Anaesthesia
-
The traditional approach for measuring outcomes after surgery involves ascertaining whether a patient survived surgery while avoiding major complications. This approach does not capture the full spectrum of events that are meaningful to patients, especially because mortality risks after elective surgery are relatively low, and different complication types vary considerably with respect to their impact on postoperative recovery. This review discusses the application, advantages, disadvantages and select examples of patient-centred outcomes in peri-operative medicine. When applied appropriately, these outcomes complement traditional clinical outcomes, identify important changes in postoperative function that impact patients without discernible complications and ensure that the definition of success after surgery is more meaningful to all relevant stakeholders.
-
Peri-operative risk estimation has traditionally focused on assessing the likelihood of postoperative morbidity and mortality using pre-operative functional assessment. Although this strategy is currently recommended by most major society guidelines, contemporary evidence suggests that cardiac biomarker measurement has important advantages over pre-operative functional assessment. ⋯ In this review, we provide an overview of the evidence supporting the peri-operative utilisation, compare risk estimation methods and discuss which patients may benefit most from cardiac biomarker screening. We also discuss protocols for biomarker screening and management of patients with abnormal results.
-
The increasing age and subsequent medical complexity of patients presenting for surgery grants the opportunity to examine the processes and delivery of peri-operative care. There is a need to redesign peri-operative pathways allowing room for shared decision making and personalised, evidence-based care. In times of financial constraint, this is no easy task. ⋯ Challenges in redesigning peri-operative care pathways include identification and optimisation of those at highest peri-operative risk to inform the difficult conversations surrounding the appropriateness of surgery. The moral burden of these conversations on patient and professionals alike is increasingly recognised and managing this issue requires innovative models of collaborative, multidisciplinary and interprofessional working. To operate or not can be a challenging question to answer with a number of different perspectives to consider; not least that of the patient.
-
An ageing population and rising healthcare costs are challenging cost-efficient hospital systems wanting to adapt, employing novel organisational structures designed to merge diverse skill sets. This needs not only physician and nursing leadership but also new models of care. ⋯ Shared decision-making is more likely to be manifest in a flat hierarchy in which each member of the team brings their own experience and skills to optimise patient care. Successful surgery is best achieved by a coordinated, multidisciplinary team, embedded in a culture of collaboration and safety.
-
Safety of patients in the operating theatre relies on a cordial and efficient working relationship between all members of the theatre team. A team that communicates well, defines the roles of its members and is aware of their limitations will provide safe patient care. In this review, we will examine how human factors engineering - the science of how to design processes, equipment and environments to optimise the human contributions to performance - can be used to improve safety and efficiency of surgery. Although these are often dismissed as 'common sense', we will explain how these solutions emerge not from healthcare but from diverse disciplines such as psychology, design and engineering.