Development of a National Core Dataset for Preoperative Assessment

Summary

Objective: To define a core dataset for preoperative assessment to leverage uniform data collection in this domain. This uniformity is a prerequisite for data exchange between care providers and semantic interoperability between health record systems.

Methods: To design this core dataset a combination of literature review and expert consensus meetings were used. In the first meeting a working definition for “core dataset” was specified. Subgroups were formed to address major headings of the core dataset. In the following eight meetings data items for each subheading were discussed. The items in the resulting draft of the dataset were compared to those retrieved from an earlier literature review study. In the last two expert meetings modifications of the dataset were performed based on the result of this literature study.

Results: Based on expert consensus a draft dataset including 82 data items was designed. Seventy-six percent of data items in the draft dataset were covered by the literature study. Nine data items were modified in the draft and 14 data items were added to the dataset based on input from the literature review. The final dataset of 93 data items covers patient history, physical examination, supplementary examination and consultation, and final judgment.

Conclusions: This preoperative-assessment dataset was defined based on expert consensus and literature review. Both methods proved to be valuable and complementary. This dataset opens the door for creating standardized approaches in data collection in the preoperative assessment field which will facilitate interoperability between different electronic health records and different users.

Keywords

Preoperative care - dataset - hospital information systems - core dataset - database

• References

• 1 Greer AE, Irwin MG. Implementation and evaluation of guidelines for preoperative testing in a tertiary hospital. Anaesth Intensive Care 2002; 30: 326-330.
• 2 van Klei WA, Grobbee DE, Rutten CL. et al. Role of history and physical examination in preoperative evaluation. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2003; 20: 612-618.
• 3 Ferrando A, Ivaldi C, Buttiglieri A. et al. Guidelines for preoperative assessment: impact on clinical practice and costs. Int J Qual Health Care 2005; 17: 323-329.
• 4 Lew E, Pavlin DJ, Amundsen L. Outpatient preanaesthesia evaluation clinics. Singapore Med J 2004; 45: 509-516.
• 5 Practice advisory for preanesthesia evaluation: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preanesthesia Evaluation. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 485-496.
• 6 Kaafarani HM, Itani KM, Thornby J, Berger DH. Thirty-day and one-year predictors of death in noncardiac major surgical procedures. Am J Surg 2004; 188: 495-499.
• 7 Roizen MF. More preoperative assessment by physicians and less by laboratory tests. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 204-205.
• 8 Halaszynski TM, Juda R, Silverman DG. Optimizing postoperative outcomes with efficient preoperative assessment and management. Crit Care Med 2004; 32: S76-S86.
• 9 Koppada B, Pena M, Joshi A. Cancellation in elective orthopaedic surgery. Health Trends 1991; 23: 114-115.
• 10 Ahmadian L, Cornet R, van Klei WA, de Keizer NF. Diversity in Preoperative-Assessment Data Collection, a Literature Review. Stud Health Technol Inform 2008; 136: 127-132.
• 11 Michota FA, Frost SD. The preoperative evaluation: use the history and physical rather than routine testing. Cleve Cli J Med 2004; 71: 63-70.
• 12 Garcia-Miguel FJ, Serrano-Aguilar PG, Lopez-Bastida J. Preoperative assessment. Lancet 2003; 362: 1749-1757.
• 13 Forister JG, Blessing JD. Considerations in preoperative evaluation. Physician Assistant 2002; 26: 36-46.
• 14 Pollock DA, Adams DL, Bernardo LM. et al. Data elements for emergency department systems, release 1.0 (DEEDS): a summary report. DEEDS Writing Committee. J Emerg Nurs 1998; 24: 35-44.
• 15 Monk TG, Sanderson L. The Development of an Anesthesia Lexicon. Seminars in Anesthesia, Peri-operative Medicine and Pain 2004; 23: 93-98.
• 16 Pearce A. Evaluation of the airway and preparation for difficulty. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2005; 19: 559-579.
• 17 Innes G, Murray M, Grafstein E. A consensus-based process to define standard national data elements for a Canadian emergency department information system. CJEM 2001; 3: 277-284.
• 18 Ireland D, O’Brien D. In the beginning... the origin and evolution of ASPAN’s Perianesthesia Data Elements. J Perianesth Nurs 2007; 22: 423-427.
• 19 Simmons D, Coppell K, Drury PL. The development of a national agreed minimum diabetes data-set for New Zealand. J Qual Clin Pract 2000; 20: 44-50.
• 20 Thomas K, Emberton M, Mundy AR. Towards a minimum dataset in urology. BJU Int 2000; 86: 765-772.
• 21 Campbell HS, Ossip-Klein D, Bailey L, Saul J. Minimal dataset for quitlines: a best practice. Tob Control 2007; 16 Suppl 1: i16-i20.
• 22 Guidelines for developing a data dictionary. J AHIMA 2006; 77: 64A-D.
• 23 Westra BL, Bauman R, Delaney CW, Lundberg CB, Petersen C. Validation of concept mapping between PNDS and SNOMED CT. AORN J 2008; 87: 1217-1229.