Regional anaesthesia quality indicators for adult patients undergoing non‐cardiac surgery: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improvement in healthcare delivery depends on the ability to measure outcomes that can direct changes in the system. An overview of quality indicators within the field of regional anaesthesia is lacking. This systematic review aims to synthesise available quality indicators, as per the Donabedian framework, and provide a concise overview of evidence-based quality indicators within regional anaesthesia. A systematic literature search was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane from 2003 to present, and a prespecified search of regional anaesthesia society websites and healthcare quality agencies. The quality indicators relevant to regional anaesthesia were subdivided into peri-operative structure, process and outcome indicators as per the Donabedian framework. The methodological quality of the indicators was determined as per the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine's framework. Twenty manuscripts met our inclusion criteria and, in total, 68 unique quality indicators were identified. There were 4 (6%) structure, 12 (18%) process and 52 (76%) outcome indicators. Most of the indicators were related to the safety (57%) and effectiveness (19%) of regional anaesthesia and were general in nature (60%). In addition, most indicators (84%) were based on low levels of evidence. Our study is an important first step towards describing quality indicators for the provision of regional anaesthesia. Future research should focus on the development of structure and process quality indicators and improving the methodological quality and usability of these indicators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".