Pre-operative assessment Surgery
Conditions
Interventions
The study design was principally a prospective randomised equivalence trial but was accompanied by additional qualitative assessment of patient and staff perceptions, and an economic evaluation.
The i
Sponsors
Department of Health (UK)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: All patients attending at one site for assessment prior to general anaesthetic for elective general, vascular, urological or breast surgery were potentially included in the study. Of 1,907 patients who were randomised, 1874 completed the study with a full evaluation.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Not provided at time of registration.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Immediately following the initial assessment of a patient by a PRHO or an ATN, one of a number of clinical research fellows, all specialist registrars in anaesthetics, repeated the assessment and recorded it on a study form, together with a list of investigations required. The clinical research fellow then evaluated the competency of the initial assessor by comparing the quality of their assessment with their own. Any deficiencies in ordering of investigations and referral to other specialities were met in order to maximise patient care. Three areas of ATN and PRHO performance were judged separately, history taking, examination and ordering of tests, and each was graded into one of four categories, the most important of which was under-assessment, which would possibly have affected peri-operative management. In the case of ordering of tests, it was possible to have both over- and under-assessed a patient on different tests. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Not provided at time of registration. | — |
Countries
United Kingdom
Outcome results
None listed