Auditing the choice of anaesthetic agents;Audit des pratiques medicamenteuses en anesthesie

Annales Francaises d'Anesthesie et de Reanimation

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 86-92

  Benhamou, D ^a   Laurent, S ^a,b   Mercier, F J ^a   Preaux N ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS SACLAY   (France)

^b HÔPITAL ANTOINE BÉCLÈRE   (France)

Author keywords

Anaesthesia; Cost containment; Costs

Indexed keywords

ANESTHETIC AGENT; DROPERIDOL; ETOMIDATE; KETAMINE; KETOPROFEN; NEUROMUSCULAR BLOCKING AGENT; PANCURONIUM; PROPACETAMOL; PROPOFOL; THIOPENTAL;

ANESTHESIST; ARTICLE; COST; COST CONTROL; HUMAN; MEDICAL AUDIT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SURGERY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; PRESCRIPTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ANESTHETICS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MEDICAL AUDIT; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRESCRIPTIONS, DRUG; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 0034136009     PISSN: 07507658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0750-7658(00)00116-7     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Macario A., Vitez T.S., Dunn B., McDonald T. Where are the costs in perioperative care? Analysis of hospital costs and charges for inpatient surgical care. Anesthesiology. 83:1995;1138-1144.
2. Becker K.E., Carrithers J. Practical methods of cost containment in anesthesia and surgery. J Clin Anesth. 6:1994;388-399.
3. Johnstone R.E., Jozefczyk K.G. Costs of anesthetic drugs: experience with a cost education trial. Anesth Analg. 78:1994;766-771.
4. Kapur P.A. Pharmacy acquisition costs: responsible choices versus over utilization of costly pharmaceuticals [editorial]. Anesth Analg. 78:1994;617-618.
5. Lubarsky D.A., Glass P.S.A., Ginsberg B., de L Dear G., Dentz M.E., Gan T.J., et al. The successful implementation of pharmaceutical practice guidelines. Analysis of associated outcomes and cost savings. Anesthesiology. 86:1997;1145-1160.
6. Freund P.R., Bowdle A., Posner K.L., Kharasch E.D., de Paul Burkhart V. Cost-effective reduction of neuromuscular-blocking drug expenditures. Anesthesiology. 87:1997;1044-1049.
7. Watcha M.F., White P.F. Economics of anesthetic practice. Anesthesiology. 86:1997;1170-1196.
8. Benhamou D., Legendre F., Couaillet M. Évaluation de la douleur et de son traitement en salle de réveil [résumé]. Ann Fr Anesth Réanim. 16:1996;R163.
9. Cohen M.M., Duncan P.G., Deboer D.P., Tweed W.A. The postoperative interview: assessing risk factors for nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 78:1994;7-16.
10. Orkin F.K. What do patients want? Preferences for immediate postoperative recovery. Anesth Analg. 74 Suppl 1:1992;S225.
11. Kopman A.F., Yee P.S., Neuman G.G. Correlation of the train-of-four fade ratio with clinical signs and symptoms of residual curarization in awake volunteers. Anesthesiology. 86:1997;765-771.
12. Kopman A.F. Surrogate endpoints and neuromuscular recovery. Anesthesiology. 87:1997;1029-1031.
13. Eriksson L.I., Sundman E., Olsson R., Nilsson L., Witt H., Ekberg O., et al. Functional assessment of the pharynx at rest and during swallowing in partially paralyzed humans. Simultaneous videomanometry and mechanomyography of awake human volunteers. Anesthesiology. 87:1997;1035-1043.
14. Rolly G., Versichelen L. Comparison of propofol and thiopentone for induction of anaesthesia in premedicated patients. Anaesthesia. 40:1985;945-948.
15. Doze V.A., Shafer A., White P.F. Propofol-nitrous oxide versus thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for general anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 69:1988;63-71.
16. Bevan D.R., Smith C.E., Donati F. Postoperative neuromuscular blockade: a comparison between atracurium, vecuronium, and pancuronium. Anesthesiology. 69:1988;272-276.
17. Viby-Møgensen J., Jørgensen B.C., Ørding H. Residual curarization in the recovery room. Anesthesiology. 50:1979;539-541.
18. Kopman A.F., Ng J., Zank L.M., Neuman G.G., Yee P.S. Residual postoperative paralysis. Pancuronium versus mivacurium, does it matter? Anesthesiology. 85:1996;1253-1259.
19. Brull S.J., Silverman D.G. Real time versus slow-motion train-of-four monitoring: a theory to explain the inaccuracy of visual assessment. Anesth Analg. 80:1995;548-551.
20. Ali H.H., Utting T.C. Quantitative assessment of residual antidepolarizing block (part 2). Br J Anaesth. 43:1971;478-485.
21. Cohen M.M., Rose D.K., Yee D.A. Changing anesthesiologists practice patterns-Can it be done? Anesthesiology. 85:1996;260-269.
22. Ballantyne J.C., Chang Y. The impact of choice of muscle relaxant on postoperative recovery time: a retrospective study. Anesth Analg. 85:1997;476-482.
23. Caldwell J.E. The problem with long-acting muscle relaxants? They cost more! Anesth Analg. 85:1997;473-477.
24. Berg H., Viby-Møgensen J., Roed J., Mortensen R., Engbaek J., Skovgaard L.T., et al. Residual neuromuscular block is a risk factor for postoperative pulmonary complications. A prospective, randomised, and blinded study of postoperative pulmonary complications after atracurium, vecuronium and pancuronium. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 41:1997;1095-1103.