Preoperative Testing

2017 ◽  
pp. 56-59
Author(s):  
Maurizio Solca
Keyword(s):  
1986 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 197-205
Author(s):  
Sharon M. Abel ◽  
Sou-Mee Tse ◽  
Hans Kunov ◽  
Julian Nedzelski ◽  
Robert V. Harrison

Author(s):  
Yosef Dastagirzada ◽  
Olga Klauberg ◽  
Kathleen Sheerin ◽  
Seth Lieberman ◽  
Richard Lebowitz ◽  
...  

AbstractSoon after the World Health Organization declared the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 a global health emergency on January 30, 2020, New York City was plagued by the virus and its health system and economy pushed to their limits. The majority of the limited neurosurgical data in relation to COVID-19 is anecdotal and the higher theoretical risk of transmission of the virus among skull base aerosol generating (SBAG) cases has not been investigated or discussed in a neurosurgical population. We discuss a series of 13 patients who underwent 15 SBAG surgical procedures during the peak of COVID-19 in our hospital system and the protocols use perioperatively for their procedures. Our data support that with proper preoperative testing, a well-delineated surgical algorithm, and appropriate personal protective equipment, emergent/urgent cases can be done safely in hospitals that are currently experiencing high volumes of COVID-19 cases as we did in March to May of 2020.


2021 ◽  
pp. 102529
Author(s):  
Petrovic Sabrina ◽  
Miklavcic Martina ◽  
Bitenc Marko ◽  
Beovic Bojana

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjqs-2020-012576
Author(s):  
Joris L J M Müskens ◽  
Rudolf Bertijn Kool ◽  
Simone A van Dulmen ◽  
Gert P Westert

BackgroundOveruse of diagnostic testing substantially contributes to healthcare expenses and potentially exposes patients to unnecessary harm. Our objective was to systematically identify and examine studies that assessed the prevalence of diagnostic testing overuse across healthcare settings to estimate the overall prevalence of low-value diagnostic overtesting.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched from inception until 18 February 2020 to identify articles published in the English language that examined the prevalence of diagnostic testing overuse using database data. Each of the assessments was categorised as using a patient-indication lens, a patient-population lens or a service lens.Results118 assessments of diagnostic testing overuse, extracted from 35 studies, were included in this study. Most included assessments used a patient-indication lens (n=67, 57%), followed by the service lens (n=27, 23%) and patient-population lens (n=24, 20%). Prevalence estimates of diagnostic testing overuse ranged from 0.09% to 97.5% (median prevalence of assessments using a patient-indication lens: 11.0%, patient-population lens: 2.0% and service lens: 30.7%). The majority of assessments (n=85) reported overuse of diagnostic testing to be below 25%. Overuse of diagnostic imaging tests was most often assessed (n=96). Among the 33 assessments reporting high levels of overuse (≥25%), preoperative testing (n=7) and imaging for uncomplicated low back pain (n=6) were most frequently examined. For assessments of similar diagnostic tests, major variation in the prevalence of overuse was observed. Differences in the definitions of low-value tests used, their operationalisation and assessment methods likely contributed to this observed variation.ConclusionOur findings suggest that substantial overuse of diagnostic testing is present with wide variation in overuse. Preoperative testing and imaging for non-specific low back pain are the most frequently identified low-value diagnostic tests. Uniform definitions and assessments are required in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the magnitude of diagnostic testing overuse.


2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (Suppl. 1) ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
S. I. Mackenzie ◽  
L. Halls ◽  
J. Phillips
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
pp. 13-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Reuven Pasternak
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Zangrilli ◽  
Daniel Hameed ◽  
Emanuele Chisari ◽  
Chris Vannello ◽  
P. Maxwell Courtney ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-16
Author(s):  
Cynthia Point
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 498-503
Author(s):  
R. M. Blank ◽  
S. P. Blank ◽  
H. E. Roberts

Appropriate preoperative blood typing and cross-matching is an important quality improvement target to minimise costs and rationalise the use of blood bank resources. This can be facilitated using a maximum surgical blood ordering schedule (MSBOS) for specific operations. It is recommended that individual hospitals develop a site-specific MSBOS based on institutional data, but this is challenging in non-tertiary centres without electronic databases. Our aim was to audit our perioperative blood transfusions to develop a site-specific MSBOS. A retrospective audit of blood transfusions in surgical patients in our regional referral hospital was conducted using five years’ coded administrative data. Procedures with higher transfusion rates warranting preoperative testing (type and screen with or without subsequent cross-matching) were identified. There were about 15,000 eligible surgical procedures performed in our institution over the audit period. The need for preoperative testing was identified for only a few procedures, namely laparotomy, bowel resection, major amputation, joint arthroplasty, hip/femur fracture and humerus surgery, and procedures for obstetric complications. We observed a reduction in transfusion rates over time for total joint arthroplasty. The use of coding data represents an efficient method by which centres without electronic anaesthesia information management systems can conduct large-scale audits to develop a site-specific MSBOS. This would represent a significant improvement for hospitals that currently base preoperative testing recommendations on expert opinion alone. As many procedures in regional centres have very low transfusion rates, hospitals with a similar case mix to ours could consider selectively auditing higher-risk operations where local data is most likely to alter testing recommendations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document