Author
Listed:
- Aida Anetsberger
- Manfred Blobner
- Veronika Krautheim
- Katrin Umgelter
- Sebastian Schmid
- Bettina Jungwirth
Abstract
Previous studies have focused on postoperative anaesthetic visit as a tool for measuring postoperative recovery or patient’s satisfaction. Whether it could also improve timely recognition of complications has not been studied yet. Aim of our study was to assess pathological findings in physical examination requiring further intervention during postoperative visit and to explore whether a self-administered version of the Quality of Recovery (QoR)-9 score, compared to a detailed medical history, can act as a screening tool for identification of patients who show a low risk to develop postoperative complications. This observational study included 918 patients recovering from various types of non-cardiac surgery and anaesthesia. The postoperative visit implied three steps: measuring the QoR-9 score, a structured medical history and a physical examination. QoR-9-score showed a comparable negative predictive value (0.93 vs. 0.92) and a higher sensitivity of finding at least one pathological examination than a detailed medical history (0.92 vs. 0.81 respectively). At least one postoperative pathological examination finding was observed in 23.7% of the patients. Our approach presents a strategy on screening postoperative patients in order to identify patients whose examination and consequent treatment should be intensified. In further studies the question could be addressed whether the postoperative visit may help to reduce complications and mortality after surgery.
Suggested Citation
Aida Anetsberger & Manfred Blobner & Veronika Krautheim & Katrin Umgelter & Sebastian Schmid & Bettina Jungwirth, 2015.
"Self-Reported, Structured Measures of Recovery to Detect Postoperative Morbidity,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-10, July.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0133871
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133871
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133871. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.