Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jun;20(e1):e91-6.
doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001178. Epub 2013 Apr 18.

Quality improvement in preoperative assessment by implementation of an electronic decision support tool

Maria Flamm  1 , Gerhard Fritsch, Martin Hysek, Sabine Klausner, Karl Entacher, Sigrid Panisch, Andreas C Soennichsen
Affiliations

Quality improvement in preoperative assessment by implementation of an electronic decision support tool

Maria Flamm et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of the electronic decision support (eDS) tool 'PReOPerative evaluation' (PROP) on guideline adherence in preoperative assessment in statutory health care in Salzburg, Austria.

Materials and methods: The evaluation was designed as a non-randomized controlled trial with a historical control group (CG). In 2007, we consecutively recruited 1363 patients admitted for elective surgery, and evaluated the preoperative assessment. In 2008, PROP was implemented and available online. In 2009 we recruited 1148 patients preoperatively assessed using PROP (294 outpatients, 854 hospital sector). Our analysis includes full blood count, liver function tests, coagulation parameters, electrolytes, ECG, and chest x-ray.

Results: The number of tests/patient without indication was 3.39 in the CG vs 0.60 in the intervention group (IG) (p<0.001). 97.8% (CG) vs 31.5% (IG) received at least one unnecessary test. However, we also observed an increase in recommended tests not performed/patient (0.05±0.27 (CG) vs 0.55±1.00 (IG), p<0.001). 4.2% (CG) vs 30.1% (IG) missed at least one necessary test. The guideline adherence (correctly tested/not tested) improved distinctively for all tests (1.6% (CG) vs 49.3% (IG), p<0.001).

Discussion: PROP reduced the number of unnecessary tests/patient by 2.79 which implied a reduction of patients' burden, and a relevant cut in unnecessary costs. However, the advantage in specificity caused an increase in the number of patients incorrectly not tested. Further research is required regarding the impact of PROP on perioperative outcomes.

Keywords: clinical guideline; electronic decision support; implementation; preoperative assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Kaplan EB, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ, et al. The usefulness of preoperative laboratory screening. JAMA 1985;253:3576–81 - PubMed
    1. Vogt AW, Henson LC. Unindicated preoperative testing: ASA physical status and financial implications. J Clin Anesth 1997;9:437–41 - PubMed
    1. Narr BJ, Warner ME, Schroeder DR, et al. Outcomes of patients with no laboratory assessment before anesthesia and a surgical procedure. Mayo Clin Proc 1997;72:505–9 - PubMed
    1. Munro J, Booth A, Nicholl J. Routine preoperative testing: a systematic review of the evidence. Health Technol Assess 1997;1:i–iv - PubMed
    1. Schein OD, Katz J, Bass EB, et al. The value of routine preoperative medical testing before cataract surgery. Study of medical testing for cataract surgery . N Engl J Med 2000;342:168–75 - PubMed

Publication types