Effectiveness of the Semi-Automated Post-ANaesthesia Discharge Assessment Tool: A Pre-Post Study Using Propensity Score Matching.

This was a single-centre pre-post study without randomisation, so hidden differences between periods could still explain the shorter stays. The authors note that the control period overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have changed operating room and recovery unit workflow. Only 19 of 39 eligible PACU nurses answered each survey, so nurse views may not represent all staff. The study did not measure whether discharge decisions were safe or how wards were affected after patients left the recovery unit. There were too few operating room hold events to analyse statistically. Matching used recorded variables such as ASA physical status, not detailed comorbidities, so patient complexity may not be fully balanced.

The authors report no conflicts of interest except Dr Spahn, who lists many industry relationships, including unrestricted educational grants, consulting, lecturing and advisory roles. The article's funding section says the authors have nothing to report, but a later funding statement names the Swiss National Science Foundation and CSL Vifor as funders.

Do not read the 16-minute reduction as proof that PANDA makes patients safer or that it will save the same time in every recovery unit. The study was a single-centre pre-post comparison without randomisation, and it did not measure patient safety or downstream ward effects.