Enhanced Postoperative Monitoring: Mixed Realities and New Frontiers

Satya Krishna Ramachandran
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000006903
IF: 6.627
2024-04-17
Anesthesia & Analgesia
Abstract:See Article, page 955 This issue of Anesthesia & Analgesia includes a pro–con debate paper 1 with persuasive arguments favoring universal continuous postoperative surveillance systems, based on extensive longitudinal experience from the proponent's group. It also posits why we might adopt a more focused approach by identifying the higher-risk patient populations in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). The 2 groups offer complementary methods to enhance monitoring efficiencies, and both of their perspectives could benefit from adopting key human factors engineering strategies to further enhance their effectiveness. This safety systems commentary views this current pro–con debate through the lenses of evidence-based medicine as well as failure modes and effects. Enhanced postoperative monitoring—universal or focused—promotes patient safety by reducing or eliminating the failure to recognize state change, which if unchecked, increases the likelihood of adverse outcomes. In addition to this failure mode, the failure to relay information or to escalate care in a timely manner and the failure of timely, appropriate clinical care responses all lead to failure to rescue (FTR). A schematic of the rescue loop structure with failure modes relevant to this commentary is depicted in the Figure.
anesthesiology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?