Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BARAZZONI, F.
Right arrow Articles by RENELLA, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by BARAZZONI, F.
Right arrow Articles by RENELLA, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care 14:321-327 (2002)
© 2002 International Society for Quality in Health Care


Paper

Impact of end user involvement in implementing guidelines on routine pre-operative tests

FABRIZIO BARAZZONI1, ROBERTO GRILLI2, ANNA MARIA VINCENZA AMICOSANTE3, SONIA BRESCIANINI3, MICHELE A. MARCA1, MARCO BAGGI4, PAUL BIEGGER5 and REZIO RENELLA6

1Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Bellinzona
4Ospedale Regionale Beata Vergine, Mendrisio
5Ospedale Regionale La Carità, Locarno
6Ospedale Regionale, Sede Ospedale Civico, Lugano, Switzerland
2Agenzia Sanitaria Regionale, Bologna
3Agenzia per i Servizi Sanitari Regionali, Roma, Italy

Objectives. To assess the impact of health professionals’ involvement in the implementation of practice guidelines aimed at reducing the use of pre-operative tests in patients at low anaesthetic risk undergoing elective surgery.

Intervention. A 6 month (September 1997 to February 1998) strategy based upon organization of local meetings involving health professionals from six hospitals of Canton Ticino (Switzerland).

Design. Observational study (pre/post) of pre-operative test utilization between March 1996 and December 1998.

Subjects and methods. A total of 17 978 patients admitted for elective surgery over the study period. The latter was modelled in six intervals, three before (baseline), one during, and two after (adoption) guidelines implementation, respectively. For each time interval the proportion of patients undergoing pre-operative tests was estimated. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to assess patient likelihood [expressed as the odds ratio (OR)] of undergoing a diagnostic test in each period, using the implementation interval as the reference category.

Main outcome measure. Change in patient probability of undergoing pre-operative tests in the adoption interval.

Results. Adoption of the recommendations was associated with 81% [OR = 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15–0.23] reduction of patient probability of undergoing coagulation test, 73% (OR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.23–0.33) for glycaemia, 62% (OR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.33–0.44) for azotaemia, 57% (OR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.36–0.51) for chest X-ray, 49% (OR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.44–0.60) for creatinaemia, and 43% (OR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.48–0.69) for ECG. Overall, these findings corresponded to a cost saving of 67 890 Swiss francs (US$42 000) for the last quarter under study.

Conclusions. This study indicates that an implementation strategy based upon direct involvement of end users in the identification of possible barriers to change can be successful in promoting the use of practice guidelines.

Keywords: implementation, practice guidelines, pre-operative tests


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Int J Qual Health CareHome page
A. Ferrando, C. Ivaldi, A. Buttiglieri, E. Pagano, C. Bonetto, R. Arione, L. Scaglione, E. Gelormino, F. Merletti, and G. Ciccone
Guidelines for preoperative assessment: impact on clinical practice and costs
Int. J. Qual. Health Care, August 1, 2005; 17(4): 323 - 329.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.