Clinical Audit on the Quality of Pre-Anaesthesia Assessment based on Predefined Pre-anaesthesia Assessment Form

Authors

  • Khalid Mahmood Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital, Sialkot/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
  • Muhammad Ali Abbas Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital, Pano Aqil/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
  • Bilal Yasin Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital, Okara/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
  • Muhammad Saeed Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital, Nowshera/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
  • Mohsin Saleem Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital, Sialkot/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
  • Saleha Sarfraz Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital, Sialkot/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v74i1.8681

Keywords:

Anaesthesia, Assessment form global quality index, Predefined pre-anaesthesia

Abstract

Objective: To determine the percentage completion of individual GQI indicators and the overall percentage of completed predefined Pre-anaesthesia assessment forms and identify any areas for improvement in the documentation of pre-anaesthesia assessment.

Study Design: Cross-sectional study.

Place and Duration of Study: Department of Anaesthesiology, Combined Military Hospital, Sialkot Pakistan, from Mar to Sep 2021.

Methodology: Patients who reported to the operation theatre during the study period for elective surgery after having undergone formal pre-anaesthesia assessment preoperatively based on predefined Pre-anaesthesia assessment form (PAAF) were included. The quality of Pre-anaesthesia assessments from completion was assessed using a modified Global Quality Index with twenty-seven components.

Results: The overall completion rate for all pre-anaesthesia assessment form components was 77.10±30.26%. The lowest completed items were local examination (0.00%), airway assessment, neck mobility, mouth opening, thyromental distance (24,10.61%), weight (25, 11.36%), GIT (86, 38.64%) and CNS/GCS (108, 48.48%) assessment, pre-operative vitals (121, 54.55%) and family history (129, 58.33%).

Conclusion: We need to improve the quality of pre-anaesthesia assessment forms at our institution by ensuring that all relevant information is collected and documented.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Indra I, Kulsum K. Pre-Anesthesia Assessment and Preparation.

Bp Int Res Exact Sci 2020; 2(2): 228-235.

https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v3i2.977.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on

Preanesthesia Evaluation. Practice Advisory for Preanesthesia

Evaluation: A Report by the American Society of

Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preanesthesia Evaluation. J Am,

Soci, Anesth 2002; 96(2): 485-496.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200202000-00037.

Tobias JD. Preoperative anesthesia evaluation. Semin Pediatr

Surg 2018; 27(2): 67-74.

https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2018.02.002.

Omole OB, Torlutter M, Akii AJ. Preanaesthetic assessment and

management in the context of the district hospital. S Afr fam

pract. 2021; 63(1) : e1-e7.

https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v63i1.5357.

Santos ML, Novaes CO, Iglesias AC. [Epidemiological profile of

patients seen in the pre-anesthetic assessment clinic of a

university hospital]. Rev Bras Anestesiol 2017; 67(5): 457-467.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjan.2016.06.002.

Almeshari M, Khalifa M, El-Metwally A, Househ M, Alanazi A.

Quality and accuracy of electronic pre-anesthesia evaluation

forms. Comput Meth Programs Biomed 2018; 160: 51-56.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2018.03.006.

Sobrie O, Lazouni MEA, Mahmoudi S, Mousseau V, Pirlot M. A

new decision support model for preanesthetic evaluation.

Comput Meth Programs Biomed 2016; 133: 183-193.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.05.021.

Vetter TR, Boudreaux AM, Ponce BA, Barman J, Crump SJ.

Development of a preoperative patient clearance and

consultation screening questionnaire. Anesth Analg 2016; 123(6):

-1457. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001532.

Kluger M, Tham E, Coleman N, Runciman W, Bullock M.

Inadequate pre‐operative evaluation and preparation: a review

of 197 reports from the Australian Incident Monitoring Study.

Anaesthesia 2000; 55(12): 1173-1178.

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01725.x.

Shah S, Hariharan U, Chawla R. Integrating perioperative

medicine with anaesthesia in India: Can the best be achieved? A

review. Indian J Anaesth 2019; 63(5): 338.

https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.258058.

Aronson S, Westover J, Guinn N, Setji T, Wischmeyer P, Gulur P,

et al. A perioperative medicine model for population health: an

integrated approach for an evolving clinical science. Anesth

Analg 2018; 126(2): 682-690.

https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002606.

Turbitt L, Mariano E, El‐Boghdadly K. Future directions in

regional anaesthesia: not just for the cognoscenti. Anaesthesia

; 75(3): 293-297. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14768.

Shahzad S, Younas T. Clinical audit on quality of preanesthesia

evaluation. Anaesth Pain Intensiv 2021; 25(1): 15-20.

https://doi.org/10.35975/apic.v25i1.1429.

Mokgwathi GT, Baloyi B, Ogunbanjo G. An audit of preoperative

evaluation of general surgery patients at Dr George Mukhari

Hospital. South Afr J Anaesth Analg 2011; 17(2): 177-180.

Downloads

Published

28-02-2024

Issue

Section

Original Articles

How to Cite

1.
Mahmood K, Muhammad Ali Abbas, Bilal Yasin, Muhammad Saeed, Mohsin Saleem, Saleha Sarfraz. Clinical Audit on the Quality of Pre-Anaesthesia Assessment based on Predefined Pre-anaesthesia Assessment Form. Pak Armed Forces Med J [Internet]. 2024 Feb. 28 [cited 2024 Jul. 25];74(1):211-5. Available from: https://pafmj.org/PAFMJ/article/view/8681