SummaryThere is a lack of data about the implementation of shared decision making in anaesthesia. To assess patients' preference to be involved in medical decision making and its influence on patient satisfaction, we studied 197 matched pairs (patients and anaesthetists) using two previously validated questionnaires. Before surgery, patients had to decide between general vs regional anaesthesia and, where appropriate, between conventional postoperative pain therapy vs catheter techniques. One hundred and eighty-six patients (94%) wished to be involved in shared decision making. One hundred and twenty-two patients (62%) experienced the exact amount of shared decision making that they wanted; 44 (22%) were slightly more involved and 20 (10%) slightly less involved in shared decision making than they desired. Preferences regarding involvement in shared decision making were similar between patients and anaesthetists with mean (SD) points of 54.1 (16.2) vs 56.4 (27.6) (p = 0.244), respectively on a 0-100 scale; however, patients were found to have a stronger preference for a totally balanced shared decision-making process (65% vs 32%). Overall patient satisfaction was high: 88% were very satisfied and 12% satisfied with a mean (SD) value of 96

Background Up to now, no prospective cohort study using a validated questionnaire has assessed patients’ expectation and perception of divided anesthesia care and its influence on patient satisfaction. Objective We assessed patient satisfaction with divided anesthesia care in a district general hospital in Switzerland. We hypothesized that patient expectations, combined with their perceptions of the (un)importance of continuous anesthesia care would influence patient satisfaction. Material and methods A total of 484 eligible in-patients receiving anesthesia from October 2019 to February 2020 were included and received preoperative information about divided care via a brochure and face-to-face. The primary outcome was the assessment of patient satisfaction with divided anesthesia care using a validated questionnaire. In group 1 continuity of care was considered important but not performed. In group 2 continuity was ensured. In group 3 continuity was regarded as not important and was not performed. In group 4 patients could not remember or did not answer. A psychometrically developed validated questionnaire was sent to patients at home after discharge. Results A total of 484 completed questionnaires (response rate 81%) were analyzed. In group 1 (n = 110) the mean total dissatisfaction score was 25% (95% confidence interval [CI] 21.8–28.1), in group 2 (n = 61) 6.8% (95% CI 4.8–8.7), in group 3 (n = 223) 12.1% (95% CI 10.7–13.4), and in group 4 (n = 90) 15% (95% CI 11–18); ANOVA: p < 0.001, η = 0.43. Of the patients 286 (59%) considered continuity of care by the same anesthetist relatively unimportant (34%) or not important at all (25%). The other 40% considered it important (22%) or very important (18%). Conclusion Despite receiving comprehensive preoperative information about divided anesthesia care, 40% of patients still considered continuity of care by the same anesthetist important. We recommend further research evaluating whether and how patient expectations can be modified towards the common practice of divided care and patient satisfaction can be increased.