No abstract

Despite the apparent understanding of the benefits from reduced pre-operative fasting, full implementation of the guidelines remains poor in German anaesthesiology departments.

No abstract

IntroductionOutcome assessment is the standard for evaluating the quality of health services worldwide. In this study, outcome has been divided into immediate and final outcome. Aim was to compare an intervention hospital with a Continuous Quality Improvement approach to a control group using benchmark assessments of immediate outcome indicators in surgical care. Results were compared to final outcome indicators.MethodSurgical care quality in six hospitals in Tanzania was assessed from 2006–2011, using the Hospital Performance Assessment Tool. Independent observers assessed structural, process and outcome quality using checklists based on evidence-based guidelines. The number of surgical key procedures over the benchmark of 80% was compared between the intervention hospital and the control group. Results were compared to Case Fatality Rates.ResultsIn the intervention hospital, in 2006, two of nine key procedures reached the benchmark, one in 2009, and four in 2011. In the control group, one of nine key procedures reached the benchmark in 2006, one in 2009, and none in 2011. Case Fatality Rate for all in-patients in the intervention hospital was 5.5% (n = 12,530) in 2006, 3.5% (n = 21,114) in 2009 and 4.6% (n = 18,840) in 2011. In the control group it was 3.1% (n = 17,827) in 2006, 4.2% (n = 13,632) in 2009 and 3.8% (n = 17,059) in 2011.DiscussionResults demonstrated that quality assurance improved performance levels in both groups. After the introduction of Continuous Quality Improvement, performance levels improved further in the intervention hospital while quality in the district hospital did not. Immediate outcome indicators appeared to be a better steering tool for quality improvement compared to final outcome indicators. Immediate outcome indicators revealed a need for improvement in pre- and postoperative care.ConclusionQuality assurance programs based on immediate outcome indicators can be effective if embedded in Continuous Quality Improvement. Nevertheless, final outcome indicators cannot be neglected.

To determine whether a standard operating procedure (SOP) for prehospital management of patients with the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) improves the quality of patient care in terms of adherence to treatment guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. Among a total of 1025 patient medical records collected from a period before and after the introduction of the SOP, 269 records included the working diagnosis of ACS and were then reviewed for guideline adherence. Most aspects of patient evaluation, monitoring, treatment, and hospital allocation were fairly guideline adherent (>70%) before the SOP was introduced and were not affected by the SOP. The percentage of cases in whom sublingual nitrate (55.2 vs. 66.7%) or intravenous morphine (26.9 vs. 43.0%) was administered without contraindications was higher after the SOP had been introduced. Therefore, the use of an SOP in prehospital emergency medicine can partly improve the adherence to guideline recommendations for the treatment of patients with ACS.