2b.

Background Preoperative medical consultations add expense and burden for patients and the impact of these consults on patient outcomes is conflicting. Previous work suggests that 10–40% of preoperative medical consult recommendations are not followed. This limits measurement of the effect of perioperative medical consultation on patient outcomes and represents a quality gap, given the patient time and healthcare cost associated with consultation. We aimed to measure, characterize, and understand reasons for missed recommendations from preoperative medical consultation. Methods This explanatory, sequential mixed-methods study used chart audits followed by semi-structured interviews. Chart audit of consecutive patients seen in preoperative medical clinic were reviewed to measure the proportion and characterize the type of recommendations that were not completed (“missed”). This phase informed the interview participants and questions. The interview guide was developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Template analysis was used to understand drivers and barriers of missed recommendations Results Chart audit included 255 patients (n=161, 63.1% female) seen in preadmission clinic between April 1 and April 30, 2019. 55.7% of patients had all recommendations followed (n=142). Postoperative anticoagulation management and postoperative cardiac biomarker surveillance recommendations were least commonly followed (50.0%, n=28, and 68.9%, n=82, respectively). Eighteen surgical team members were interviewed. Missed recommendations were both unintentional and intentional, and the key drivers differed by these categories. Unintentionally missed recommendations occurred due to individual-level factors (drivers: knowledge of the consultation note, lack of routine for reviewing the consultation note, and competing demands on time) and systems-level factors (driver: lack of role clarity). Intentionally missed recommendations occurred due to user error due (drivers: lack of knowledge of guidelines or evidence) and appropriate modifications (driver: need to adapt a preoperative plan for a complicated postoperative course). Conclusions Only 55.7% of consult notes had all recommendations followed, suggesting a quality gap in perioperative medical care. Qualitative data suggests multiple drivers of missed recommendations that should be targeted to improve the efficiency of care for these patients.

No abstract

Introduction: In our center, half of all recommendations made by an internist about perioperative anticoagulation management are not followed by surgical team members. We aimed to understand the barriers to implementing perioperative anticoagulation recommendations.Methods: This was a prespecified analysis of interviews with surgical team members about individual- and systems-level drivers of missed perioperative anticoagulation recommendations. Interviews and analysis were guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research.Results: We interviewed 16 surgical team members and 2 internists. Surgical team members intentionally did not follow recommendations about perioperative anticoagulation management when they felt that the bleeding risk outweighed the risk of thrombosis. This assessment of risk was driven by emotion and previous experience, even among participants who were familiar with perioperative literature.Conclusions: Development of study outcomes and guideline recommendations for perioperative anticoagulation management should include surgical team members in order to address the acceptability of these recom-mendations and increase adoption. RésuméIntroduction : Dans notre centre, la moitié des recommandations formulées par un interniste concernant la prise en charge de l’anticoagulation périopératoire ne sont pas suivies par les membres de l’équipe chirurgicale. Nous avons cherché à comprendre les obstacles à l’application des recommandations relatives à l’antico-agulation périopératoire. Méthodologie : Il s’agit d’une analyse prédéterminée d’entrevues menées auprès des membres de l’équipe chirurgicale au sujet des facteurs individuels et systémiques de l’insuccès des recommandations relatives à l’anticoagulation périopératoire. Les entrevues et l’analyse ont été guidées par le Theoretical Domains Framework et le Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research.Résultats : Nous avons interrogé 16 membres de l’équipe chirurgicale et 2 internistes. Intentionnellement, les membres de l’équipe chirurgicale ne suivent pas les recommandations concernant la prise en charge de l’anti-coagulation périopératoire lorsqu’ils estiment que le risque d’hémorragie l’emporte sur le risque de thrombose. Cette évaluation du risque est dictée par l’émotion et l’expérience antérieure, même parmi les participants qui connaissent bien la documentation du domaine périopératoire.Conclusions : La mise en application des résultats des études et des recommandations formulées par les lignes directrices pour la prise en charge de l’anticoagulation périopératoire devrait comprendre des membres de l’équipe chirurgicale pour aborder l’acceptabilité de ces recommandations et augmenter l’adoption.

No abstract