Quality assurance in anaesthetic practice: comparison between two methods in detecting complications

A Narrative Review of Meaningful Use and Anesthesia Information Management Systems

The US federal government has enacted legislation for a federal incentive program for health care providers and hospitals to implement electronic health records. The primary goal of the Meaningful Use (MU) program is to drive adoption of electronic health records nationwide and set the stage to monitor and guide efforts to improve population health and outcomes. The MU program provides incentives for the adoption and use of electronic health record technology and, in some cases, penalties for hospitals or providers not using the technology. The MU program is administrated by the Department of Health and Human Services and is divided into 3 stages that include specific reporting and compliance metrics. The rationale is that increased use of electronic health records will improve the process of delivering care at the individual level by improving the communication and allow for tracking population health and quality improvement metrics at a national level in the long run. The goal of this narrative review is to describe the MU program as it applies to anesthesiologists in the United States. This narrative review will discuss how anesthesiologists can meet the eligible provider reporting criteria of MU by applying anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) in various contexts in the United States. Subsequently, AIMS will be described in the context of MU criteria. This narrative literature review also will evaluate the evidence supporting the electronic health record technology in the operating room, including AIMS, independent of certification requirements for the electronic health record technology under MU in the United States.

Evolution of anaesthesia care and related events between 1996 and 2010 in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Anaesthesia Databank Switzerland (ADS) is a voluntary data registry introduced in 1996. Its ultimate goal is to promote quality in anaesthesiology.

METHODS

The ADS registry analyses routinely recorded adverse events and provides benchmark comparisons between anaesthesia departments. Data collection comprises a set of 31 variables organised into three modules, one mandatory and two optional.

RESULTS

In 2010, the database included 2,158,735 anaesthetic procedures. Over time, the proportions of older patients have increased, the largest group being aged 50-64 years. The percentage of patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 1 has decreased while the percentage of ASA status 2 or 3 patients has increased. The most frequent comorbidities recorded were hypertension (21%), smoking (16%), allergy (15%) and obesity (12%). Between 1996 and 2010, 125,579 adverse events were recorded, of which 34% were cardiovascular, 7% respiratory, 39% technical and 20% non-specific. The most severe events were resuscitation (50%), oliguria (22%), myocardial ischaemia (17%) and haemorrhage (10%).

CONCLUSION

Routine ADS data collection contributes to the monitoring of trends in anaesthesia care in Switzerland. The ADS system has proved to be usable in daily practice, although this remains a constant challenge that is highly dependent on local quality management and quality culture. Nevertheless, success in developing routine regular feedback to users to initiate discussions about anaesthetic events would most likely help strengthen departmental culture regarding safety and quality of care.