CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Down, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by McGuire, G. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Down, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by McGuire, G. P.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 45, 802-808, Copyright © 1998 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

The anaesthesia consult clinic: does it matter which anaesthetist sees the patient?

MP Down, DT Wong and GP McGuire
Department of Anaesthesia, Toronto Hospital, Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: The objectives of this multicentre survey were: first to ascertain whether the preoperative evaluation performed by anaesthetists in the preadmission anaesthesia consultation clinic (PACC) is influenced by the knowledge that they will or will not be the patient's attending anaesthetist; and second to determine the agreement among anaesthetists with regard to investigations requested. METHODS: A postal survey was designed in two different versions, equal numbers of which were sent to 522 anaesthetists in 39 Canadian hospitals. The anaesthetists contacted were asked to consider how they would investigate two hypothetical patients in a PACC. One version of the survey stated that they would be the attending anaesthetist for the first patient, but not for the second patient (group A). In the second version the situation was reversed (group B). RESULTS: A total of 281 eligible replies were received. For each of the two patients the decision to order an echocardiogram, cardiac stress test, arterial blood gas analysis, pulmonary function tests, or internal medicine referral was not affected by the knowledge that the respondent would or would not be the patient's attending anaesthetist. Within each of the two groups there was very little consensus with regard to the ordering of laboratory tests. CONCLUSION: The extent of investigation in the PACC scenarios was not affected by knowledge of whether or not the consulting anaesthetist would be the attending anaesthetist in the operating room. However, there was minimal agreement among anaesthetists concerning the preoperative evaluation of the patients, regardless of who would be the anaesthetist on the day of operation. Efficiency in preoperative evaluation could be increased if anaesthetists saw their own patients in the PACC, or if clinical guidelines for patient assessment were introduced by departments.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.