Background Iron-deficiency anemia is a common perioperative condition and increases perioperative morbidity and mortality. Timely diagnosis and treatment are important. This retrospective cohort study tested the hypothesis that a newly developed preprocedure evaluation protocol diagnoses more patients with iron-deficiency anemia than the traditional practice of obtaining a complete blood count followed by iron studies. Methods The preprocedure anemia evaluation is an order for a complete blood count and reflex anemia testing, which can be completed with a single patient visit. A hemoglobin concentration of 12 g/dl or less with serum ferritin concentration less than 30 ng/ml or transferrin saturation less than 20% defined iron-deficiency anemia. Northwestern Medicine’s database was queried for preoperative clinic patients, age 16 to 89 yr, before (2015 to 2016) and after (2017 to 2018) protocol implementation. The proportion of patients diagnosed with iron-deficiency anemia before and after the preprocedure anemia evaluation implementation was compared. Results Before implementing the protocol, 8,816 patients were screened with a traditional complete blood count. Subsequent iron studies at the providers’ discretion diagnosed 107 (1.2%) patients with iron-deficiency anemia. Some patients were still screened with a complete blood count after implementing the protocol; 154 of 4,629 (3.3%) patients screened with a complete blood count and 738 of 2,828 (26.1%) patients screened with the preprocedure anemia evaluation were diagnosed with iron-deficiency anemia. The preprocedure anemia evaluation identified a far larger proportion of patients with iron-deficiency anemia than did the traditional complete blood count when compared both before (relative risk [95% CI], 21.5 (17.6 to 26.2); P < 0.0001) and after (7.8 [6.6 to 9.3]; P < 0.0001) its implementation. Conclusions The preprocedure anemia evaluation improved identification of iron-deficiency anemia preoperatively. It is more effective and efficient, allowing anemia evaluation with a single patient visit. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

No abstract

This systematic review assesses whether limited-English proficiency (LEP) increases risk of having poor perioperative care and outcomes. This review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 99 articles were identified in Embase and PubMed and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Ten studies, which included 3 prospective cohort studies, 6 retrospective cohort studies, and 1 cross-sectional study, met inclusion and exclusion criteria. All studies were of high-quality rating according to the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Subsequently, the Levels of Evidence Rating Scale for Prognostic/Risk Studies and Grade Practice Recommendations from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons were used to assess the quality of evidence of each study and the strength of the body of evidence, respectively. There is strong evidence that professional medical interpreter (PMI) use or having a language-concordant provider for LEP patients improves understanding of the procedural consent. The evidence also highly suggests that LEP patients are at risk of poorer postoperative pain control and poorer understanding of discharge instructions compared with English-speaking patients. Further studies are needed to discern whether consistent PMI use can minimize the disparities in pain control and discharge planning between LEP and English-proficient (EP) patients. There is some evidence that LEP status is not associated with differences in having adequate access to and receiving surgical preoperative evaluation. However, the evidence is weak given the small number of studies available. There are currently no studies on whether LEP status impacts access to preoperative evaluation by an anesthesiology-led team to optimize the patient for surgery. There is some evidence to suggest that LEP patients, especially when PMI services are not used consistently, are at risk for increased length of stay, more complications, and worse clinical outcomes. The available outcomes research is limited by the relative infrequency of complications. Additionally, only 4 studies validated whether LEP patients utilized a PMI. Future studies should use larger sample sizes and ascertain whether LEP patients utilized a PMI, and the effect of PMI use on outcomes.