PubMed · 10317205
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J R Hinnant. 1982. Modified nursing program increases satisfaction.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10317205/
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.
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.
Troubling reports of adverse outcomes after liposuction prompted a census survey of aesthetic plastic surgeons. All 1200 actively practicing North American board-certified ASAPS members were polled by facsimile, then mail, regarding deaths after liposuction. Patient initials together with case summaries precluded data replication yet assured patient anonymity and preserved surgeon privacy. Incomplete returns or ambiguous findings were authenticated, where feasible, by direct follow-up. Total number of lipoplasties performed by plastic surgeons was interpolated from the ASPRS procedure database for the survey time frame of 1994 to mid-1998. Lacking reliable annual case volume estimates, deaths from lipoplasties performed by non-ABPS surgeons were excluded from the actual mortality rate computation but were included in cause-of-death ranking statistics. Responding aesthetic plastic surgeons (917 of 1200) reported 95 uniquely authenticated fatalities in 496,245 lipoplasties. In this census survey, the mortality rate computed to 1 in 5224, or 19.1 per 100,000. A virtually identical 20.3 per 100,000 mortality rate was obtained in a 1997 random survey commissioned by the parent society. Pulmonary thromboembolism remains as the major killer (23.4+/-2.6 percent); lacking consistent medical examiners' toxicology data, the putative role of high-dose lidocaine cardiotoxicity could not be ascertained. Where so stated, many deaths occurred during the first night after discharge home; prudence suggests vigilant observation for residual "hangover" from sedative/anesthetic drugs after lengthy procedures. Taken together, these two independent surveys peg the late 1990s mortality rate from liposuction at about 20 per 100,000, or 1 in every 5000 procedures. Set beside the 16.4 per 100,000 fatality rates of U.S. motor vehicle accidents, liposuction is not an altogether benign procedure. We do not have comparable mortality data for lipoplasties performed by non-ABPS-certified physicians.