Back to Search Start Over

Recommendations for effective documentation in regional anesthesia: an expert panel Delphi consensus project.

Authors :
Ahmed HM
Atterton BP
Crowe GG
Barratta JL
Johnson M
Viscusi E
Adhikary S
Albrecht E
Boretsky K
Boublik J
Breslin DS
Byrne K
Ch'ng A
Chuan A
Conroy P
Daniel C
Daszkiewicz A
Delbos A
Dirzu DS
Dmytriiev D
Fennessy P
Fischer HBJ
Frizelle H
Gadsden J
Gautier P
Gupta RK
Gürkan Y
Hardman HD
Harrop-Griffiths W
Hebbard P
Hernandez N
Hlasny J
Iohom G
Ip VHY
Jeng CL
Johnson RL
Kalagara H
Kinirons B
Lansdown AK
Leng JC
Lim YC
Lobo C
Ludwin DB
Macfarlane AJR
Machi AT
Mahon P
Mannion S
McLeod DH
Merjavy P
Miscuks A
Mitchell CH
Moka E
Moran P
Ngui A
Nin OC
O'Donnell BD
Pawa A
Perlas A
Porter S
Pozek JP
Rebelo HC
Roqués V
Schroeder KM
Schwartz G
Schwenk ES
Sermeus L
Shorten G
Srinivasan K
Stevens MF
Theodoraki K
Turbitt LR
Valdés-Vilches LF
Volk T
Webster K
Wiesmann T
Wilson SH
Wolmarans M
Woodworth G
Worek AK
Moran EML
Source :
Regional anesthesia and pain medicine [Reg Anesth Pain Med] 2022 May; Vol. 47 (5), pp. 301-308. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Feb 22.
Publication Year :
2022

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia.<br />Methods: Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement.<br />Results: Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29.<br />Conclusion: By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.<br />Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.<br /> (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1532-8651
Volume :
47
Issue :
5
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Regional anesthesia and pain medicine
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
35193970
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2021-103136