Nin, Olga C.

Purpose of review To summarize recent evidence that discusses the clinical, financial, and logistical implications of a 23 h stay postsurgical stay unit in an ambulatory surgical center (ASC). Recent findings Twenty-three-hour stays in ambulatory surgery centers are safe, but proper patient selection and optimization are key to maintaining a high level of safety. The financial implications of overnight stays in ASCs rely heavily on payment structures and comparative costs at hospital-based outpatient surgery centers. The establishment of pathways and protocols for clinical care are key to the success of a 23 h stay at an ASC Summary A concurrent concern with the recent increase in outpatient surgery and medical complexity of cases performed in an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) is the possibility that patients may need overnight stay. Further, whether certain patients would benefit from anticipated 23 h observation rather than same-day discharge is an emerging topic. Overnight stays in ASCs may have financial advantages and decrease the risk of unanticipated admission with proper patient selection. The use of protocols and established pathways is key to the success of this model.

Background and objectives Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia. Methods Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29. Conclusion By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.