Dataset Information

Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous studies, which relied on hypothetical cases and chart reviews, have questioned the inter-rater reliability of the ASA physical status (ASA-PS) scale. We therefore conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate its inter-rater reliability and validity in clinical practice.

Methods

The cohort included all adult patients (?18 yr) who underwent elective non-cardiac surgery at a quaternary-care teaching institution in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, from March 2010 to December 2011. We assessed inter-rater reliability by comparing ASA-PS scores assigned at the preoperative assessment clinic vs the operating theatre. We also assessed the validity of the ASA-PS scale by measuring its association with patients' preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes.

Results

The cohort included 10 864 patients, of whom 5.5% were classified as ASA I, 42.0% as ASA II, 46.7% as ASA III, and 5.8% as ASA IV. The ASA-PS score had moderate inter-rater reliability (? 0.61), with 67.0% of patients (n=7279) being assigned to the same ASA-PS class in the clinic and operating theatre, and 98.6% (n=10 712) of paired assessments being within one class of each other. The ASA-PS scale was correlated with patients' age (Spearman's ?, 0.23), Charlson comorbidity index (?=0.24), revised cardiac risk index (?=0.40), and hospital length of stay (?=0.16). It had moderate ability to predict in-hospital mortality (receiver-operating characteristic curve area 0.69) and cardiac complications (receiver-operating characteristic curve area 0.70).

Conclusions

Consistent with its inherent subjectivity, the ASA-PS scale has moderate inter-rater reliability in clinical practice. It also demonstrates validity as a marker of patients' preoperative health status.

SUBMITTER: Sankar A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4136425 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice.

Sankar A A Johnson S R SR Beattie W S WS Tait G G Wijeysundera D N DN

British journal of anaesthesia 20140411 3

<h4>Background</h4>Previous studies, which relied on hypothetical cases and chart reviews, have questioned the inter-rater reliability of the ASA physical status (ASA-PS) scale. We therefore conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate its inter-rater reliability and validity in clinical practice.<h4>Methods</h4>The cohort included all adult patients (≥18 yr) who underwent elective non-cardiac surgery at a quaternary-care teaching institution in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, from March 2010 to ...[more]

PMID: 24727705

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health records (EHR) contain large volumes of unstructured free-form text notes that richly describe a patient's health and medical comorbidities. It is unclear if perioperative risk stratification can be performed directly from these notes without manual data extraction. We conduct a feasibility study using natural language processing (NLP) to predict the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification (ASA-PS) as a surrogate measure for perioperative risk. We explore prediction performance using four different model types and compare the use of different note sections versus the whole note. We use Shapley values to explain model predictions and analyze disagreement between model and human anesthesiologist predictions.MethodsSingle-center retrospective cohort analysis of EHR notes from patients undergoing procedures with anesthesia care spanning all procedural specialties during a 5 year period who were not assigned ASA VI and also had a preoperative evaluation note filed within 90 days prior to the procedure. NLP models were trained for each combination of 4 models and 8 text snippets from notes. Model performance was compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision recall curve (AUPRC). Shapley values were used to explain model predictions. Error analysis and model explanation using Shapley values was conducted for the best performing model.ResultsFinal dataset includes 38,566 patients undergoing 61,503 procedures with anesthesia care. Prevalence of ASA-PS was 8.81% for ASA I, 31.4% for ASA II, 43.25% for ASA III, and 16.54% for ASA IV-V. The best performing models were the BioClinicalBERT model on the truncated note task (macro-average AUROC 0.845) and the fastText model on the full note task (macro-average AUROC 0.865). Shapley values reveal human-interpretable model predictions. Error analysis reveals that some original ASA-PS assignments may be incorrect and the model is making a reasonable prediction in these cases.ConclusionsText classification models can accurately predict a patient's illness severity using only free-form text descriptions of patients without any manual data extraction. They can be an additional patient safety tool in the perioperative setting and reduce manual chart review for medical billing. Shapley feature attributions produce explanations that logically support model predictions and are understandable to clinicians.

Project description:PurposeTo provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.MethodsAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts to conduct a systematic review of the literature from April 2004 to June 2015. Outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events.ResultsTwenty-four randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria.RecommendationsA multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. Goals of care, patient preferences, treatment response, psychological status, support systems, and symptom burden should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; favorable comorbidity profile) or gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (NAB) -paclitaxel (adequate comorbidity profile) should be offered to patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 to 1 based on patient preference and support system available. Gemcitabine alone is recommended for patients with ECOG PS 2 or with a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens; the addition of capecitabine or erlotinib may be offered. Patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 3 and poorly controlled comorbid conditions should be offered cancer-directed therapy only on a case-by-case basis; supportive care should be emphasized. For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX, an ECOG PS 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or nanoliposomal irinotecan should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, ECOG PS 0 to 1, and favorable comorbidity profile, and gemcitabine or fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Dataset Information

Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets