Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ausset, S.
Right arrow Articles by Benhamou, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ausset, S.
Right arrow Articles by Benhamou, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2002, Vol. 88, No. 2 280-283
© 2002 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Short Communications

Improvement of information gained from the pre-anaesthetic visit through a quality-assurance programme{dagger}

S. Ausset1, H. Bouaziz1, M. Brosseau2, B. Kinirons3 and D. Benhamou*,1

1Département d’Anesthésie Réanimation, 2Direction de la Prospective et de la Clientèle, Hôpital Antoine Béclère, 157 rue de la porte de Trivaux, BP 405, F-92141 Clamart, France and 3Hôpital de Bicêtre, 78 rue du Général Leclerc, F-94270 Le Kremlin, Bicêtre, France*Corresponding author

{dagger}Presented in part at the annual meeting of the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care in September 2000.

Background. Pre-anaesthetic evaluation is a fundamental component of anaesthetic practice. The aims of the present study were to assess the quality of the preoperative anaesthetic information gathered and to observe the quality profile after the introduction of a standardized form. This occurred through a four-step quality assurance programme over a 4-yr period.

Methods. The proportion of cases in which a complete recording of data was collected at the preoperative assessment was evaluated by searching in each patient’s medical record for what was considered to be the minimum information required to provide satisfactory perioperative care. Fifteen criteria were selected. The recovery profile for each indicator and a global quality index (GQI expressed in %) for each patient’s record were collected. In phase 1, the existing situation was assessed. Next, a standardized pre-anaesthetic form (PAF 1) was designed and its implementation evaluated (Phase 2). Phase 3 was performed 16 months after implementation of PAF 1 to assess the long-term value. The form was revised (PAF 2) and its use evaluated again 6 months later (Phase 4). For each evaluation, the records of a 1-month period were examined. Overall 1129 medical records were audited.

Results. The GQI increased significantly from 62 to 88% with similar changes for both elective and emergency cases. The recovery profile was improved for most indicators.

Conclusions. We conclude that the quality of information recorded from the pre-anaesthetic visit is improved by using a standardized form. This will hopefully help to improve patient outcome and facilitate computerization of the anaesthetic record.

Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 280–3


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.