Irita K, Takahashi S
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Kyushu University, Fukuoka.
Masui. 2000 Jan;49(1):7-17.
We conducted a survey to examine surgeons' opinions and criticisms of patient evaluations done by anesthesiologists prior to surgery. We sent questionnaires to 117 departments of general surgery in Japanese university hospitals. We received answers from 77% of the departments. We analyzed their answers, and compared the answers with those from a similar survey done in 1995 by Japan Society of Anesthesiology, one in which anesthesiologists were asked to evaluate themselves. Our most significant findings were as follows. (1) Although most of surgeons were satisfied with their own preanesthetic evaluation of their patients, 30% of the departments reported postponement of surgery due to the need of further examination during recent 2 months and the occurrence of peri-operative myocardial infarction during recent 2 years, (2) The 1995 survey indicated that 46 percent of anesthesiology departments had explained the major perioperative risk, but a half of the 46% had done so without discussing the risk with responsible surgeons. Furthermore, the present survey showed that only 17% of the surgery departments had been aware of such explanation done by anesthesiologists. (3) One-third of the anesthesiology departments did not document the text of the preanesthetic explanation to patients. In our opinion, the final responsibility for the patient's peri-operative care is primarily the surgeon's at present in Japan, although each specialist including the anesthesiologist and the cardiologist should share the responsibility. If the anesthesiologist explain the major peri-operative risk to the patient without first obtaining the surgeon's permission to do so, the patient may become confused about who is responsible for his or her care. It should be made clear to the patient what responsibility each doctor has. It is also important that all explanations given to a patient and the consent to anesthesia given by a patient be properly documented. Japanese anesthesiologists and surgeons need to work far more closely together with regard to pre-anesthetic evaluation and explaining patients about their peri-operative risk.
我们开展了一项调查,以了解外科医生对麻醉医生在手术前进行的患者评估的看法和批评意见。我们向日本大学医院的117个普通外科科室发送了调查问卷。77%的科室回复了问卷。我们分析了他们的回复,并将其与日本麻醉学会在1995年进行的一项类似调查的结果进行了比较,那次调查要求麻醉医生对自己进行评估。我们最主要的发现如下:(1)尽管大多数外科医生对自己对患者的麻醉前评估感到满意,但30%的科室报告称,在最近2个月内,因需要进一步检查而推迟了手术,并且在最近2年内发生了围手术期心肌梗死;(2)1995年的调查表明,46%的麻醉科室解释了主要的围手术期风险,但在这46%中,有一半是在未与负责的外科医生讨论风险的情况下进行解释的。此外,本次调查显示,只有17%的外科科室知晓麻醉医生进行了此类解释;(3)三分之一的麻醉科室没有记录向患者进行麻醉前解释的内容。我们认为,目前在日本,患者围手术期护理的最终责任主要在于外科医生,尽管包括麻醉医生和心脏病专家在内的每个专科医生都应分担责任。如果麻醉医生在未首先获得外科医生许可的情况下就向患者解释主要的围手术期风险,患者可能会对谁负责其护理感到困惑。应该向患者明确每位医生的责任。同样重要的是,要妥善记录向患者提供的所有解释以及患者给予的麻醉同意书。在麻醉前评估以及向患者解释围手术期风险方面,日本的麻醉医生和外科医生需要更加紧密地合作。