This systematic review was conducted to examine the value of the preoperative history and physical (H&P) examination and preoperative care prior to cataract extraction and the resulting outcomes of adverse events, patient experience, and cost. Four databases were searched using appropriate keywords from 2012 to 2022. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and quality improvement studies with data on the precataract H&P were included. Outcome measures were adverse events, cost, and patient experience. Of the 4,170 studies screened, 12 studies were included. Risk stratification of patients into a high-risk group with an H&P and a low-risk group without an H&P resulted in an increased incidence of minor adverse events in the low-risk group but did not increase the incidence of major adverse events or surgical adverse events. A short-term cost savings was reported, and patient experience was unchanged. In 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services removed the requirement for the precataract H&P within 30 days prior to ambulatory surgery, which has implications for surgery center policy. More research on the role of the preoperative H&P on patient experience, adverse events, cost, and outcomes should be conducted, given the methodological heterogeneity of this review.

OBJECTIVE: Beginning January 1, 2022, the Council on Accreditation is requiring student registered nurse anesthetists (SRNAs) matriculating into nurse anesthesia programs to track preanesthetic comprehensive history and physical (H&P) assessment completion numbers. This quality improvement (QI) project aimed to create a new clinical rotation for SRNAs to practice their preanesthetic H&P assessment skills through video telehealth.
METHODS: A quality improvement project.
METHODS: Likert-style and free-text surveys were administered to both the SRNA students and the expert provider to assess for improvements, viability, and effectiveness of the clinical rotation. SRNAs used a curated library of evidence-based resources and instructions for conducting their assessments. Expert guidance was provided through a single experienced provider.
RESULTS: Eight SRNAs performed one preanesthetic telehealth H&P assessment and four of the eight performed a second assessment. Pre-QI surveys indicated 75% were not comfortable with their ability in performing a competent assessment. Initial post-QI surveys indicated 88% were more comfortable with their abilities and 100% of those who completed a second-time post-QI survey 100% were more comfortable. Provider feedback indicated full-day clinical rotations were feasible and important.
CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed SRNAs desire and need for more preanesthetic comprehensive H&P appointments. Expansion into full-scale, full-day, and in-person assessments was also indicated. QI projects at other clinical sites can determine if similar rotations can also create similar clinical rotations.

United States regulations require a history and physical (H&P) ≤30 days before planned procedures. We evaluated the impact of H&P update visits in colorectal surgery.
Preoperative H&P update visits conducted in colorectal clinics at our institution during 2019 were identified. Two independent reviewers assessed whether update visits identified interval changes to history, exam, or operative plan. Secondary outcomes included visit times, estimated travel times and distances.
For 132 visits, interval changes were identified in 39% of histories, but only 4.2% of exams and 6.8% of operative plans. When plans changed, visit goals could have been accomplished via telehealth in 77.8%. Median clinic and round-trip driving time were 61.5 and 62.2 min, respectively.
H&P update visits conducted to satisfy the 30-day regulation rarely result in clinically relevant changes yet impose time and travel burdens on patients. Regulations should be revised to provide flexibility in H&P update modalities.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently eliminated the requirement for preoperative history and physicals (H&Ps) prior to ambulatory surgery. We sought to assess variations in separately billed preoperative H&P utilization prior to low-risk ambulatory surgery, describe any relationship with preoperative testing, and identify independent predictors of these consultations prior to this policy change to help characterize the potential unnecessary utilization of these consultations and potential unnecessary preoperative testing prior to low-risk surgery.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using claims data from a hospital value collaborative in Michigan from January 2015 to June 2019 and included patients undergoing one of three ambulatory procedures: breast lumpectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Rates of preoperative H&P visits within 30 d of surgical procedure were determined. H&P and preoperative testing associations were explored, and patient-level, practice-level, and hospital-level determinants of utilization were assessed with regression models. Risk and reliability-adjusted caterpillar plots were generated to demonstrate hospital-level variations in utilization.
RESULTS: 50,775 patients were included with 50.5% having a preoperative H&P visit, with these visits being more common for patients with increased comorbidities (1.9 ± 2.2 vs 1.4 ± 1.9; P < 0.0001). Preoperative testing was associated with H&P visits (57.2% vs 41.4%; P < 0.0001). After adjusting for patient case-mix and interhospital and intrahospital variations in H&P visits, utilization remained with significant associations in patients with increased comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative H&P visits were common before three low-risk ambulatory surgical procedures across Michigan and were associated with higher rates of low-value preoperative testing, suggesting that preoperative H&P visits may create clinical momentum leading to unnecessary testing. These findings will inform strategies to tailor preoperative care before low-risk surgical procedures and may lead to reduced utilization of low-value preoperative testing.

Headaches are a global health problem and are encountered by a variety of specialties, including otolaryngologists. These patients can present as a challenge, but an understanding of primary and secondary headache disorders and the accompanying broad differential diagnosis is critical. For secondary headache disorders, a differential diagnosis categorized by anatomic location can help organize the evaluation of these patients, which can then be narrowed by the history and examination findings. Additional ancillary tests such as laboratories and imaging can further aid in diagnosis but are not always necessary.

BACKGROUND: For patients undergoing surgery at an Ambulatory Surgical Center, recent changes to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy allow for the omission of a 30-day preoperative History and Physical (H&P). Preoperative H&Ps for low-risk surgery may contribute to health care waste and lead to unnecessary preoperative testing and treatment cascades.
METHODS: In this qualitative study, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with surgeons who frequently perform low-risk surgeries. We aimed to evaluate surgeon perspectives on the continued use of the 30-day preoperative H&P and specifically the potential risks and benefits associated with the elimination of a preoperative H&P requirement from institutional practice. We used an interpretive description approach to generate a thematic description.
RESULTS: Most participants felt that the 30-day preoperative H&P was low value and frequently described it as \"unnecessary,\" \"redundant,\" or \"just checking a box.\" Many viewed the 30-day requirement as arbitrary and felt that new H&P findings were rare and unlikely to influence surgical care. The participants who favored the preoperative H&P felt it was a safeguard to ensure \"nothing was missed\" and were less likely to be burdened by the requirement than participants who felt it was low value.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons performing low-risk procedures question the utility and value of conducting a preoperative H&P within 30 days of surgery. De-implementation of the 30-day preoperative H&P for low-risk patients may increase convenience for patients and providers. Furthermore, it may improve value in surgery by increasing access to services for patients with greater need for preoperative assessment.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: We developed, revised, and implemented self-directed rater training materials in the course of a validity study for a written Pediatric History and Physical Exam Evaluation (P-HAPEE) rubric.
METHODS: Core training materials consist of a single-page instruction sheet, sample written history and physical (H&P), and detailed answer key. We iteratively revised the materials based on reviewer comments and pilot testing. Eighteen attending physicians and five senior residents underwent self-directed training, scored 10 H&Ps, and completed a rubric utility survey in the course of the validity study. We have since implemented the P-HAPEE rubric and self-directed rater training in a pediatric clerkship. Based on input from reviewers, study raters, faculty members, and medical student users, we have also developed and implemented additional optional supplemental training materials.
RESULTS: Pilot testing indicated that training takes approximately 1 hour. While reviewers endorsed the training format, several suggested having optional supplemental materials available. Nineteen out of 23 volunteer study raters completed the rubric utility survey. All described the rubric as good or very good and indicated strong to very strong interest in continued use.
CONCLUSIONS: The P-HAPEE rubric offers a novel, practical, reliable, and valid method for supervising physicians to assess pediatric written H&Ps and can be implemented using brief, self-directed rater training.

The English language sometimes fails in its ability to describe the severity or complexity of medical symptoms and complaints. In frustration, patients (or families) occasionally create new words to convey the subtleties of their medical history. Although medicine has created a comprehensive technical lexicon for physicians, we have failed to develop a corresponding patient-centric vocabulary (lingua patientis) that provides more accurate symptom description. The social networking of lingua patientis words might enhance history taking and afford improved appreciation of disease impact on individual patients. The English language is renowned for its capacity for flexibility and adaptability - we need to exploit this capacity for the benefit of our patients.

OBJECTIVE: Recent literature examining insurance administrative data suggests that a selective approach, with concurrent history and physical exam (H&P), for obtaining an electrocardiogram (ECG) as a part of a preparticipation examination (PPE) for pediatric athletes is commonly used in the primary care setting demonstrating a high rate of disease detection. We sought to understand practice patterns of providers with regard to usage of ECG as a part of PPE.
METHODS: Utilizing an online survey, we queried primary care providers regarding their practice patterns, rationale, and concerns regarding use of ECGs as a part of the PPE.
RESULTS: A total of 125 pediatricians completed the survey; 73.7% selectively use the ECG, 24.6% never use the ECG, and only 1.7% always obtain an ECG as part of the PPE. The most common rationale for selectively or never using the ECG is the belief that the H&P is sufficient to identify cardiac disease (70%). The most common H&P findings that lead to ECG screening include chest pain or syncope with exertion, family history of sudden cardiac death, an irregular heart rate, and a diastolic murmur. Among the diseases associated with sudden cardiac death, most pediatricians fear missing hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on a survey of primary care providers, most practitioners are utilizing a selective approach of obtaining an ECG as a part of a PPE for athletic participation, which is in agreement with the current American Heart Association guidelines. Significant practice variation continues to exist, and may represent an area for future resource optimization.