-over trial in which they completed two tests covering clinical scenarios. One quiz was completed from memory and one with the aid of an electronic decision support tool. Performance was evaluated by overall score (% correct), number of incorrect answers with possibly increased cost or risk of care, and the amount of time required to complete the quizzes both with and without the cognitive aid. The primary outcome was the proportion of correct responses attributable to the use of the decision support tool., Results: All anesthesiology residents at four institutions were recruited and 111 residents participated. Use of the decision support tool resulted in a 25% improvement in adherence to guidelines compared with memory alone (P < 0.0001), and participants made 77% fewer incorrect responses that would have resulted in increased costs. Use of the tool was associated with a 3.4-min increase in time to complete the test (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Use of an electronic decision support tool significantly improved adherence to the guidelines as compared with memory alone. The decision support tool also prevented inappropriate management steps possibly associated with increased healthcare costs.

Anesthetists will encounter palliative patients in the daily routine as palliative patients undergo operations and interventions as well, depending on the state of the disease. The first challenge for anesthetists will be to recognize the patient as being palliative. In the course of further treatment it will be necessary to address the specific problems of this patient group. Medical problems are optimized symptom control and the patient's pre-existing medication. In the psychosocial domain, good communication skills are expected of anesthetists, especially during the preoperative interview. Ethical conflicts exist with the decision-making process for surgery and the handling of perioperative do-not-resuscitate orders. This article addresses these areas of conflict and the aim is to enable anesthetists to provide the best possible perioperative care to this vulnerable patient group with the goal to maintain quality of life and keep postoperative recovery as short as possible.

The aims of severe perioperative bleeding management are three-fold. First, preoperative identification by anamesis and laboratory testing of those patients for whom the perioperative bleeding risk may be increased. Second, implementation of strategies for correcting preoperative anaemia and stabilisation of the macro- and microcirculations in order to optimise the patient's tolerance to bleeding. Third, targeted procoagulant interventions to reduce the amount of bleeding, morbidity, mortality and costs. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide an overview of current knowledge on the subject with an assessment of the quality of the evidence in order to allow anaesthetists throughout Europe to integrate this knowledge into daily patient care wherever possible. The Guidelines Committee of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) formed a task force with members of scientific subcommittees and individual expert members of the ESA. Electronic databases were searched without language restrictions from the year 2000 until 2012. These searches produced 20 664 abstracts. Relevant systematic reviews with meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional surveys were selected. At the suggestion of the ESA Guideline Committee, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) grading system was initially used to assess the level of evidence and to grade recommendations. During the process of guideline development, the official position of the ESA changed to favour the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This report includes general recommendations as well as specific recommendations in various fields of surgical interventions. The final draft guideline was posted on the ESA website for four weeks and the link was sent to all ESA members. Comments were collated and the guidelines amended as appropriate. When the final draft was complete, the Guidelines Committee and ESA Board ratified the guidelines.

The Helsinki Declaration offers guidelines for the warranty and improvement of patient safety in Anaesthesiology. The assessment of elective patients and their preoperative optimization plays a key role herein. Individual risk factors and preexisting pathologies have to be identified in order to initiate specific pre- and aftercare and an appropriate monitoring. The measures need to be evidence-based, goal-oriented and efficient. Our recommendations aim at elective adult patients planned for non-cardiac and non-lung-resecting surgery and stress the importance of gathering information from patients, performing physical examinations and arranging further diagnostic customized upon these findings only in contrast to routine testing. They shall spark the formulation or improvement of center-based, interdisciplinary standards of procedure in order to fulfill our great responsibility for the perioperative care of our patients., (© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York.)

Objective: To compare the clinical competencies of second-year anaesthesiology residents and physician assistants (PA) in the preoperative anaesthesiology outpatient clinic., Design: Comparative qualitative observational study., Method: The two study groups were compared using 5 test stations representing 5 different cases of varying degrees of complexity with standardized patients. For each case, the patients and two anaesthesiologists assessed the results of the PAs and the residents using a quantitative scoring system for 4 clinical skills relevant to the preoperative anaesthesiology outpatient clinic. These skills were history-taking, physical examination, communication, and reporting. At each station, a score was calculated for each skill. The groups' scores were subsequently compared., Results: 9 PAs and 11 residents carried out the station tests. There were no significant differences between the two groups of participants., Conclusion: In this study in a preoperative anaesthesiology outpatient clinic no difference in clinical competencies was found between PAs and second-year anaesthesiology residents.

Shiftwork and work-hour limits for junior doctors are now well established in hospital work patterns. In order to ensure that trainees have adequate exposure to daytime elective surgical procedures, there is a tendency to have long shifts that include an after-hours component. However, long shifts can cause performance decrement due to time-on-task fatigue. In addition, shifts that encroach upon sleep time result in sleep loss. Using a high-fidelity patient simulation environment, we undertook a randomised, controlled trial to examine fatigue effects. A within-subjects comparison was used to evaluate the effect of 15-hour day shifts on the performance of 12 anaesthesia registrars. Preoperative assessment, machine check and taskwork using 42 task categories were evaluated. In both conditions, there was failure to meet current guidelines for preoperative evaluation or machine check, and when fatigued there was a 'trend' (P=0.06) to a reduction in the number of items in the machine check. With increase in time awake, there was an increase in time taken for explanation to the patient, an increase in mean duration of explanation to the patient, more time looking at the intravenous line or fluids when multi-tasking but less time adjusting the intravenous fluid. These effects are minor during routine uncomplicated induction of anaesthesia, but further investigation is needed to examine fatigue effects during non-routine circumstances.

Context: Previous surveys of the current practice of preoperative assessment within different countries have shown that there is much variation between different hospitals., Objective: The aim of the present study was to document the current clinical practice of preoperative testing for noncardiac surgery in Europe. We also wanted to assess the opinion of anaesthesiologists on eliminating routine preoperative testing., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: Anaesthesiologists from 17 different countries in Europe were surveyed between May and July 2009., Participants: Anaesthesiologists registered with a national anaesthesiology society represented in the European Society of Anaesthesiology., Main Outcome Measures: Indications for preoperative tests in different countries within Europe., Results: We received 354 completed questionnaires from 17 countries, all from different hospitals. In most countries, the anaesthesiologist has the final responsibility of performing preoperative evaluation (83%) and a preoperative assessment clinic is commonplace (95%). There is a remarkable variation in the way tests are ordered in different practices and also between different countries. About half of the anaesthesiologists indicated that they order preoperative tests in accordance with guidelines. Most respondents (86%) indicated that they would support moves towards a reduction in preoperative testing, but 44% cited patient safety as the main concern if routine testing was eliminated., Conclusion: Our survey shows a large variety in organisation and practice of preoperative evaluation throughout Europe. This practice is frequently not in accordance with guideline recommendations. Our survey confirms that there is a shift towards selective testing and also that the majority of respondents support a move towards reducing preoperative testing.

We present this document as a guide to preparing a specific institutional pre-anaesthesia checklist, as recommended in the Helsinki declaration on patient safety in anaesthesiology. Also, the recently recommended WHO "safe surgery check-list" includes a check-list for anaesthesia. A working group was established in accordance with the charter of the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology and Resuscitation (Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación [SEDAR]). The new patient safety culture introduced into medicine, and the recommendations of European anaesthesia societies has led us to design and update protocols in order to improve results in this important part of our speciality. We have prepared these recommendations or guidelines using, as examples, updates of pre-anaesthesia check-lists by other American (ASA), British, or Canadian societies of anaesthesia. With that aim, we enlisted the help of anaesthesia ventilator experts and the participation and advice of experienced anaesthesiologists from all parts of Spain. After various corrections and modifications, the document was available at www.sedar.es, so that any anaesthesiologist could propose any correction, or give their opinion. Finally, these guidelines have been approved by the SEDAR Board of Directors, before it was sent for publication in this journal. The aims of this document are to provide: a guideline applicable to all anaesthesia machines, a descriptive pre-anaesthesia check-list that include everything necessary for the anaesthesia procedure, and a resumed check-list to be available in all the anaesthesia machines or other equivalent, but prepared for each institution, which should include anaesthetic equipment and drugs. So, in order to ensure the aims and requirements of the European Board of Anaesthesiology, the European Society of Anaesthesiology, and the WHO are met, each institution should have a protocol for checking equipment and drugs. These guidelines are applicable to any anaesthesia equipment, enabling every institution to develop their own checking protocols, adapted to their anaesthesia machines and their procedures. With the consent of the SEDAR, this group will collaborate with anaesthesia machines providers in order to develop specific checklists for each of their models that will be available at www.sedar.es., (Copyright © 2011 Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor. Published by Elsevier España. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anesthesiologists accomplish many tasks rapidly during induction of an anesthetic. Key preparation for induction is needed to maximize patient safety. Given the intense environment of the operating room, preparatory steps may be missed either unintentionally or possibly even intentionally to save time. We conducted this study to determine the incidence of missed steps in the operating room immediately before induction., Methods: In this study, 200 surgical procedures were randomly checked for missed steps before induction of anesthesia using a "Revised Preanesthetic Set-Up." Additionally, multiple other operating room/case variables were recorded to determine whether there was correlation between the missed steps and certain variables such as room case load and regional versus general anesthesia., Results: Twenty-three missed steps were discovered. Manual resuscitation device availability and a working suction set-up were the most frequently missed steps. A higher percentage of missed steps was found in cases in which regional was the planned anesthesia technique, in rooms with higher case loads (≥5 cases scheduled), and in rooms that attending anesthesiologists completed the set-up., Conclusions: Missed steps do occur at a significant and measurable rate. Measures need to be taken to decrease the number of missed steps to improve patient safety.

Objective: To determine practices related to control of perioperative hemostasis and transfusion in patients undergoing cardiac surgery in Spain, including the extent to which protocols are being used., Methods: A questionnaire was created to collect information from physicians in anesthesiology and postoperative recovery care between July 1 and September 20, 2007. The physicians were asked about practice in the 12 months prior to the survey., Results: Thirty-four hospitals responded. Seventy percent reported that they did not have protocols or guidelines for the control of hemostasis during cardiac surgery. Forty-four percent did not have information on the proportion of patients who received transfusions; 47% gave transfusions to 75% of patients. The standard preoperative tests were platelet counts, activated partial thromboplastin time, and prothrombin time. Acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel were suspended before surgery at 15 (44%) and 25 (73%) hospitals, respectively. In cases of resistance to heparin, additional doses of the drug were injected, in combination with plasma or antithrombin in 29% and 12% of the hospitals, respectively. In the intensive postoperative recovery care unit, only 1 hospital used thromboelastography. Only 1 other hospital used a platelet function analyzer., Conclusions: Hemostasis, perioperative coagulation, and criteria for transfusion vary widely among the hospitals surveyed. Few guidelines are available and they are not often being followed. A high percentage of patients receive transfusions, although not all hospitals can cite a figure. New technology has not been widely applied.

It is the responsibility of all anaesthesiologists to inform their patients about the risk and benefits of available treatment options. It is also our duty to obtain the patient's informed consent. But how much information do patients want about risks, and how should this topic be approached during the preoperative consultation? In this article we will discuss risk perception in general and options to describe potential medical risks.

Performing an anesthetic in a procedure suite instead of in the operating room can be extremely challenging for the anesthetist. Not only are the procedures performed outside of the operating room becoming increasingly more complex but also patient acuity is increasing. In some cases, the out-of-operating room procedure may be selected as a less risky alternative to an operating room procedure in an extremely high-risk patient. Effective preprocedure evaluation and preparation are critical to achieve optimal clinical outcomes and maximal operational efficiency in these areas.

Background: The quality of the preoperative assessment clinic (PAC) is determined by many factors. Patients' experiences are important indicators, but often overlooked. We prepare to set priorities to improve the PAC by obtaining detailed patients' feedback on the quality of the PAC, and establishing the value patients and professionals attach to different care aspects, using the Patient Experiences with the Preoperative Assessment Clinic questionnaire., Methods: The PAC's standard of service was determined for five care aspects (dimensions), using patients' feedback. The importance of a dimension to patients was determined by calculating the effects of the dimensions on patients' overall appraisal. In addition, professionals were asked to rate the importance of the different care aspects., Results: Patients had the most positive experiences with the nurse, and the least positive experiences with waiting. However, waiting was least important to patients. When combining the PAC's standard of service with the value given to the dimensions by patients and professionals separately, we found in both instances that waiting was in greatest need of improvement. This was followed by reception, the anaesthetist, remaining experiences, and finally the nurse., Conclusions: Quality improvement of the PAC can be achieved by obtaining patients' feedback on the quality, determine a PAC's standard of service, recognize service areas that require improvement, and identify actions appropriate to bring about improvement. The value patients and professionals attach to different aspects of care can then be used to prioritize improvements.

Objective: We discuss the importance of a "preanesthetic site verification" and highlight 2 significant modifications to a policy developed at our institution in 2003., Case Report: The report describes 2 cases of wrong site peripheral nerve blocks that initiated protocol amendments to address shortcomings of the original policy. Two specific limitations were identified to improve upon. First, the practitioner must not overlook the site verification as it is essential prior to every block. Second, time delays between the verification and block performance should be minimized., Conclusions: The "preanesthetic site verification" is an integral part of preventing wrong site block and surgery. To ensure that it is carried out before every peripheral nerve block, a unique multidisciplinary approach was adopted in which the block needles were removed from anesthesia carts and transferred to a separate container in the area of the circulating nurse. The anesthesiologist must now request a block needle from the circulating nurse immediately prior to block performance and confirm the site at that time. This safety process emulates the presurgical site verification that takes place before a scalpel is passed to a surgeon. Furthermore, the circulating nurse must remain at the bedside until block initiation to make sure that delays between site verification and block performance do not impinge on correct site placement.

Proceeding from German and English language textbooks on anaesthesia as sources, this article asks what concepts of preoperative and postoperative visits have dominated since 1880 and what types of premedication have been preferred. The idea of obligatory premedication became widespread in the first third of the twentieth century. The premedication approach was gradually supplanted by concepts of anaesthesia introduction (basal anaesthesia). The preoperative visit was usually a separate topic in the textbooks and the focus was on the patient's psyche. Much less attention was devoted to the postoperative visit. The current emphasis on the postoperative visit in the framework of perioperative anaesthesia is barely dealt with at all in the textbooks that were consulted.

Background: Presently, no comprehensive and validated questionnaire to measure patient experiences of the preoperative assessment clinic (PAC) is available. We developed and validated the Patient Experiences with the Preoperative Assessment Clinic (PEPAC) questionnaire, which can be used for quantitative measurements of patient experiences of the PAC., Methods: We adapted the National Health Service outpatient questionnaire, incorporating questions specific for anaesthesiology. To make the PEPAC appropriate for quantitative measurements, dimensions and single items suitable for statistical analysis were constructed. Each dimension consists of multiple items measuring the same aspect of care. Reliability was established by computing Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Construct validity was assessed by correlating the dimensions with the patient's overall appraisal (Pearson's r). These dimensions should explain a substantial level of variance of the patients' overall appraisal; therefore, regression analysis was performed., Results: After a pilot phase, the questionnaire was sent to 700 consecutive patients (response 74%). Five scales measuring five dimensions of patient experiences were constructed. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.56 to 0.84, supporting reliability of the PEPAC. Correlations between the dimensions and patients' overall appraisal ranged from 0.22 to 0.56. Collectively, the five scales explained 51% of patients' overall appraisal., Conclusions: The PEPAC is a comprehensive, reliable, and validated questionnaire to measure patient experiences with the PAC. It might be a useful tool to identify the service areas of the PAC that require improvement and to determine which actions can bring about improvement.

Background and Objectives: Preoperative evaluation performed by anaesthesiologists primarily aims to estimate the risk of perioperative complications and to create opportunities to optimize the patients' condition before surgery. In this study an inventory was made of the current practice of preoperative evaluation in Dutch hospitals. It was estimated how many hospitals had implemented an outpatient preoperative evaluation clinic in 2004. Subsequently, current practice was compared with the results of a previous inventory (2000). It was also evaluated to what extent the guidelines of the Dutch Health Council and the Netherlands Society of Anaesthesiology were followed., Methods: The study consisted of two phases. First, a literature research was performed and pilot interviews were constructed. The interviews were conducted face-to-face with anaesthesiologists in a sample of Dutch hospitals. Based on the results, written questionnaires were constructed. In the second phase these questionnaires were sent to all general and academic hospitals in the Netherlands., Results: In 2004, 74% of the hospitals had an outpatient preoperative evaluation clinic, compared with 50% in 2000. The percentage of hospitals with an outpatient preoperative evaluation clinic available for all elective patients increased from 20% to 52%., Conclusions: The Dutch guidelines on preoperative evaluation seem to have influenced current practice. An increase in the number of outpatient preoperative evaluation clinics was seen after the guidelines were published. The implementation of an outpatient preoperative clinic seems to warrant that anaesthesiologists are carrying out the activities prescribed by the guidelines. Most hospitals without a clinic aim to implement one in the future.