Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of pre-anaesthetic assessment clinics (PACs) implemented to improve quality and patient safety in perioperative care.

Design Systematic review.

Data sources The electronic databases CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), Medline, and Embase (OvidSP) were systematically searched from 1st April, 1996 to 4th February, 2021.

Eligibility criteria The main inclusion criterion was that the study, using empirical quantitative methods, addressed the effectiveness of PACs.

Data extraction and synthesis Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate by two authors. Risk of bias assessment, using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for quasi-experimental studies, and data extraction were performed by one author and checked by the other author. Results were synthesised narratively owing to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

Results Seven prospective controlled studies were conducted. Most studies had a high risk of bias. Three studies reported a significant reduction in the length of the hospital stay, and two studies reported a significant reduction in cancellation of surgery for medical reasons when patients were seen in the PAC. In addition, the included studies presented mixed results regarding anxiety in patients.

Conclusion This systematic review demonstrated a reduction in the length of hospital stay and cancellation of surgery when the patients had been assessed in the PAC. There is a need for high-quality prospective studies to gain a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of PACs.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42019137724

Strengths and Limitations of this study

Only prospective studies were included in this systematic review.

The systematic review was conducted in accordance with international guidelines.

Only seven studies were identified, highlighting the need for further research on pre-anaesthetic assessment clinics.

Overall, the quality of the included studies was low, and the current practice possesses limited evidence base.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

No external funding.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This systematic review only includes secondary data, therefore, research ethics approval is not required.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

All data relevant to the study are included within the article or have been uploaded within supplemental files.