↓ Skip to main content

Surgeons’ views on preoperative medical evaluation: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Perioperative Medicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Surgeons’ views on preoperative medical evaluation: a qualitative study
Published in
Perioperative Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13741-017-0072-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin R. Riggs, Zackary D. Berger, Martin A. Makary, Eric B. Bass, Geetanjali Chander

Abstract

There is substantial variation in the practice of preoperative medical evaluation (PME) and limited evidence for its benefit, which raises concerns about overuse. Surgeons have a unique role in this multidisciplinary practice. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore surgeons' practices and their beliefs about PME. We conducted of semi-structured interviews with 18 surgeons in Baltimore, Maryland. Surgeons were purposively sampled to maximize diversity in terms of practice type (academic vs. private practice), surgical specialty, gender, and experience level. General topics included surgeons' current PME practices, perceived benefits and harms of PME, the surgical risk assessment, and potential improvements and barriers to change. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes, which are presented as assertions. Transcripts were re-analyzed to identify supporting and opposing instances of each assertion. A total of 15 themes emerged. There was wide variation in surgeons' described PME practices. Surgeons believed that PME improves surgical outcomes, but not all patients benefit. Surgeons were cognizant of the financial cost of the current system and the potential inconvenience that additional tests and office visits pose to patients. Surgeons believed that PME has minimal to no risk and that a normal PME is reassuring to them and patients. Surgeons were confident in their ability to assess surgical risk, and risk assessment by non-surgeons rarely affected their surgical decision-making. Hospital and anesthesiology requirements were a major driver of surgeons' PME practices. Surgeons did not receive much training on PME but perceived their practices to be similar to their colleagues. Surgeons believed that PME provides malpractice protection, welcomed standardization, and perceived there to be inadequate evidence to significantly change their current practice. Views of surgeons should be considered in future research on and reforms to the PME process.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 18%
Lecturer 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 18%
Computer Science 1 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2020.
All research outputs
#7,614,626
of 14,404,147 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
#67
of 134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,362
of 318,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
#8
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,404,147 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.