Adding Examples to the ASA-Physical Status Classification Improves Correct Assignment to Patients

Erin E. Hurwitz, Michelle Simon, Sandhya Vinta, Charles F. Zehm, Sarah Shabot, Abu Minhajuddin, Amr Abouleish

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Despite its widespread use, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)-Physical Status Classification System has been shown to result in inconsistent assignments among anesthesiologists. The ASA-Physical Status Classification System is also used by nonanesthesia-trained clinicians and others. In 2014, the ASA developed and approved examples to assist clinicians in determining the correct ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment. The effect of these examples by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians on appropriate ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment in hypothetical cases was examined. Methods: Anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians were recruited via email to participate in a web-based questionnaire study. The questionnaire consisted of 10 hypothetical cases, for which respondents were first asked to assign ASA-Physical Status using only the ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions and a second time using the newly ASA-approved examples. Results: With ASA-approved examples, both anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved in mean number of correct answers (out of possible 10) compared to ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions alone (P < 0.001 for all). However, with examples, nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved more compared to anesthesia-trained clinicians. With definitions only, anesthesia-trained clinicians (5.8 ± 1.6) scored higher than nonanesthesia-trained clinicians (5.4 ± 1.7; P = 0.041). With examples, anesthesia-trained (7.7 ± 1.8) and nonanesthesia-trained (8.0 ± 1.7) groups were not significantly different (P = 0.100). Conclusions: The addition of examples to the definitions of the ASA-Physical Status Classification System increases the correct assignment of patients by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)614-622
Number of pages9
JournalAnesthesiology
Volume126
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2017

Fingerprint

Anesthesia
Anesthesiologists
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Adding Examples to the ASA-Physical Status Classification Improves Correct Assignment to Patients. / Hurwitz, Erin E.; Simon, Michelle; Vinta, Sandhya; Zehm, Charles F.; Shabot, Sarah; Minhajuddin, Abu; Abouleish, Amr.

In: Anesthesiology, Vol. 126, No. 4, 01.04.2017, p. 614-622.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bfcd3b4210ef4a22b3502e6bb2ab0095,
title = "Adding Examples to the ASA-Physical Status Classification Improves Correct Assignment to Patients",
abstract = "Background: Despite its widespread use, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)-Physical Status Classification System has been shown to result in inconsistent assignments among anesthesiologists. The ASA-Physical Status Classification System is also used by nonanesthesia-trained clinicians and others. In 2014, the ASA developed and approved examples to assist clinicians in determining the correct ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment. The effect of these examples by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians on appropriate ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment in hypothetical cases was examined. Methods: Anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians were recruited via email to participate in a web-based questionnaire study. The questionnaire consisted of 10 hypothetical cases, for which respondents were first asked to assign ASA-Physical Status using only the ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions and a second time using the newly ASA-approved examples. Results: With ASA-approved examples, both anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved in mean number of correct answers (out of possible 10) compared to ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions alone (P < 0.001 for all). However, with examples, nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved more compared to anesthesia-trained clinicians. With definitions only, anesthesia-trained clinicians (5.8 ± 1.6) scored higher than nonanesthesia-trained clinicians (5.4 ± 1.7; P = 0.041). With examples, anesthesia-trained (7.7 ± 1.8) and nonanesthesia-trained (8.0 ± 1.7) groups were not significantly different (P = 0.100). Conclusions: The addition of examples to the definitions of the ASA-Physical Status Classification System increases the correct assignment of patients by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians.",
author = "Hurwitz, {Erin E.} and Michelle Simon and Sandhya Vinta and Zehm, {Charles F.} and Sarah Shabot and Abu Minhajuddin and Amr Abouleish",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/ALN.0000000000001541",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "126",
pages = "614--622",
journal = "Anesthesiology",
issn = "0003-3022",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adding Examples to the ASA-Physical Status Classification Improves Correct Assignment to Patients

AU - Hurwitz, Erin E.

AU - Simon, Michelle

AU - Vinta, Sandhya

AU - Zehm, Charles F.

AU - Shabot, Sarah

AU - Minhajuddin, Abu

AU - Abouleish, Amr

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - Background: Despite its widespread use, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)-Physical Status Classification System has been shown to result in inconsistent assignments among anesthesiologists. The ASA-Physical Status Classification System is also used by nonanesthesia-trained clinicians and others. In 2014, the ASA developed and approved examples to assist clinicians in determining the correct ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment. The effect of these examples by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians on appropriate ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment in hypothetical cases was examined. Methods: Anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians were recruited via email to participate in a web-based questionnaire study. The questionnaire consisted of 10 hypothetical cases, for which respondents were first asked to assign ASA-Physical Status using only the ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions and a second time using the newly ASA-approved examples. Results: With ASA-approved examples, both anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved in mean number of correct answers (out of possible 10) compared to ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions alone (P < 0.001 for all). However, with examples, nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved more compared to anesthesia-trained clinicians. With definitions only, anesthesia-trained clinicians (5.8 ± 1.6) scored higher than nonanesthesia-trained clinicians (5.4 ± 1.7; P = 0.041). With examples, anesthesia-trained (7.7 ± 1.8) and nonanesthesia-trained (8.0 ± 1.7) groups were not significantly different (P = 0.100). Conclusions: The addition of examples to the definitions of the ASA-Physical Status Classification System increases the correct assignment of patients by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians.

AB - Background: Despite its widespread use, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)-Physical Status Classification System has been shown to result in inconsistent assignments among anesthesiologists. The ASA-Physical Status Classification System is also used by nonanesthesia-trained clinicians and others. In 2014, the ASA developed and approved examples to assist clinicians in determining the correct ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment. The effect of these examples by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians on appropriate ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment in hypothetical cases was examined. Methods: Anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians were recruited via email to participate in a web-based questionnaire study. The questionnaire consisted of 10 hypothetical cases, for which respondents were first asked to assign ASA-Physical Status using only the ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions and a second time using the newly ASA-approved examples. Results: With ASA-approved examples, both anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved in mean number of correct answers (out of possible 10) compared to ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions alone (P < 0.001 for all). However, with examples, nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved more compared to anesthesia-trained clinicians. With definitions only, anesthesia-trained clinicians (5.8 ± 1.6) scored higher than nonanesthesia-trained clinicians (5.4 ± 1.7; P = 0.041). With examples, anesthesia-trained (7.7 ± 1.8) and nonanesthesia-trained (8.0 ± 1.7) groups were not significantly different (P = 0.100). Conclusions: The addition of examples to the definitions of the ASA-Physical Status Classification System increases the correct assignment of patients by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85013054004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85013054004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001541

DO - 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001541

M3 - Article

VL - 126

SP - 614

EP - 622

JO - Anesthesiology

JF - Anesthesiology

SN - 0003-3022

IS - 4

ER -