Canadian Journal of Anesthesia

, 52:1022 | Cite as

Frequency and implications of ambulatory surgery without a patient escort

  • Frances ChungEmail author
  • Ngozi Imasogie
  • Joyce Ho
  • Xiangqun Ning
  • Atul Prabhu
  • Bruna Curti



A study was undertaken to identify the characteristics and outcomes of ambulatory surgical patients without an escort.

Clinical features

During a 38-month period, the incidence of patients without an escort at one tertiary care institution was 0.2% (60/28,391). Five patients had their surgery cancelled. The other 55 patients had their surgery performed. Tw o groups of patients without an escort were identified: patients who were known not to have an escort preoperatively, and patients with “no show” escort. The number of patients with no show escort is much higher than the number of patients who were known not to have an escort preoperatively. The outcome of the no escort patients was compared with the matched control group of patients with an escort. There were no differences in the rates of unanticipated admission, emergency visits or readmission into the hospital within 30 days comparing the group of patients with and without an escort.


The absence of an escort in ambulatory surgical patients occurs in 0.2% of surgeries, and varies according to the type of service. The number of patients with no show escort is higher than the number of patients with known no escort preoperatively.


Desflurane Ambulatory Surgery Matched Control Group Emergency Visit Monitor Anesthesia Care 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

La fréquence et les implications de la chirurgie ambulatoire de patients non accompagnés



Déterminer les caractéristiques et les suites de la chirurgie ambulatoire chez des patients sans accompagnateur.

Éléments cliniques

Pendant une période de 38 mois, ľincidence de patients non accompagnés qui se sont présentés à une institution de soins tertiaires a été de 0.2 % (60/28.391). Ľopération chirurgicale a été annulée pour cinq patients. Les 55 autres patients ont été opérés. Deux groupes de patients non accompa-gnés ont été recensés : ceux dont on savait avant ľopération qu’ils seraient seuls et ceux dont ľaccompagnateur ne s’est pas présenté. Ces derniers étaient plus nombreux que les premiers. Ľévolution des patients sans accompagnateur a été comparée avec le groupe de patients témoins appariés qui étaient accompagnés. Il n'’y a pas eu de différence quant au taux ďadmission hospitalière imprévue, aux visites à ľurgence ou à la réadmission à ľhôpital dans les 30 jours, entre les patients accompagnés ou non.


Ľabsence ďaccompagnateur pour les patients de chirurgie ambulatoire survient dans 0.2 % des cas et varie selon le type de service. Le nombre de patients non accompagnés est plus élevé que celui des patients qui savent avant ľopération qu’ils se présenteront seuls.


  1. 1.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Postanesthetic Care. Practice guidelines for postanesthetic care. A report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Postanesthetic Care. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 742–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Devore JL. Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences, 5th ed. California: Duxbury Inc.; 1999: 387–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGrath B, Chung F. Postoperative recovery and discharge. Anesthesiol Clin North America 2003; 21: 367–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chung F, Chan VW, Ong D. A post-anesthetic discharge scoring system for home readiness after ambulatory surgery. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7: 500–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kortilla K. Recovery and home readiness after anesthesia for ambulatory surgery. Semin Anaesth 1990; 9: 182–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marshall SI, Chung F. Discharge criteria and complications after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 508–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Apfelbaum JL, Lichtor JL, Lane BS, Coalson DW, Korttila KT. Awakening, clinical recovery, and psychomotor effects after desflurane and propofol anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 721–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grant SA, Murdoch J, Millar K, Kenny GN. Blood propofol concentration and psychomotor effects on driving skills. Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 396–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sinclair DR, Chung F, Smiley A. General anesthesia does not impair simulator driving skills in volunteers in the immediate recovery period — a pilot study. Can J Anesth 2003; 50: 238–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolff J, Dunnihoo DR. A freestanding ambulatory surgical unit: a success or failure? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 143: 270–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rudkin GE, Osborne GA, Doyle CE. Assessment and selection of patients for day surgery in a public hospital. Med J Aust 1993; 158: 308–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lieber CP, Seinige UL, Sataloff DM. Choosing the site of surgery. An overview of ambulatory surgery in geriatric patients. Clin Geriatr Med 1990; 6: 493–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedman Z, Chung F, Wong DT. Ambulatory surgery adult patient selection criteria — a survey of Canadian anesthesiologists. Can J Anesth 2004; 51: 437–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Correa R, Menezes RB, Wong J, Yogendran S, Jenkins K, Chung F. Compliance with postoperative instructions: a telephone survey of 750 day surgery patients. Anaesthesia 2001; 56: 481–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Canadian Anesthesiologists 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frances Chung
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ngozi Imasogie
    • 1
  • Joyce Ho
    • 1
  • Xiangqun Ning
    • 1
  • Atul Prabhu
    • 1
  • Bruna Curti
    • 2
  1. 1.Departments of AnesthesiaToronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Departments of NursingToronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations