Fritz Bradley A, Escallier Krisztina E, Ben Abdallah Arbi, Oberhaus Jordan, Becker Jennifer, Geczi Kristin, McKinnon Sherry, Helsten Dan L, Sharma Anshuman, Wildes Troy S, Avidan Michael S
From the Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Anesthesiology. 2016 Jun;124(6):1265-76. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001108.
Anesthesiologists need tools to accurately track postoperative outcomes. The accuracy of patient report in identifying a wide variety of postoperative complications after diverse surgical procedures has not previously been investigated.
In this cohort study, 1,578 adult surgical patients completed a survey at least 30 days after their procedure asking if they had experienced any of 18 complications while in the hospital after surgery. Patient responses were compared to the results of an automated electronic chart review and (for a random subset of 750 patients) to a manual chart review. Results from automated chart review were also compared to those from manual chart review. Forty-two randomly selected patients were contacted by telephone to explore reasons for discrepancies between patient report and manual chart review.
Comparisons between patient report, automated chart review, and manual chart review demonstrated poor-to-moderate positive agreement (range, 0 to 58%) and excellent negative agreement (range, 82 to 100%). Discordance between patient report and manual chart review was frequently explicable by patients reporting events that happened outside the time period of interest.
Patient report can provide information about subjective experiences or events that happen after hospital discharge, but often yields different results from chart review for specific in-hospital complications. Effective in-hospital communication with patients and thoughtful survey design may increase the quality of patient-reported complication data.
麻醉医生需要工具来准确跟踪术后结果。此前尚未对患者报告在识别各种不同外科手术后的多种术后并发症方面的准确性进行研究。
在这项队列研究中,1578名成年外科手术患者在术后至少30天完成了一项调查,询问他们在术后住院期间是否经历过18种并发症中的任何一种。将患者的回答与自动电子病历审查结果进行比较,并(针对750名患者的随机子集)与人工病历审查结果进行比较。还将自动病历审查结果与人工病历审查结果进行比较。通过电话联系了42名随机选择的患者,以探究患者报告与人工病历审查之间存在差异的原因。
患者报告、自动病历审查和人工病历审查之间的比较显示,阳性一致性较差至中等(范围为0%至58%),阴性一致性良好(范围为82%至100%)。患者报告与人工病历审查之间的不一致通常可以解释为患者报告了在感兴趣时间段之外发生的事件。
患者报告可以提供有关出院后主观经历或事件的信息,但对于特定的院内并发症,其结果往往与病历审查不同。与患者进行有效的院内沟通和精心设计的调查可能会提高患者报告的并发症数据的质量。