Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 7, pp 1997–2000 | Cite as

Deaths in Incorrectly Identified Low-Surgical-Risk Patients

  • C. R. JonesEmail author
  • G. A. J. McCulloch
  • G. Ludbrook
  • W. J. Babidge
  • G. J. Maddern
Original Scientific Report

Abstract

Background

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical classification system was developed for assessing anaesthetic risk, but is often also used to estimate surgical death risk. Patients with low ASA grades (ASA 1 or 2) are expected to have better surgical outcomes than patients with higher ASA grades (ASA ≥ 4). This study examined the course to death in patients classified as ASA 1 or 2 was examined, to investigate possible factors in unexpected deaths, in addition to evaluating the use of ASA grades by clinicians.

Methods

Patient data from the national surgical mortality audit of Australian hospitals were examined. The patient group was listed as ASA grade 1 or 2 by surgeons. Patients over 60 or under 20 were excluded in the final analysis, as were cases from New South Wales due to data not being available. A total of 357 cases were examined. Assessor summaries of the cases were examined, and ASA score reassessed to determine accuracy.

Results

More than 95% (n = 339) of cases listed as ASA 1 or 2 were found to have an incorrectly low grade, with 17.6% (n = 63) of cases listed as “expected” deaths.

Conclusion

ASA grades appear to be misunderstood in the reporting of patient surgical risk. Many patient summaries list patients with severe systemic disease or expected deaths as ASA 1 or 2, contrary to the intended use of this classification system. Improved education on the use of the ASA grading system would be beneficial to clinicians.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Davenport DL et al (2006) National surgical quality improvement program (NSQIP) risk factors can be used to validate American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA PS) levels. Ann Surg 243(5):636–641 (discussion 641–4) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haynes SR, Lawler PG (1995) An assessment of the consistency of ASA physical status classification allocation. Anaesthesia 50(3):195–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Froehner M et al (2003) Comparison of the American society of anesthesiologists physical status classification with the Charlson score as predictors of survival after radical prostatectomy. Urology 62(4):698–701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcea G et al (2010) Preoperative early warning scores can predict in-hospital mortality and critical care admission following emergency surgery. J Surg Res 159(2):729–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Surgeons RACO (2015) Royal Australasian college of surgeons Australian and New Zealand audit of surgical mortality national report 2015Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eisen GM et al (2000) Do endoscopists utilize and understand the ASA grade? Gastrointest Endosc 51(4):AB76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Visnjevac O et al (2015) The effect of adding functional classification to ASA status for predicting 30-day mortality. Anesth Analg 121(1):110–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ridgeway S et al (2005) Infection of the surgical site after arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(6):844–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tang R et al (2001) Risk factors for surgical site infection after elective resection of the colon and rectum: a single-center prospective study of 2,809 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 234(2):181–189CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sauvanet A et al (2005) Mortality and morbidity after resection for adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: predictive factors. J Am Coll Surg 201(2):253–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prause G et al (1997) Comparison of two preoperative indices to predict perioperative mortality in non-cardiac thoracic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 11(4):670–675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolters U et al (1996) ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth 77(2):217–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hurwitz EE et al (2017) Adding examples to the ASA-physical status classification improves correct assignment to patients. Anesthesiology 126(4):614–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daabiss M (2011) American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification. Indian J Anaesth 55(2):111–115CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ASA House of Delegates, ASA Physical Status Classification System (2014) Asahq.org. Retrieved from https://www.asahq.org/resources/clinical-information/asa-physical-status-classification-system
  16. 16.
    Marian AA et al (2016) The influence of the type and design of the anesthesia record on ASA physical status scores in surgical patients: paper records vs. electronic anesthesia records. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 16:29CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. R. Jones
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. A. J. McCulloch
    • 1
  • G. Ludbrook
    • 1
  • W. J. Babidge
    • 1
  • G. J. Maddern
    • 2
  1. 1.Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, ANZASMAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Hepatobiliary and Upper Gastrointestinal SurgeryThe Queen Elizabeth HospitalAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations