We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Effectiveness of preoperative medical consultations by internal medicine physicians: a systematic review.
BMJ Open 2017 December 4
OBJECTIVE: Clinics have been established to provide preoperative medical consultations, and enable the anaesthetist and surgeon to deliver the best surgical outcome for patients. However, there is uncertainty regarding the effect of such clinics on surgical, in-hospital and long-term outcomes. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the effectiveness of preoperative medical consultations by internal medicine physicians for patients listed for elective surgery.
DESIGN: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, Current Contents and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination were conducted up to 30 April 2017.
SETTING: Elective surgery.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised comparative studies conducted in adults.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of hospital stay, perioperative morbidity and mortality, costs and quality of life.
RESULTS: The one randomised trial reported that preadmission preoperative assessment was more effective than the option of an inpatient medical assessment in reducing the frequency of unnecessary admissions with significantly fewer surgical cancellations following admission for surgery. A small reduction in length of stay in patients was also observed. The three non-randomised studies reported increased lengths of stay, costs and postoperative complications in patients who received preoperative assessment. The timing and delivery of the preoperative medical consultation in the intervention group differed across the included studies.
CONCLUSION: Further research is required to inform the design and implementation of coordinated involvement of physicians and surgeons in the provision of care for high-risk surgical patients. A standardised approach to perioperative decision-making processes should be developed with a clear protocol or guideline for the assessment and management of surgical patients.
DESIGN: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, Current Contents and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination were conducted up to 30 April 2017.
SETTING: Elective surgery.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised comparative studies conducted in adults.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of hospital stay, perioperative morbidity and mortality, costs and quality of life.
RESULTS: The one randomised trial reported that preadmission preoperative assessment was more effective than the option of an inpatient medical assessment in reducing the frequency of unnecessary admissions with significantly fewer surgical cancellations following admission for surgery. A small reduction in length of stay in patients was also observed. The three non-randomised studies reported increased lengths of stay, costs and postoperative complications in patients who received preoperative assessment. The timing and delivery of the preoperative medical consultation in the intervention group differed across the included studies.
CONCLUSION: Further research is required to inform the design and implementation of coordinated involvement of physicians and surgeons in the provision of care for high-risk surgical patients. A standardised approach to perioperative decision-making processes should be developed with a clear protocol or guideline for the assessment and management of surgical patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app