Pre-endoscopy Anesthesiology Clinic Evaluation Does Not Reduce Adverse Event Rates for High-risk for Sedation Patients.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-21 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001327
Tamar Thurm, Niv Zmora, Rafael Bruck, Nir Bar, Adam Philips, Oren Shibolet, Liat Deutsch
{"title":"Pre-endoscopy Anesthesiology Clinic Evaluation Does Not Reduce Adverse Event Rates for High-risk for Sedation Patients.","authors":"Tamar Thurm, Niv Zmora, Rafael Bruck, Nir Bar, Adam Philips, Oren Shibolet, Liat Deutsch","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Preoperative or preanesthesia evaluation is an established practice in patients undergoing surgery. The efficacy of a similar practice before endoscopic procedures has not yet been determined. At our medical center, patients with severe comorbidities, deemed at high risk for sedation, were assigned to an anesthesiologist-supervised endoscopic procedure (ASEP). Since late 2016 they are assessed at anesthesiology clinic pre-endoscopy. Our objective was to compare adverse events (AEs) between these 2 strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of all ambulatory upper and lower endoscopies between 2016 and 2017 was performed. Data on postprocedural (14 d) emergency department (ED) admissions, hospitalizations, operations, and mortality before and after policy change (BPC and APC) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period 18,240 ambulatory upper and lower endoscopic procedures were performed in 14,906 patients, 7447 (49.96%) BPC, and 7459 (50.04%) APC; 580 were ASEP. The proportions of ASEP were comparable between the 2 time periods (BPC 295 versus APC 285; P =0.721); however, APC there was a 25-fold increase in pre-endoscopy anesthesiology clinic assessments [BPC-6 patients (2.03%) versus APC-146 patients (51.22%), P <0.001]. Postprocedural sedation-related AEs were comparable between the groups [0.07%-BPC (head injury, stroke, myocardial infarction, and aspiration) versus 0.03%-APC (aspiration and dyspnea), P =0.256]. None of these patients were sedated by an anesthesiologist.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Policy change of pre-endoscopy evaluation for high-risk for sedation patients was not associated with a change in AE rates. Policy adherence was limited. The lack of AE rate reduction may indicate a marginal impact on an already low event rate with ASEP for high-risk patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":" ","pages":"324-328"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001327","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Preoperative or preanesthesia evaluation is an established practice in patients undergoing surgery. The efficacy of a similar practice before endoscopic procedures has not yet been determined. At our medical center, patients with severe comorbidities, deemed at high risk for sedation, were assigned to an anesthesiologist-supervised endoscopic procedure (ASEP). Since late 2016 they are assessed at anesthesiology clinic pre-endoscopy. Our objective was to compare adverse events (AEs) between these 2 strategies.

Methods: A retrospective review of all ambulatory upper and lower endoscopies between 2016 and 2017 was performed. Data on postprocedural (14 d) emergency department (ED) admissions, hospitalizations, operations, and mortality before and after policy change (BPC and APC) were compared.

Results: During the study period 18,240 ambulatory upper and lower endoscopic procedures were performed in 14,906 patients, 7447 (49.96%) BPC, and 7459 (50.04%) APC; 580 were ASEP. The proportions of ASEP were comparable between the 2 time periods (BPC 295 versus APC 285; P =0.721); however, APC there was a 25-fold increase in pre-endoscopy anesthesiology clinic assessments [BPC-6 patients (2.03%) versus APC-146 patients (51.22%), P <0.001]. Postprocedural sedation-related AEs were comparable between the groups [0.07%-BPC (head injury, stroke, myocardial infarction, and aspiration) versus 0.03%-APC (aspiration and dyspnea), P =0.256]. None of these patients were sedated by an anesthesiologist.

Conclusions: Policy change of pre-endoscopy evaluation for high-risk for sedation patients was not associated with a change in AE rates. Policy adherence was limited. The lack of AE rate reduction may indicate a marginal impact on an already low event rate with ASEP for high-risk patients.

内镜前麻醉临床评估不能降低镇静高危患者的不良事件发生率。
目的:术前或麻醉前评估是手术患者的既定做法。在内窥镜手术之前进行类似手术的效果尚未确定。在我们的医疗中心,有严重合并症的患者,被认为是镇静的高风险,被分配到麻醉师监督的内窥镜手术(ASEP)。自2016年底以来,他们在麻醉诊所进行前内窥镜检查。我们的目的是比较这两种策略之间的不良事件(ae)。方法:回顾性分析2016年至2017年所有门诊上、下内镜检查。比较政策改变前后(BPC和APC)术后(14 d)急诊科(ED)入院、住院、手术和死亡率的数据。结果:在研究期间,14906例患者中,7447例(49.96%)BPC和7459例(50.04%)APC共进行了18240例动态上下内镜手术;580例为ASEP。ASEP的比例在两个时间段之间具有可比性(BPC 295 vs APC 285;P = 0.721);然而,APC的内镜前麻醉临床评估增加了25倍[BPC-6患者(2.03%)比APC-146患者(51.22%)]。结论:对镇静高危患者内镜前评估政策的改变与AE发生率的变化无关。政策依从性有限。AE发生率降低的缺乏可能表明对高风险患者的ASEP已经很低的事件发生率的影响微乎其微。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信