Perioperative medicine training resources: U3M14: Patient selfcare and practitioner advocacy

Abstract
Background: One of the biggest challenges that primary care practitioners face is helping people change longstanding behaviours that pose significant health risks.

Objective: To explore current understanding regarding how and why people change, and the potential role of motivational interviewing in facilitating behaviour change in the general practice setting.

Discussion: Research into health related behaviour change highlights the importance of motivation, ambivalence and resistance. Motivational interviewing is a counselling method that involves enhancing a patient's motivation to change by means of four guiding principles, represented by the acronym RULE: Resist the righting reflex; Understand the patient's own motivations; Listen with empathy; and Empower the patient. Recent meta-analyses show that motivational interviewing is effective for decreasing alcohol and drug use in adults and adolescents and evidence is accumulating in others areas of health including smoking cessation, reducing sexual risk behaviours, improving adherence to treatment and medication and diabetes management.

Abstract
Objective: Patient satisfaction with the health care experience has become a top priority for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. With resources and efforts directed at patient satisfaction, we evaluated whether high patient satisfaction measured by HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) surveys correlates with favorable outcomes.

Methods: Medical centers were identified from the University HealthSystem Consortium database from 2011 to 2012. Variables included hospital characteristics, process measure compliance, and surgical outcomes. Chi-squared analysis was used to evaluate for variables associated with high patient satisfaction (defined as hospitals that scored above the 50th percentile of top box scores).

Results: We identified 171 hospitals with complete data. The following variables were significantly associated with high overall patient satisfaction: large hospitals, high surgical volume, and low mortality (P < 0.001). Compliance with process measures and patient safety indicators, as well as length of stay, did not correlate with overall satisfaction. The presence of complications (P = 0.491) or increased rate of readmission (P = 0.056) were not found to affect patient satisfaction. Low mortality index was consistently found to be associated with high satisfaction across 9 of 10 HCAHPS domains.

Conclusions: We found that hospital size, surgical volume, and low mortality were associated with high overall patient satisfaction. However, with the exception of low mortality, favorable surgical outcomes were not consistently associated with high HCAHPS scores. With existing satisfaction surveys, we conclude that factors outside of surgical outcomes appear to influence patients' perceptions of their care.

Kaiser Permanente—comprising the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Permanente Medical Groups in eight regions—is the largest nonprofit integrated health care delivery system in the United States. The successful evolution of this organizational structure in a competitive marketplace has required a close partnership between managers and physicians supported by a culture of physician group accountability for quality and efficiency. An overarching agenda for achieving excellence focuses on high-impact health conditions, provides goal-oriented tools to analyze population data, proactively identifies patients in need of intervention, supports systematic process improvements, and promotes collaboration between patients and professionals to improve health. Central to this effort is KP HealthConnect, a comprehensive health information system that integrates an electronic health record with the tools to support physicians in delivering evidence-based medicine, coupled with a robust online patient portal that enhances members’ access to and involvement in their care.

Effective communication is a hallmark of patient-centered primary care, but communicating with patients about risk can be complicated. Patients' risk of developing a certain disease, their risk reduction from taking a certain medication, or the risks and benefits of a certain screening or procedure are not easy to understand. Nevertheless, risk conversations are crucial to helping patients make informed decisions that align with their personal values and perspectives. We call this shared decision making.

This is the first in a series of tip sheets on cultural competence in the health sector. It provides a definition and performance standards.

Basing clinical treatment plans on shared goals of care reduces the risk of a patient receiving unwanted or unwarranted treatments if their condition deteriorates. Effective communication is necessary to draw out patients’ values and preferences for care and allow informed choices to be made about complex medical treatment options. Ideally, such discussions occur prior to episodes of acute deterioration so patients, families, whānau and clinicians can participate fully in developing shared goals of care without the pressures of an evolving clinical crisis.

Abstract
Objective: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate questionnaires about patient's values and preferences to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires to be used when developing clinical practice guidelines.

Methods: A systematic literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang Database was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient's values and preferences. The articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options were included. We assessed the questionnaires' construction and content with a psychometric methodology and summarized the domains and items about patient's preferences and values.

Results: A total of 7,008 records were retrieved by the search strategy and scanned, and 20 articles were finally included. Of these, 10 (50%) articles described the process of item generation and only four questionnaires (20%, 4/20) mentioned the pilot testing. Regarding "validity", seven questionnaires (35%, 7/20) assessed validity and only one (5%, 1/20) questionnaire assessed internal consistency, with Cornbrash's α values of 0.74-0.87. For "acceptability", the time to complete the questionnaires ranged from 10 to 30 minutes and only nine studies (45%, 9/20) reported the response rates. In addition, the results of domains and items about patient's preferences and values showed that the "effectiveness" domain was the most considered item in the patient's value questionnaire followed by "safety", "prognosis", and others, whereas the least considered domain was "physician's experience".

Conclusion: Only a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patient's preferences and values. Currently, still there is no valid or reliable questionnaire for patient's preferences and values for use when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patient's preferences and values. This study provides the domains and items that may be used in formulating questionnaires about patient's preferences and values.

Abstract
Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are important tools for improving patient care. Patient and public involvement is recognised as an essential component of CPG development and implementation. The Guideline International Network Patient and Public Involvement Working Group (G-I-N PUBLIC) aims to support the development, implementation and evaluation of guideline-oriented patient and public involvement programmes (PPIPs).

Objective: To develop an international practice and research agenda on patient and public involvement in CPG.

Method: 56 CPG developers, researchers, and patient/public representatives from 14 different countries, were consulted in an international workshop. Recommendations were validated with G-I-N PUBLIC steering committee members.

Results: Many CPG organisations have set up PPIPs that use a range of participation, consultation and communication methods. Current PPIPs aim to improve the quality and responsiveness of CPGs to public expectations and needs, or to foster individual healthcare decisions. Some organisations use structured involvement methods, including providing training for patient and public representatives. A number of financial, organisational and sociopolitical barriers limit patient and public involvement. The paucity of process and impact evaluations limits our current understanding of the conditions under which patient and public involvement is most likely to be effective.

Conclusion: Greater international collaboration and research are needed to strengthen existing knowledge, development and evaluation of patient and public involvement in CPG.

Abstract
Context: Many clinicians have called for an increased emphasis on the patient's role in clinical decision making. However, little is known about the extent to which physicians foster patient involvement in decision making, particularly in routine office practice.

Objective: To characterize the nature and completeness of informed decision making in routine office visits of both primary care physicians and surgeons.

Design: Cross-sectional descriptive evaluation of audiotaped office visits during 1993.

Setting and participants: A total of 1057 encounters among 59 primary care physicians (general internists and family practitioners) and 65 general and orthopedic surgeons; 2 to 12 patients were recruited from each physician's community-based private office.

Main outcome measures: Analysis of audiotaped patient-physician discussions for elements of informed decision making, using criteria that varied with the level of decision complexity: basic (eg, laboratory test), intermediate (eg, new medication), or complex (eg, procedure). Criteria for basic decisions included discussion of the nature of the decision and asking the patient to voice a preference; other categories had criteria that were progressively more stringent.

Results: The 1057 audiotaped encounters contained 3552 clinical decisions. Overall, 9.0% of decisions met our definition of completeness for informed decision making. Basic decisions were most often completely informed (17.2%), while no intermediate decisions were completely informed, and only 1 (0.5%) complex decision was completely informed. Among the elements of informed decision making, discussion of the nature of the intervention occurred most frequently (71 %) and assessment of patient understanding least frequently (1.5%).

Conclusions: Informed decision making among this group of primary care physicians and surgeons was often incomplete. This deficit was present even when criteria for informed decision making were tailored to expect less extensive discussion for decisions of lower complexity. These findings signal the need for efforts to encourage informed decision making in clinical practice.

Abstract
Purpose: To examine the accuracy of survival prediction by palliative radiation oncologists.

Methods and materials: After consultation of cancer patients with metastatic disease for referral of palliative radiotherapy, radiation oncologists estimated the survival of the patients. These were compared with the actual dates of death obtained from the Cancer Death Registry. The time to death from all causes was the outcome. The survival times were measured from the date of the first consultation at the palliative radiotherapy clinics.

Results: Six radiation oncologists provided estimates for 739 patients. Of the 739 patients, 396 were men and 343 were women (median age, 69 years). The median survival of all patients was 15.9 weeks. The mean difference between the actual survival (AS) and the clinician predicted survival (i.e., actual survival minus clinician predicted survival) was -12.3 weeks (95% confidence interval, -15.0 to -9.5) for the entire population. The mean difference was -21.9 weeks when the actual survival was < or =12 weeks, -19.2 weeks when the AS was 13-26 weeks, -9.7 weeks when the AS was 27-52 weeks, and +23.0 weeks when the AS was >52 weeks.

Conclusion: In this study, the prediction of survival by radiation oncologists was inaccurate and tended to be overly optimistic.

Abstract
Objective: To examine the effects of involving patients in the planning and development of health care.

Data sources: Published and grey literature.

Study selection: Systematic search for worldwide reports written in English between January 1966 and October 2000.

Data extraction: Qualitative review of papers describing the effects of involving patients in the planning and development of health care.

Results: Of 42 papers identified, 31 (74%) were case studies. Papers often described changes to services that were attributed to involving patients, including attempts to make services more accessible and producing information leaflets for patients. Changes in the attitudes of organisations to involving patients and positive responses from patients who took part in initiatives were also reported.

Conclusions: Evidence supports the notion that involving patients has contributed to changes in the provision of services across a range of different settings. An evidence base for the effects on use of services, quality of care, satisfaction, or health of patients does not exist.

Abstract
Objective: To explore evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness outcomes.

Design: Systematic review.

Setting: A wide range of settings within primary and secondary care including hospitals and primary care centres.

Participants: A wide range of demographic groups and age groups.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: A broad range of patient safety and clinical effectiveness outcomes including mortality, physical symptoms, length of stay and adherence to treatment.

Results: This study, summarising evidence from 55 studies, indicates consistent positive associations between patient experience, patient safety and clinical effectiveness for a wide range of disease areas, settings, outcome measures and study designs. It demonstrates positive associations between patient experience and self-rated and objectively measured health outcomes; adherence to recommended clinical practice and medication; preventive care (such as health-promoting behaviour, use of screening services and immunisation); and resource use (such as hospitalisation, length of stay and primary-care visits). There is some evidence of positive associations between patient experience and measures of the technical quality of care and adverse events. Overall, it was more common to find positive associations between patient experience and patient safety and clinical effectiveness than no associations.

Conclusions: The data presented display that patient experience is positively associated with clinical effectiveness and patient safety, and support the case for the inclusion of patient experience as one of the central pillars of quality in healthcare. It supports the argument that the three dimensions of quality should be looked at as a group and not in isolation. Clinicians should resist sidelining patient experience as too subjective or mood-oriented, divorced from the 'real' clinical work of measuring safety and effectiveness.

Abstract
Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement.Design Multistage consultation process.Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties.Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties.Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on "team talk," "option talk," and "decision talk," to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals.Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences.

Abstract
The principles of shared decision making are well documented but there is a lack of guidance about how to accomplish the approach in routine clinical practice. Our aim here is to translate existing conceptual descriptions into a three-step model that is practical, easy to remember, and can act as a guide to skill development. Achieving shared decision making depends on building a good relationship in the clinical encounter so that information is shared and patients are supported to deliberate and express their preferences and views during the decision making process. To accomplish these tasks, we propose a model of how to do shared decision making that is based on choice, option and decision talk. The model has three steps: a) introducing choice, b) describing options, often by integrating the use of patient decision support, and c) helping patients explore preferences and make decisions. This model rests on supporting a process of deliberation, and on understanding that decisions should be influenced by exploring and respecting “what matters most” to patients as individuals, and that this exploration in turn depends on them developing informed preferences.

Abstract
Motivational interviewing (MI) is a robust evidence-based intervention that has been used to evoke intrinsic motivation to change behaviors. MI as an intervention focuses on facilitating movement through the stages of the transtheoretical model of change. A study by Coombs et al. (Substance abuse treatment and the stages of change: Selecting and planning interventions, Guilford Press, New York, 2001) demonstrated that suicidal individuals move through such stages toward suicidal behavior, yet research and applications of MI for suicide have been minimal. In hopes of generating increased exploration of MI for suicidality, this article reviews the theoretical rationale and existing empirical research on applications of MI with suicidal individuals. Potential uses of MI in suicide risk assessment/crisis intervention, as well as an adjunct to longer-term treatment, are discussed.

Abstract
Background: Patients undergoing colorectal cancer resections are at risk for delayed recovery. Prehabilitation aims to enhance functional capacity preoperatively for better toleration of surgery and to facilitate recovery. The authors previously demonstrated the limited impact of a prehabilitation program using exercise alone. They propose an expanded trimodal prehabilitation program that adds nutritional counseling, protein supplementation, and anxiety reduction to a moderate exercise program. This study aimed to estimate the impact of this trimodal program on the recovery of functional capacity compared with standard surgical care.

Methods: Consecutive patients were enrolled in this pre- and postintervention study over a 23-month period. The postoperative recovery for 42 consecutive patients enrolled in the prehabilitation program was compared with that of 45 patients assessed before the intervention began. The primary outcome was functional walking capacity (6-min walk test [6MWT]). The secondary outcomes included self-reported physical activity (CHAMPS questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (SF-36). Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range [IQR]) and were analyzed using Chi-square and Student's t test. All p values lower than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results: The prehabilitation and control groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class. There was no difference in walking capacity at the first assessment (6MWT distance, 422 ± 87 vs 402 ± 57 m; p = 0.21). During the prehabilitation period lasting a median of 33 days (range, 21-46 days), functional walking capacity improved by 40 ± 40 m (p < 0.01). The postoperative complication rates and the hospital length of stay were similar. The patients in the prehabilitation program had better postoperative walking capacity at both 4 weeks (mean difference, 51.5 ± 93 m; p = 0.01) and 8 weeks (mean difference, 84.5 ± 83 m; p < 0.01). At 8 weeks, 81 % of the prehabilitated patients were recovered compared with 40 % of the control group (p < 0.01). The prehabilitation group also reported higher levels of physical activity before and after surgery.

Conclusion: In this pilot study, a 1-month trimodal prehabilitation program improved postoperative functional recovery. A randomized trial is ongoing (NCT01356264).

Abstract
Purpose
Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become an integral part of health care with its emphasis on including and empowering individuals and communities in the shaping of health and social care services. The aims of this study were to identify the impact of PPI on UK National Health Service (NHS) healthcare services and to identify the economic cost. It also examined how PPI is being defined, theorized and conceptualized, and how the impact of PPI is captured or measured.

Data sources
Seventeen key online databases and websites were searched, e.g. Medline and the King's Fund.

Study selection
UK studies from 1997 to 2009 which included service user involvement in NHS healthcare services.

Date extraction
Key themes were identified and a narrative analysis was undertaken.

Results of data synthesis
The review indicates that PPI has a range of impacts on healthcare services. There is little evidence of any economic analysis of the costs involved. A key limitation of the PPI evidence base is the poor quality of reporting impact. Few studies define PPI, there is little theoretical underpinning or conceptualization reported, there is an absence of robust measurement of impact and descriptive evidence lacked detail.

Conclusion
There is a need for significant development of the PPI evidence base particularly around guidance for the reporting of user activity and impact. The evidence base needs to be significantly strengthened to ensure the full impact of involving service users in NHS healthcare services is fully understood.

Abstract
Patients undergoing major cancer interventions such as major surgical resection, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy are prone to the adverse effects of their cancer, as well as to the side effects of the treatments designed to cure them. The Prehabilitation process supports cancer patients in preparing for the physiological challenges of their cancer treatments, whilst aiming to shorten recovery time, reduce peri-operative complications and improve compliance with non-surgical treatments. Prehabilitation will be most useful in older patients. Greater Manchester Integrated Care system is the first regional system in the UK to introduce delivery of system-wide, large scale physical activity supported multi-modal prehabilitation and recovery programme, Prehab4Cancer as a standard of care for cancer patients. It builds upon the successful implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery + programme to improve surgical care in Greater Manchester. During this review we describe the journey to develop a system wide prehabilitation model for patients with cancer. Prehab4Cancer to date has focused on robust co-design, development, and implementation of an effective service model with attention paid to stakeholder engagement. This has led to receipt of high numbers of referrals from across Greater Manchester for the all the cancer groups involved. The successful implementation of the P4C pathway in GM presents a best practice model that might be adopted by other local and combined authority areas nationally.

Abstract
Background: Surgical patients increasingly have more comorbidities and are of an older age, complicating surgical decision-making in emergent situations. Little is known about surgeons' perceptions of shared decision-making in these settings.

Study design: Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with practicing surgeons at 2 large academic medical centers. Thirteen questions and 2 case vignettes were used to assess perceptions of decision-making, considerations when deciding whether to offer to operate, and communication patterns with patients and families.

Results: Thematic analysis revealed 6 major themes: responsibility for the decision to operate, perceived futility, surgeon judgment, surgeon introspection, pressure to operate, and costs of the operation. Perceived futility was universally considered a contraindication to surgical intervention. However, the challenge of defining futility led participants to emphasize the importance of patients' self-determined risk-to-benefit analysis when considering surgical intervention. More experienced surgeons reported greater comfort with communicating to patients that a condition was not amenable to an operation and reserved the right to refuse to operate.

Conclusions: Due to external pressures and uncertainty, some providers err on the side of operative intervention, despite suspected futility. Greater experience allows surgeons to withstand external pressures, be confident in their assessments of perceived futility, and guide patients and their families away from additional interventions.

Abstract
Research into health literacy and shared decision-making has largely developed along parallel, but distinct lines over the past two decades. There is little evidence that the concepts and related practice have intersected except in the most functional way, for example, to simplify shared decision-making tools by improving readability scores of decision aids. This paper presents an integrated model to strengthen and sustain patient engagement in health care by drawing on the strengths of both concepts. This includes addressing patients' skills and capacities, alongside modifications to written and verbal information. We propose an expanded model of shared decision-making which incorporates health literacy concepts and promotes two-tiered intervention methods to improve the targeting and personalization of communication and support the development of transferable health literacy skills among patients.

Abstract
Objective: This retrospective quasi-experimental study evaluated the Planetree patient-centered model of care on inpatient quality outcomes. The research questions to be addressed were: What is the impact of the Planetree patient-centered model of care (1) on patient satisfaction, (2) on clinical outcomes (length of stay and readmission), and (3) on the cost of providing care (cost per case and productive nursing hours per patient day)?

Background: Patients and their families have described a more patient-centered approach as key to meeting their needs. The Planetree model of care provides a framework and operational guidance on how to implement programs targeting these key areas. The link between patient-centered care and quality outcomes such as patient satisfaction, length of stay, readmission, cost per case, and productive nursing hours per patient day has been postulated; however, to date little to no research has been conducted examining this issue.

Methods: This was a retrospective, nonexperimental comparison study evaluating units with the same types of patients and the same skill mix, and with standardized organizational pay rates, supply costs, policies, procedures, contracts, and a regulatory compliance program. This provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact on inpatient quality outcomes of the Planetree patient-centered model of care as practiced in the Planetree unit. Data were analyzed using a 2 × 5 analysis of variance (ANOVA) and logistic regression (readmission only). This was a study of five separate cohorts grouped by calendar year rather than a study of repeated measures.

Results: No differences in demographic profiles were noted between the two groups. The patient satisfaction composite mean score evaluation, length-of-stay evaluation, and the cost-per-case evaluation demonstrated that the Planetree group was different from the comparison group (p = <.05 with Eta squared = >.01). This evidence validates that the Planetree patient-centered model of care had a positive impact on patient satisfaction, length of stay, and cost per case.

Conclusions: This evaluation of 869 hospitalized adults undergoing elective total-knee or total-hip joint replacement surgery indicated that the Planetree patient-centered model of care positively affected patient satisfaction, length of stay, and cost per case. Nursing and hospital administrators seeking to improve the inpatient hospital experience should consider implementation of the Planetree patient-centered model of care. Hospitals and healthcare organizations seeking an evidence-based approach to the implementation of patient-centered care will benefit from the information in this study.

Abstract
The core function of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) is to bring together a group of healthcare professionals from different fields in order to determine patients' treatment plan. Most of head and neck cancer (HNC) units are currently led by MDTs that at least include ENT and maxillofacial surgeons, radiation and medical oncologists. HNC often compromise relevant structures of the upper aerodigestive tract involving functions such as speech, swallowing and breathing, among others. The impairment of these functions can significantly impact patients' quality of life and psychosocial status, and highlights the crucial role of specialized nurses, dietitians, psycho-oncologists, social workers, and onco-geriatricians, among others. Hence, these professionals should be integrated in HNC MDTs. In addition, involving translational research teams should also be considered, as it will help reducing the existing gap between basic research and the daily clinical practice. The aim of this comprehensive review is to assess the role of the different supportive disciplines integrated in an MDT and how they help providing a better care to HNC patients during diagnosis, treatment and follow up.

Abstract
The topic of futility has been intensely debated in bioethical discourse. Surgical futility encompasses considerations across a continuum of care, from decision-making during initial triage, to the choice to operate or refrain from operating on the critically ill, to withdrawal of life-supporting care. Determinations over futility may result in discord between providers and patients or their families, who might insist that treatment be provided at all costs to sustain life. In this manuscript, we will explore some of the possible sources for and manifestations of these disputes, and describe approaches by which to resolve them. Part I will briefly address some of the reasons that families ask for life-sustaining measures against medical advice in the surgical setting. These include variable determinations of both the quality of life and the inherent value of life (stemming from religious, cultural, and personal beliefs). Part II will detail some general instances in which physicians and surgeons can override requests to provide futile treatment, namely: instances of resource scarcity, interventions which carry a high probability of harm, and those that carry significant moral distress. To conclude, Part III will provide concrete guidelines for navigating futility, making an argument for individual case-based communication models in surgical decision-making.

Abstract
Background: Clinical practice guidelines should be based on the best available evidence. However, this evidence is often incomplete, controversial, or lacking. Other considerations beyond the evidence are therefore needed to be able to formulate specific and applicable recommendations for clinical practice.

Objective: The aim of this study is to obtain consensus among experts about a set of domains and items covering the most relevant 'other considerations' to formulate recommendations in evidence-based guideline development.

Methods: An initial list of 10 domains and 49 items for a systematic and considered judgement of scientific evidence was generated from the literature. A panel of Dutch experts in guideline development tested this list using a two-round Delphi consensus technique. Each expert was asked to independently score the relevance of the items on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 'very important' to 'not important'. The final list consisted of items that were included by at least 60% consensus.

Results: Twenty-eight experts participated in the first Delphi round and 21 of them in the second round. High scoring domains were 'clinical relevance', 'safety', and 'availability of resources'. There was consensus about the relevance of 37 items. The domain 'conflicts of interest by industry' was excluded because of lack of consensus.

Conclusion: This is the first formal consensus approach towards structuring the considered judgement process in formulating recommendations in clinical guidelines. The final list of items can be used to facilitate the process of guideline development. The next step is to test the practical usefulness and applicability of this list in guideline development.

Abstract
Background: The ability to predict who will develop perioperative complications remains difficult because the etiology of adverse events is multifactorial. This study examines the preoperative and postoperative ability of the surgeon to predict complications and assesses the significance of a change in prediction.

Methods: This was a prospective study of 1013 patients. The surgeon assessed the risk of a major complication on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) immediately before and after surgery. When the VAS score was changed, the surgeon was asked to document why. Patients were assessed up to 30 days postoperatively.

Results: Surgeons made a meaningful preoperative prediction of major complications (median score = 27 mm vs. 19 mm, p < 0.01), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74 for mortality, 0.67 for major complications, and 0.63 for all complications. A change in the VAS score postoperatively was due to technical reasons in 74% of stated cases. An increased VAS score identified significantly more complications, but the improvement in the discrimination was small. When included in a multivariate model for predicting postoperative complications, the surgeon's VAS score functioned as an independent predictive variable and improved the predictive ability, goodness of fit, and discrimination of the model.

Conclusions: Clinical assessment of risk by the surgeon using a VAS score independently improves the prediction of perioperative complications. Including the unique contribution of the surgeon's clinical assessment should be considered in models designed to predict the risk of surgery.