PubMed · 10171491
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
L Jarrett, J Boyce. 1993-07-01. Barely auditable?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10171491/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Centrally mandated levels of performance are now common in the Veterans Health Administration. Performance standards for ambulatory procedures were developed based on HCFA data. The 11 procedures to be measured were arthroscopy, breast biopsy, eyelid procedures, lens/cataracts, bronchoscopy, endoscopy, colonoscopy, hernia repair, cystoscopy, laparoscopy, and cardiac catheterization. Were the performance standards for ambulatory procedures reasonable and achievable in a tertiary care VA? METHODS: Ambulatory procedure performance standards for the 11 selected procedures were evaluated for Fiscal Year 1998 at one tertiary care VA and at each of the 22 Veteran's Integrated Service Networks (VISNs). Further review was undertaken for those procedures in which performance was below the fully successful level. This included chart reviews at the tertiary care VA and analysis of caseloads by VISN. Descriptive statistics were used as well as Student's t test to analyze the difference in means. RESULTS: The tertiary care VA performed at the fully successful level for 6 procedures and at the exceptional level for 3 procedures. Performance levels for bronchoscopy and laparoscopy were below the preset goals. At the VISN level, 8 VISNs performed at the fully successful/exceptional level for all 11 procedures. The remaining 14 were deficient in 1 to 4 procedures. Eight of the VISNs were deficient in 2 or 3 procedures. Six VISNs were deficient in laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of centrally mandated performance standards appear to be reasonable and achievable. One notable exception is laparoscopy. Surgeons should understand how performance standards are calculated at their institution and review the data carefully for any systematic errors. Underperformance can be used as an opportunity to improve both data collection and outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the parent perception of discomfort (PPD) in children receiving local anesthesia for the lysis of labial adhesions, meatotomy, and newborn circumcision; the parents' perceived outcome of these procedures; and the overall satisfaction of parents when these procedures are performed in the office. METHODS: A confidential phone survey was given to 99 parent participants whose children had received local anesthesia for the lysis of labial adhesions (n = 14), meatotomy (n = 28), or newborn circumcision (n = 57). Parents in the labial adhesion and meatal stenosis groups were asked to rate their child's level of discomfort (PPD) during the procedure as mild (1), moderate (2), or severe (3), and those in the circumcision group were asked to use the same scale to rate their child's discomfort after the procedure. Parents were also asked whether they thought the procedure was successful and whether they were satisfied with their decision to have it done in the office using local anesthesia. RESULTS: Among the labial adhesion, meatotomy, and circumcision groups, the mean PPD +/- SD was 1.64 +/- 0.75, 1.54 +/- 0.69, and 1.21 +/- 0.53, respectively. The observed procedures, lysis of labial adhesions and meatotomy, had a significantly higher PPD score (P = 0.005) than the unobserved procedure (circumcision). Parents reported good outcomes in 94 (94.9%) of 99 children, with 4 girls experiencing recurrent labial adhesions and 1 boy experiencing recurrent meatal stenosis. Overall, 95 (96.0%) of 99 parents stated that they were satisfied with their decision to have the procedure done in the office with local anesthesia. Of the remaining 4 parents, 3 parents in the circumcision group stated they would have preferred general anesthesia, and 1 parent in the labial adhesion group was undecided. CONCLUSIONS: The PPD is greater if the parent observes their child's procedure. However, office procedures using local anesthesia for the lysis of labial adhesions, meatotomy, and newborn circumcision are well accepted among the parent population.
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to compare the recovery characteristics of sevoflurane and halothane for short day-case anaesthesia in a specifically limited age group of children 1-3 yr. METHODS: Eighty unpremedicated children undergoing day-case adenoidectomy were randomly assigned to receive inhalational induction with either sevoflurane 8% or halothane 5% and nitrous oxide in oxygen (70/30) via a face mask. Tracheal intubation was performed without a muscle relaxant. Anaesthesia was continued with the volatile anaesthetic, adjusted to maintain heart rate and blood pressure within +/-20% of initial values. Recovery was evaluated using a modified Aldrete score, a Pain/Discomfort scale and by measuring recovery end-points. A postoperative questionnaire was used to determine the well-being of the child at home until 24 h after discharge. RESULTS: Emergence and interaction occurred significantly earlier after sevoflurane than halothane but discharge times were similar. More children in the sevoflurane group achieved full Aldrete scores within the first 30 min after anaesthesia, although this group suffered more discomfort during the first 10 min. The amount of postoperative analgesic administered was higher and the first dose given earlier in the sevoflurane group. Postoperative vomiting was more common with halothane, but side-effects in the two groups were otherwise similar in the recovery room and at home. CONCLUSIONS: In children 1-3 yr, sevoflurane provided more rapid early recovery but not discharge after anaesthesia of <30-min duration. Apart from more vomiting with halothane and more discomfort during the first 10 min after awakening with sevoflurane, the quality of recovery was similar with the two anaesthestics.