Perioperative medicine training resources: U4M10: Communication considerations during the intra operative period

Clinical handover refers to the transfer of responsibility amongst clinicians to ensure continuity of care whilst ensuring a smooth transition of accountability to a different clinician, clinical team, service or facility. South Eastern Sydney Local Health District ensures that clinical handover undertaken by all staff working within the District follow the Key Standard Principles mandated by the NSW Ministry of Health Policy Directive PD2019_020 - Clinical Handover and the requirements under National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) Standard 6 - Communication for Safety.

The purpose of this Policy Directive is to enhance patient safety by ensuring systems and processes are in place to provide a consistent approach to clinical handover. The policy mandates key principles designed to guide and direct NSW Health staff to implement a minimum standard for conducting patient care handovers. Health Services must demonstrate the engagement of patients and family/carer as key participants.

This Policy Directive sets out the minimum requirements for implementing open disclosure within NSW Health facilities and services.

Abstract
Shared decision making enables a clinician and patient to participate jointly in making a health decision, having discussed the options and their benefits and harms, and having considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances. It is not a single step to be added into a consultation, but a process that can be used to guide decisions about screening, investigations and treatments. The benefits of shared decision making include enabling evidence and patients' preferences to be incorporated into a consultation; improving patient knowledge, risk perception accuracy and patient-clinician communication; and reducing decisional conflict, feeling uninformed and inappropriate use of tests and treatments. Various approaches can be used to guide clinicians through the process. We elaborate on five simple questions that can be used: What will happen if the patient waits and watches? What are the test or treatment options? What are the benefits and harms of each option? How do the benefits and harms weigh up for the patient? Does the patient have enough information to make a choice? Although shared decision making can occur without tools, various types of decision support tools now exist to facilitate it. Misconceptions about shared decision making are hampering its implementation. We address the barriers, as perceived by clinicians. Despite numerous international initiatives to advance shared decision making, very little has occurred in Australia. Consequently, we are lagging behind many other countries and should act urgently.

Effective communication and the accurate transfer of information between you and the person in your care are essential to ensuring safe patient care.

Abstract
The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted all surgical specialties significantly and exerted additional pressures on the overburdened United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service. Healthcare professionals in the UK have had to adapt their practice. In particular, surgeons have faced organisational and technical challenges treating patients who carried higher risks, were more urgent and could not wait for prehabilitation or optimisation before their intervention. Furthermore, there were implications for blood transfusion with uncertain patterns of demand, reductions in donations and loss of crucial staff because of sickness and public health restrictions. Previous guidelines have attempted to address the control of bleeding and its consequences after cardiothoracic surgery, but there have been no targeted recommendations in light of the recent COVID-19 challenges. In this context, and with a focus on the perioperative period, an expert multidisciplinary Task Force reviewed the impact of bleeding in cardiothoracic surgery, explored different aspects of patient blood management with a focus on the use of haemostats as adjuncts to conventional surgical techniques and proposed best practice recommendations in the UK.

Background: Positive communication behaviour within anaesthesia teams may decrease stress response and improve clinical performance. We aimed to evaluate the effect of positive communication during medical handover on the subsequent team-based clinical performance in a simulated critical situation. We also assessed the effect of positive communication behaviour on stress response.

Methods: This single-centre RCT involved anaesthesia teams composed of a resident and a nurse in a high-fidelity scenario of anaesthesia-related paediatric laryngospasm after a standardised handover. During the handover, similar information was provided to all teams, but positive communication behaviour was adopted only for teams in the intervention group. Primary outcome was team-based clinical performance, assessed by an independent blinded observer, using video recordings and a 0-to 100-point scenario-specific scoring tool. Three categories of tasks were considered: safety checks before the incision, diagnosis/treatment of laryngospasm, and crisis resource management/non-technical skills. Individual stress response was monitored by perceived level of stress and HR variability.

Results: The clinical performance of 64 anaesthesia professionals (grouped into 32 teams) was analysed. The mean (standard deviation) team-based performance score in the intervention group was 44 (10) points vs 35 (12) in the control group (difference: +8.4; CI95% [0.4-16.4]; P=0.04). The effects were homogeneous over the three categories of tasks. Perceived level of stress and HR variability were not significantly different between groups.

Conclusions: Positive communication behaviour between healthcare professionals during medical handover improved team-based performance in a simulation-based critical situation.

Abstract
This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2010 (Springer Verlag) and co-published as a series in Critical Care. Other articles in the series can be found online at http://ccforum.com/series/yearbook. Further information about the Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/2855.

Abstract
Human errors are the most common reason for planes to crash, and of all human errors, suboptimal communication is the number 1 issue. Mounting evidence suggests the same for errors during short-term medical care. Strong verbal communication skills are key whether for establishing a shared mental model, coordinating tasks, centralizing the flow of information, or stabilizing emotions. However, in contrast to aerospace, most medical curricula rarely address communication norms during impending crises. Therefore, this article offers practical strategies borrowed from aviation and applied to critical care medicine. These crisis communication strategies include "flying by voice," the need to combat "mitigating language," the uses of "graded assertiveness" and "5-step advocacy," and the potential role of Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation communication. We also outline the "step-back method," the concept of communication "below ten thousand feet," the impetus behind "closed-loop communication," and the closely related "repeat-back method." The goal is for critical care practitioners to develop a "verbal dexterity" to match their procedural dexterity and factual expertise.

Abstract
Patient-centred care is about sharing the management of an illness between patient and doctor; it is not new but is increasingly evidence-based, especially for chronic problems such as diabetes, asthma and arthritis. Systematic reviews show that patient-centred care results in increased adherence to management protocols, reduced morbidity and improved quality of life for patients. Key features of the doctor-patient interaction are shared goal setting, written management plans and regular follow-up. Supportive community-based services and programs, combined with healthcare system commitment, are also required to make this approach effective in improving population health.

Abstract
Background: Never events (NEs) are patient safety incidents that are preventable and so serious they should never happen. To reduce NEs, several frameworks have been introduced over the past two decades; however, NEs and their harms continue to occur. These frameworks have varying events, terminology and preventability, which hinders collaboration. This systematic review aims to identify the most serious and preventable events for targeted improvement efforts by answering the following questions: Which patient safety events are most frequently classified as never events? Which ones are most commonly described as entirely preventable?

Methods: For this narrative synthesis systematic review we searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and CINAHL for articles published from 1 January 2001 to 27 October 2021. We included papers of any study design or article type (excluding press releases/announcements) that listed NEs or an existing NE framework.

Results: Our analyses included 367 reports identifying 125 unique NEs. Those most frequently reported were surgery on the wrong body part, wrong surgical procedure, unintentionally retained foreign objects and surgery on the wrong patient. Researchers classified 19.4% of NEs as 'wholly preventable'. Those most included in this category were surgery on the wrong body part or patient, wrong surgical procedure, improper administration of a potassium-containing solution and wrong-route administration of medication (excluding chemotherapy).

Conclusions: To improve collaboration and facilitate learning from errors, we need a single list that focuses on the most preventable and serious NEs. Our review shows that surgery on the wrong body part or patient, or the wrong surgical procedure best meet these criteria.

Abstract
Background: Despite evidence that shared decision-making tools for treatment decisions improve decision quality and patient engagement, they are not commonly employed in orthopaedic practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of decision and communication aids on patient knowledge, efficiency of decision making, treatment choice, and patient and surgeon experience in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

Methods: One hundred and twenty-three patients who were considered medically appropriate for hip or knee replacement were randomized to either a shared decision-making intervention or usual care. Patients in the intervention group received a digital video disc and booklet describing the natural history and treatment alternatives for hip and knee osteoarthritis and developed a structured list of questions for their surgeon in consultation with a health coach. Patients in the control group received information about the surgeon's practice. Both groups reported their knowledge and stage in decision making and their treatment choice, satisfaction, and communication with their surgeon. Surgeons reported the appropriateness of patient questions and their satisfaction with the visit. The primary outcome measure tracked whether patients reached an informed decision during their first visit. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate differences between groups.

Results: Significantly more patients in the intervention group (58%) reached an informed decision during the first visit compared with the control group (33%) (p = 0.005). The intervention group reported higher confidence in knowing what questions to ask their doctor (p = 0.0034). After the appointment, there was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of patients choosing surgery (p = 0.48). Surgeons rated the number and appropriateness of patient questions higher in the intervention group (p < 0.0001), reported higher satisfaction with the efficiency of the intervention group visits (p < 0.0001), and were more satisfied overall with the intervention group visits (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Decision and communication aids used in orthopaedic practice had benefits for both patients and surgeons. These findings could be important in facilitating adoption of shared decision-making tools into routine orthopaedic practice.

Abstract
Teamwork is now recognized as important for safe, high-quality perioperative care. The relationship in each surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad is perhaps the most critical element of overall team performance. A well-functioning relationship is conducive to safe, effective care. A dysfunctional relationship can promote unsafe conditions and contribute to an adverse outcome. Yet, there is little research about this relationship, about what works well or not well, what can be done to optimize it. This article explores functional and dysfunctional aspects of the relationship, identifies some negative stereotypes each profession has of the other and calls for research to better characterize and understand how to improve working relationships. Suggestions are given for what an ideal relationship might be and actions that surgeons and anesthesiologists can take to improve how they work together. The goal is safer care for patients, and more joy and meaning in work for surgeons and anesthesiologists.

Abstract
Background: Communication amongst team members is critical to providing safe, effective medical care. We investigated the role of communication failures in patient injury using the Anesthesia Closed Claims Project database.

Methods: Claims associated with surgical/procedural and obstetric anaesthesia and postoperative pain management for adverse events from 2004 or later were included. Communication was defined as transfer of information between two or more parties. Failure was defined as communication that was incomplete, inaccurate, absent, or not timely. We classified root causes of failures as content, audience, purpose, or occasion with inter-rater reliability assessed by kappa. Claims with communication failures contributing to injury (injury-related communication failures; n=389) were compared with claims without any communication failures (n=521) using Fisher's exact test, t-test, or Mann-Whitney U-tests.

Results: At least one communication failure contributing to patient injury occurred in 43% (n=389) out of 910 claims (κ=0.885). Patients in claims with injury-related communication failures were similar to patients in claims without failures, except that failures were more common in outpatient settings (34% vs 26%; P=0.004). Fifty-two claims had multiple communication failures for a total of 446 injury-related failures, and 47% of failures occurred during surgery, 28% preoperatively, and 23% postoperatively. Content failures (insufficient, inaccurate, or no information transmitted) accounted for 60% of the 446 communication failures.

Conclusions: Communication failure contributed to patient injury in 43% of anaesthesia malpractice claims. Patient/case characteristics in claims with communication failures were similar to those without failures, except that failures were more common in outpatient settings.

Abstract
Although patient safety related to airway management has improved substantially over the last few decades, life-threatening events still occur. Technical skills, clinical expertise and human factors contribute to successful airway management. Checklists aim to improve safety by providing a structured approach to equipment, personnel and decision-making. This audit investigates adherence to our institution's airway checklist from 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2021. Inclusion criteria were procedures requiring airway management and we excluded all procedures performed solely under regional anaesthesia, sedation without airway management or paediatric and cardiovascular surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of wholly performed pre-induction checklists. Secondary outcomes were the pattern of adherence over the 5 years well as details of airway management, including: airway management difficulties; time and location of induction; anaesthesia teams in operating theatres (including teams for different surgical specialities); non-operating theatre and emergency procedures; type of anaesthesia (general or combined); and urgency of the procedure. In total, 95,946 procedures were included. In 57.3%, anaesthesia pre-induction checklists were completed. Over the 5 years after implementation, adherence improved from 48.3% to 66.7% (p < 0.001). Anticipated and unanticipated airway management difficulties (e.g. facemask ventilation, supraglottic airway device or intubation) defined by the handling anaesthetist were encountered in 4.2% of all procedures. Completion of the checklist differed depending on the time of day (61.3% during the day vs. 35.0% during the night, p < 0.001). Completion also differed depending on location (66.8% in operating theatres vs. 41.0% for non-operating theatre anaesthesia, p < 0.001) and urgency of procedure (65.4% in non-emergencies vs. 35.4% in emergencies, p < 0.001). A mixed-effect model indicated that urgency of procedure is a strong predictor for adherence, with emergency cases having lower adherence (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.49-0.68, p < 0.001). In conclusion, over 5 years, a significant increase in adherence to an anaesthesia pre-induction checklist was found, and areas for further improvement (e.g. emergencies, non-operating room procedures, night-time procedures) were identified.

Abstract
Background: Communication breakdowns are a common threat to surgical safety, but there are little data to guide initiatives to improve communication.

Study design: In surgeon-review of 444 surgical malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers, we identified 60 cases involving communication breakdowns resulting in harm to patients. Two surgeon-reviewers analyzed these cases to identify common characteristics and associated factors. Based on identified patterns, potential interventions to prevent communication breakdowns were developed and their potential impact was assessed.

Results: The 60 cases involved 81 communication breakdowns, occurring in the preoperative (38%), intraoperative (30%), and postoperative periods (32%). Seventy-two percent of cases involved one communication breakdown. The majority of breakdowns were verbal communications (92%) involving 1 transmitter and 1 receiver (64%). Attending surgeons were the most common team member involved. Status asymmetry (74%) and ambiguity about responsibilities (73%) were commonly associated factors. Forty-three percent of communication breakdowns occurred with handoffs and 39% with transfers in the patient's location. The most common communication breakdowns involved residents failing to notify the attending surgeon of critical events and a failure of attending-to-attending handoffs. Proposed interventions could prevent 45% to 73% of communication breakdowns in this cases series.

Conclusions: Serious communication breakdowns occur across the continuum of care, typically result from a failure in verbal communication between a surgical attending and another caregiver, and often involve ambiguity about responsibilities. Interventions to prevent these breakdowns should involve: defined triggers that mandate communication with an attending surgeon; structured handoffs and transfer protocols; and standard use of read-backs.

Abstract
Background: Surgery has become an integral part of global health care, with an estimated 234 million operations performed yearly. Surgical complications are common and often preventable. We hypothesized that a program to implement a 19-item surgical safety checklist designed to improve team communication and consistency of care would reduce complications and deaths associated with surgery.

Methods: Between October 2007 and September 2008, eight hospitals in eight cities (Toronto, Canada; New Delhi, India; Amman, Jordan; Auckland, New Zealand; Manila, Philippines; Ifakara, Tanzania; London, England; and Seattle, WA) representing a variety of economic circumstances and diverse populations of patients participated in the World Health Organization's Safe Surgery Saves Lives program. We prospectively collected data on clinical processes and outcomes from 3733 consecutively enrolled patients 16 years of age or older who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. We subsequently collected data on 3955 consecutively enrolled patients after the introduction of the Surgical Safety Checklist. The primary end point was the rate of complications, including death, during hospitalization within the first 30 days after the operation.

Results: The rate of death was 1.5% before the checklist was introduced and declined to 0.8% afterward (P=0.003). Inpatient complications occurred in 11.0% of patients at baseline and in 7.0% after introduction of the checklist (P<0.001).

Conclusions: Implementation of the checklist was associated with concomitant reductions in the rates of death and complications among patients at least 16 years of age who were undergoing noncardiac surgery in a diverse group of hospitals.

Abstract
Hospital quality metrics now reflect patient satisfaction and are measured by Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys. Understanding these metrics and drivers will be integral in providing quality care as this process evolves. This study identifies factors associated with patient satisfaction as determined by HCAHPS survey responses in trauma and acute care surgery patients. HCAHPS survey responses from acute care surgery and trauma patients at a single institution between 3/11 and 10/12 were analyzed. Logistic regression determined which responses to individual HCAHPS questions predicted highest hospital score (a rating of 9-10/10). Demographic and clinical variables were also analyzed as predictors of satisfaction. Subgroup analysis for trauma patients was performed. In 70.3 per cent of 182 total survey responses, a 9-10/10 score was given. The strongest predictors of highest hospital ranking were respect from doctors (odds ratio [OR] = 24.5, confidence interval [CI]: 5.44-110.4), doctors listening (OR: 9.33, CI: 3.7-23.5), nurses' listening (OR = 8.65, CI: 3.62-20.64), doctors' explanations (OR = 8.21, CI: 3.5-19.2), and attempts to control pain (OR = 7.71, CI: 3.22-18.46). Clinical factors and outcomes (complications, intensive care unit/hospital length of stay, mechanism of injury, and having an operation) were nonsignificant variables. For trauma patients, Injury Severity Score was inversely related to score (OR = 0.93, CI: 0.87-0.98). Insurance, education, and disposition were also tied to satisfaction, whereas age, gender, and ethnicity were nonsignificant. In conclusion, patient perception of interactions with the healthcare team was most strongly associated with satisfaction. Complications did not negatively influence satisfaction. Insurance status might potentially identify patients at risk of dissatisfaction. Listening to patients, treating them with respect, and explaining the care plan are integral to a positive perception of hospital stay.

Abstract
Background: Surgical options for patients vary with age and comorbidities, advances in medical technology and patients' wishes. This complexity can make it difficult for surgeons to determine appropriate treatment plans independently. At our institution, final decisions regarding treatment for patients are made at multidisciplinary meetings, termed High-Risk Conferences, led by the Patient Safety Committee.

Methods: In this retrospective study, we assessed the reasons for convening High-Risk Conferences, the final decisions made and treatment outcomes using conference records and patient medical records for conferences conducted at our institution from April 2010 to March 2018.

Results: A total of 410 High-Risk Conferences were conducted for 406 patients during the study period. The department with the most conferences was cardiovascular surgery (24%), and the reasons for convening conferences included the presence of severe comorbidities (51%), highly difficult surgeries (41%) and nonmedical/personal issues (8%). Treatment changes were made for 49 patients (12%), including surgical modifications for 20 patients and surgery cancellation for 29. The most common surgical modification was procedure reduction (16 patients); 4 deaths were reported. Follow-up was available for 21 patients for whom surgery was cancelled, with 11 deaths reported.

Conclusions: Given that some change to the treatment plan was made for 12% of the patients discussed at the High-Risk Conferences, we conclude that participants of these conferences did not always agree with the original surgical plan and that the multidisciplinary decision-making process of the conferences served to allow for modifications. Many of the modifications involved reductions in procedures to reflect a more conservative approach, which might have decreased perioperative mortality and the incidence of complications as well as unnecessary surgeries. High-risk patients have complex issues, and it is difficult to verify statistically whether outcomes are associated with changes in course of treatment. Nevertheless, these conferences might be useful from a patient safety perspective and minimize the potential for legal disputes.

Abstract
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that residency programs teach residents about handoffs and ensure their competence in this communication skill. Development of hand-off curricula for anesthesia residency programs is hindered by the paucity of evidence regarding how to conduct, teach, and evaluate handoffs in the various settings where anesthesia practitioners work. This narrative review draws from literature in anesthesia and other disciplines to provide recommendations for anesthesia resident hand-off curriculum development and evaluation.

Abstract
Background: Speaking up is important for patient safety, but only if the concern raised is acknowledged and responded to appropriately. While the power to change the course of events rests with those in charge, research has focussed on supporting those in subordinate positions to speak up. We propose responsibility also rests with senior clinical staff to respond appropriately. We explored the perceptions of senior staff on being spoken up to in the operating theatre (OT), and factors moderating their response.

Methods: We undertook interviews and focus groups of fully qualified surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, and anaesthetic technicians working in OTs across New Zealand. We used grounded theory to analyse and interpret the data.

Results: With data from 79 participants, we conceptualise three phases in the speaking up interaction: 1) the content of the speaker's message and the tone of delivery; 2) the message interpreted through the receiver's filters, including beliefs on personal fallibility and leadership, respect for the speaker, understanding the challenges of speaking up, and personal cultural and professional norms around communication; and 3) the receiver's subsequent response and its effects on the speaker, the observing OT staff, and patient care.

Conclusions: The speaking up interaction can be high stakes for the whole OT team. The receiver response can strengthen team cohesion and function, or cause distress and tension. Our grounded theory uncovers multiple influences on this interaction, with potential for re-framing and optimising the speaker/receiver interaction to improve team function and patient safety.

Abstract
Background: In order to play an active role in their health care, patients need information and motivation. Current delivery systems limit patients' involvement because they do not routinely provide them with enough details of their own clinical results, conditions and other important clinical data. The purpose of this study was to identify, from the perspective of patients, which topics matter the most, who should be communicating them, and when and how should they be provided.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative, phenomenological study analysing the content of subjective experiences, feelings and behaviours. We organized two focus groups with 13 participants and 15 in-depth interviews. Transcripts of the focus groups and interviews were checked for accuracy and then entered into Atlas ti™ v7.5.13 qualitative software. Two independent researchers performed a qualitative inductive content analysis to classify the data in two levels: themes and categories.

Results: The qualitative analysis provided 377 units of meaning synthesized into 22 categories and six themes: hospitalization procedure, Health Literacy relating to the patient's condition, information content, satisfaction, professional-patient relationship, and patient proactivity. Patients described which information they wished for, when they needed it, and who would provide it, usually related to actions such as admission, discharge or diagnostic tests. Oral information was more difficult to comprehend than the written kind, as patients can check written information several times if needed. Nurses were the most available professionals, and patients found easier to relate to them and ask them questions. Moreover, patients identified physicians as those professionals responsible for providing clinical information.

Conclusions: Our results showed that patients suffered from poor Health Literacy regarding their personal condition, as they were unable to describe the symptoms, the type of tests being performed or their results, and some of them also had difficulties in naming the specific disease or comorbidities they had. During the hospitalization process, patients were in good shape to come with doubts and actively asked for more information. Healthcare organizations and professionals were offered the chance to ensure the correct communication and comprehension to their patients.

Abstract
A study in this edition of the Journal has added to data showing that failures in communication in the operating room contribute to patient harm. These data support the view that multidisciplinary teamwork and communication training should be part of the continuous professional development of all members of the perioperative team. Achieving change will require efforts to win the hearts and minds of all concerned, but these data also support an expectation that engagement in initiatives and techniques to enhance communication and teamwork should not be optional.

Abstract
Purpose of review: The purpose of this review is to describe significant recent trends or developments regarding the role of anesthesiologists in a multidisciplinary team approach to cancer care for the surgical patient. We also discuss our own institutional multidisciplinary approach as a comprehensive cancer center with high surgical volume.

Recent findings: Beyond the multidisciplinary team meeting concept, and local, institution-specific, or national programs, more formalized concepts and models of perioperative care have evolved. These provide a framework for robust involvement of anesthesiologists in cancer care for the surgical patient, with the goal of allowing for optimal individualized cancer outcomes.

Summary: Because of the wide-ranging nature of their perioperative expertise, anesthesiologists play an important role in multidisciplinary team cancer care for surgical patients. This role has been seen in the recent trends toward clinical models, such as the perioperative surgical home and enhanced recovery programs. Areas for future research include multidisciplinary assessment of the impact of such models on perioperative cancer outcomes through integration of data from national outcomes groups.

Abstract
Cancer prehabilitation, a process on the continuum of care that occurs between the time of cancer diagnosis and the beginning of acute treatment, includes physical and psychological assessments that establish a baseline functional level, identifies impairments, and provides targeted interventions that improve a patient's health to reduce the incidence and the severity of current and future impairments. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that supports preparing newly diagnosed cancer patients for and optimizing their health before starting acute treatments. This is the first review of cancer prehabilitation, and the purpose was to describe early studies in the noncancer population and then the historical focus in cancer patients on aerobic conditioning and building strength and stamina through an appropriate exercise regimen. More recent research shows that opportunities exist to use other unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions to decrease morbidity, improve physical and psychological health outcomes, increase the number of potential treatment options, decrease hospital readmissions, and reduce both direct and indirect healthcare costs attributed to cancer. Future research may demonstrate increased compliance with acute cancer treatment protocols and, therefore, improved survival outcomes. New studies suggest that a multimodal approach that incorporates both physical and psychological prehabilitation interventions may be more effective than a unimodal approach that addresses just one or the other. In an impairment-driven cancer rehabilitation model, identifying current and anticipating future impairments are the critical first steps in improving healthcare outcomes and decreasing costs. More research is urgently needed to evaluate the most effective prehabilitation interventions, and combinations thereof, for survivors of all types of cancer.

Abstract
The disclosure of unanticipated outcomes to patients, including medical errors, has received considerable attention of late. The discipline of anesthesiology is a leader in patient safety, and as the doctrine of full disclosure gains momentum, anesthesiologists must become acquainted with these philosophies and practices. Effective disclosure can improve doctor-patient relations, facilitate better understanding of systems, and potentially decrease medical malpractice costs. However, many physicians remain wary of discussing errors with patients due to concern about litigation, the communication challenges of disclosure, and loss of self-esteem. As a result, harmful errors are often not disclosed to patients. Disclosure poses special challenges for anesthesiologists. There is often very limited time before the anesthetic in which to build the patient-physician relationship, and anesthesiologists usually function within complex health care teams. Other team members such as the surgeon may have different perspectives on what the patient should be told about operating room errors. The anesthesiologist may still be physically caring for the patient while the surgeon has the initial discussion with the family about the event. As a result the anesthesiologist may be excluded from the planning or conduct of the important initial disclosure conversations. New disclosure strategies are needed to engage anesthesiologists as active participants in the disclosure of unanticipated outcomes. Anesthesiologists should be aware of the emerging best practices surrounding disclosure, as well as the training opportunities and disclosure support resources that are increasingly available. Innovative models should be developed that promote collaboration between all perioperative team members in the disclosure process. There are important opportunities for anesthesiologists to play a leading role in defining specialty-specific disclosure practices and to more effectively meet patients' needs for disclosure after unanticipated outcomes and medical errors.

Abstract
The topic of patient satisfaction has gained increasing importance over the past decade. Due to the impact of patient satisfaction on health care quality, understanding factors that predict satisfaction is vital. The purpose of this review is to examine the literature and identify factors related to patient perioperative satisfaction as well as predictive variables that, if modified, can enhance satisfaction scores of patients undergoing surgery. Our review reports that patient satisfaction scores are affected by modifiable factors such as clinician-patient communication, information provision to patients, and operational function of a hospital. Non-modifiable factors affecting patient satisfaction scores include patient demographics such as gender, age, and education. In order to enhance patient perioperative satisfaction, we suggest that anesthesiologists and surgeons focus their efforts on enhancing their communication skills and providing information that is appropriately tailored to the understanding of their patients.

Abstract
Background: The Perioperative care for Older People undergoing Surgery (POPS) service model is increasingly being implemented across care providers in the English and Welsh National Health Services.

Objective: The study aimed to produce evidence regarding clinical leaders' activities to implement POPS across different service contexts and to produce generalisable recommendations for future implementation.

Methods: A qualitative interview study was undertaken across six National Health Services hospitals with established POPS services. Interview participants were recruited on the basis of their direct involvement in the implementation and leadership of the service. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with 26 people carried out between November 2022 and May 2023.

Results: The implementation of POPS is often hampered by a lack of managerial and financial support, and apprehension amongst surgeons and anaesthetist about new ways of working. POPS leaders address these through five interconnected activities, each targeted at a combination of implementation factors. (i) Securing management and financial support. (ii) Professional engagement. (iii) Evidence building as a resource for demonstrating the clinical and operational benefits of POPS. (iv) Communication and engagement activities to promote and legitimise POPS to stakeholder groups. (v) Designated and distributed leadership to promote and coordinate implementation activities and to spread the service to new pathways.

Conclusions: Through a combination of activities POPS can be effectively implemented across different organisational contexts. Some aspects of these activities can be guided by shared resources and learning across sites, but others require adaption to local contextual barriers and drivers.