Cited by 136Healthcare cost, quality, practicesCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Preoperative testing is inconsistent with published guidelines and rarely changes management

Bryson, Gregory L, Wyand, Anna, Bragg, Paul R·2006·Canadian Journal of Anesthesia

Abstract

Purpose The Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), the Ontario Preoperative Task Force (OPTF) and The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) have published guidelines detailing the indications for preoperative testing. The purpose of this study was to: (a) document compliance of testing practice at TOH-Civic Campus with published guidelines; and (b) determine the impact of preoperative testing on clinical management.Methods Following Research Ethics approval all patients undergoing elective surgery at TOH-Civic Campus in the first three months of 2004 were identified. One hundred charts from each month were randomly selected and analyzed retrospectively by a single reviewer. The ordering and results of four preoperative tests were characterized. The indication for preoperative testing was identified from preoperative notes and the source of non-compliant orders was identified. Compliance with the CAS, OPTF, and TOH guidelines was documented. Abnormal test results were analyzed for evidence of a subsequent change in clinical management.Results The charts of 294 of the 2,116 patients who underwent elective surgery at TOH-Civic Campus in the first three months of 2004 were reviewed. A total of 534 tests were ordered on 198 patients (67%). Non-compliance rates varied significantly (5-98%) depending on test and guideline analyzed. Results of 329 tests (61.6%) were normal. Management was changed by 14 of 534 tests ordered (2.6%). Surgery proceeded as scheduled in all cases.Conclusion The majority of elective surgical patients undergo preoperative testing. Non-compliance with guidelines ranged from 5 to 98%. The results of most tests were normal and influenced management in only 2.6% of cases.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf03022208

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bryson, G. L., Wyand, A., & Bragg, P. R.
Affiliations
University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Bryson, Gregory L
Venue
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia
Published
2006-03
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
236-241
ISSN
  • 0832-610X (ISSN-L)
  • 1496-8975
OpenAlex
W1514904656
Cited by
136
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.51
Type
journal article
Language
fr
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
preoperative screening, guideline adherence, elective surgery, preoperative blood tests, clinical management change, laboratory abnormalities, Ottawa Hospital
MeSH terms
Anesthesia Department, Hospital, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Audit, Middle Aged, Ontario, Preoperative Care, Retrospective Studies, Utilization Review, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Elective Surgical Procedures, Health Care Surveys, Guideline Adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review