Search

The purpose of these guidelines on the preoperative evaluation of the adult non-cardiac surgery patient is to present recommendations based on available relevant clinical evidence. The ultimate aims of preoperative evaluation are two-fold. First, we aim to identify those patients for whom the perioperative period may constitute an increased risk of morbidity and mortality, aside from the risks associated with the underlying disease. Second, this should help us to design perioperative strategies that aim to reduce additional perioperative risks. Very few well performed randomised studies on the topic are available and many recommendations rely heavily on expert opinion and are adapted specifically to the healthcare systems in individual countries. This report aims to provide an overview of current knowledge on the subject with an assessment of the quality of the evidence in order to allow anaesthetists all over Europe to integrate - wherever possible - this knowledge into daily patient care. The Guidelines Committee of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) formed a task force with members of subcommittees of scientific subcommittees and individual members of the ESA. Electronic databases were searched from the year 2000 until July 2010 without language restrictions. These searches produced 15 425 abstracts. Relevant systematic reviews with meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional surveys were selected. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network grading system was used to assess the level of evidence and to grade recommendations. The final draft guideline was posted on the ESA website for 4 weeks and the link was sent to all ESA members, individual or national (thus including most European national anaesthesia societies). Comments were collated and the guidelines amended as appropriate. When the final draft was complete, the Guidelines Committee and ESA Board ratified the guidelines.

Objectives: To analyse the results of the immediate evaluation of an European teaching session using a questionnaire provided by the French College of anaesthesiologists., Study Design: Open evaluation., Material: Questionnaires completed after each topic by 50 participants of an European course including 15 lectures were collected., Methods: The types of professional exercise and the medical practise reliable to the different topics were pointed out. The evaluation included 4 items noted from 1 to 10: new information for medical practise, definition of pedagogic objectives, quality of means used for teaching, interest for the treated subject. The global mean score for each item and for each speaker was calculated. Results were compared according to the professional mode of exercise, the own medical practise and the project to modify it in the future., Results: Scores affected to items were significantly lower for participants exercising in PSPH compared to general and university hospitals and private clinics (p < 0.001). New information was better found in case of poor or absence of practise, but interest was improved when medical practise was frequent. 2/3 of the participants projected to modify their practise after the session., Conclusion: The analysis of medical evaluation should allow to determine an acceptable zone of quality which may be useful for accreditation. However, distorting results according to the professional mode of exercise and the own medical practise should encourage the development of adapted continuous medical education. Delayed evaluation may be necessary to objective the putative benefits of CME on medical practise.