Simulated impact of lift car sizes on transport of critical care patients: Informing the design of the New Dunedin Hospital.

The New Dunedin Hospital (NDH) is New Zealand's largest health infrastructure build. Here we describe the use of a simple simulation-based hospital design exercise to inform the appropriate lift car size for critical care intrahospital transfers in the NDH. The intensive care unit (ICU) user group tested a series of entries and exits of simulated complex patient transfers in mocked-up lift cars of three different dimensions. Time taken to enter and exit the lift were recorded, reflecting the relative difficulty of transfer. Qualitative assessments were made of ease and perceived safety of transfer. These simulations demonstrated that recommended standard patient lift cars, often proposed for critical care transfers, could not physically accommodate all complex ICU transfers. A size of 1800 mm wide (W) × 3000 mm deep (D) had the physical capacity to permit all simulated ICU transfers, but with staff and patient risk. As lift car size increased to 2200 mm W × 3300 mm D, the simulation demonstrated reduced transfer times, smoother entry and exit, improved access to the head end of the bed, and reduced risk of disconnection or dislodgement of lines and airway support. The resultant clinical recommendations for the dimensions of a critical care lift car surpass current international health architecture guidelines and may help to inform future updates. The NDH project benefited from an objective assessment of risk, in language familiar to clinicians and healthcare architects. The outcome was an upsizing of the two ICU-capable lifts.

Eight years of CRASH: A bi-national initiative helping critical care doctors return to work.

Returning to work in critical care after a break in clinical practice can be a daunting process. This article describes development and evolution of the Critical Care, Resuscitation, Airway Skills: Helping you return to work (CRASH) course, including the supporting literature. CRASH is the first bi-national course assisting return to work (RTW) for critical care practitioners. It evolved as a collaborative effort across Australia and New Zealand, involving anaesthetists, emergency physicians and intensivists. The course is based around tailored sessions practising skills and clinical decision-making using simulation and case discussions, incorporating practical tips on returning to work. Participants receive resources to assist RTW including questionnaires and checklists developed by the faculty, which have been used to aid RTW in more than 30 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Attendance is open to all critical care practitioners who are registered with the relevant medical board and returning to work, who have taken leave from work for any reason. Since 2014, 197 participants have attended CRASH in-person or virtually, one of the largest RTW groups described in the literature. The aim of this article is to outline the literature around inactivity and RTW, and describe the development and adaptation of the CRASH course.

Changing practice to increase rates of spinal anaesthesia for total joint replacement.

BACKGROUND: Neuraxial anaesthesia for lower extremity total joint replacement surgery has several advantages over general anaesthesia; however, we encountered resistance to routine use of spinal anaesthesia and standardised analgesic regimens at our large, tertiary hospital. Our Perioperative Surgical Home led to multidisciplinary education and enhanced communication to change practice, with the purpose of increasing rates of neuraxial anaesthetics for these surgeries. METHODS: Team members from anaesthesia, nursing and surgery participated in the development and adoption of the care pathway. After implementation, we performed a retrospective analysis to examine the impact of the pathway on primary anaesthetic choice. Data were analysed using Student's t-test and interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: The rate of neuraxial anaesthetics increased following implementation of the total joint pathway. CONCLUSION: With multidisciplinary collaboration, we were able to change practice towards spinal anaesthesia, despite a large and diverse group of practitioners.

What Factors Predict Adverse Discharge Disposition in Patients Older Than 60 Years Undergoing Lower-extremity Surgery? The Adverse Discharge in Older Patients after Lower-extremity Surgery (ADELES) Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: Adverse discharge disposition, which is discharge to a long-term nursing home or skilled nursing facility is frequent and devastating in older patients after lower-extremity orthopaedic surgery. Predicting individual patient risk allows for preventive interventions to address modifiable risk factors and helps managing expectations. Despite a variety of risk prediction tools for perioperative morbidity in older patients, there is no tool available to predict successful recovery of a patient's ability to live independently in this highly vulnerable population. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this study, we asked: (1) What factors predict adverse discharge disposition in patients older than 60 years after lower-extremity surgery? (2) Can a prediction instrument incorporating these factors be applied to another patient population with reasonable accuracy? (3) How does the instrument compare with other predictions scores that account for frailty, comorbidities, or procedural risk alone? METHODS: In this retrospective study at two competing New England university hospitals and Level 1 trauma centers with 673 and 1017 beds, respectively; 83% (19,961 of 24,095) of patients 60 years or older undergoing lower-extremity orthopaedic surgery were included. In all, 5% (1316 of 24,095) patients not living at home and 12% (2797 of 24,095) patients with missing data were excluded. All patients were living at home before surgery. The mean age was 72 ± 9 years, 60% (11,981 of 19,961) patients were female, 21% (4155 of 19,961) underwent fracture care, and 34% (6882 of 19,961) underwent elective joint replacements. Candidate predictors were tested in a multivariable logistic regression model for adverse discharge disposition in a development cohort of all 14,123 patients from the first hospital, and then included in a prediction instrument that was validated in all 5838 patients from the second hospital by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC-AUC).Thirty-eight percent (5360 of 14,262) of patients in the development cohort and 37% (2184 of 5910) of patients in the validation cohort had adverse discharge disposition. Score performance in predicting adverse discharge disposition was then compared with prediction scores considering frailty (modified Frailty Index-5 or mFI-5), comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index or CCI), and procedural risks (Procedural Severity Scores for Morbidity and Mortality or PSS). RESULTS: After controlling for potential confounders like BMI, cardiac, renal and pulmonary disease, we found that the most prominent factors were age older than 90 years (10 points), hip or knee surgery (7 or 8 points), fracture management (6 points), dementia (5 points), unmarried status (3 points), federally provided insurance (2 points), and low estimated household income based on ZIP code (1 point). Higher score values indicate a higher risk of adverse discharge disposition. The score comprised 19 variables, including socioeconomic characteristics, surgical management, and comorbidities with a cutoff value of ≥ 23 points. Score performance yielded an ROC-AUC of 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 0.85) in the development and 0.72 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.73) in the independent validation cohort, indicating excellent and good discriminative ability. Performance of the instrument in predicting adverse discharge in the validation cohort was superior to the mFI-5, CCI, and PSS (ROC-AUC 0.72 versus 0.58, 0.57, and 0.57, respectively). CONCLUSION: The Adverse Discharge in Older Patients after Lower Extremity Surgery (ADELES) score predicts adverse discharge disposition after lower-extremity surgery, reflecting loss of the ability to live independently. Its discriminative ability is better than instruments that consider frailty, comorbidities, or procedural risk alone. The ADELES score identifies modifiable risk factors, including general anesthesia and prolonged preoperative hospitalization, and should be used to streamline patient and family expectation management and improve shared decision making. Future studies need to evaluate the score in community hospitals and in institutions with different rates of adverse discharge disposition and lower income. A non-commercial calculator can be accessed at www.adeles-score.org. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Peri-operative management of frailty in the orthopedic patient.

The purpose of this investigation was to summarize current research on diagnosis, outcomes, and management of frail patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Because frail patients are at increased risk of negative post-operative outcomes including increased 30-day mortality and post-operative complications including infections and delirium, such a review is timely. Strategies including supervised exercise training programs before surgery, early identification of frailty, prophylactic antibiotics, regular drug chart review, regular monitoring of electrolytes, and other strategies to prevent post-operative delirium are helpful in the management of frail orthopedic patients. It is important for surgeons and anesthesiologists to take action in attempt to alleviate adverse post-operative outcomes in frail patients. Ultimately, more research is needed to identify new strategies and to evaluate whether pre-operative optimization can effectively mitigate post-operative outcomes in large-scale randomized controlled trials.

Preoperative Assessment of Older Adults.

Older patients undergoing surgery have reduced physiologic reserve caused by the combined impact of physiologic age-related changes and the increased burden of comorbid conditions. The preoperative assessment of older patients is directed at evaluating the patient's functional reserve and identifying opportunities to minimize any potential for complications. In addition to a standard preoperative evaluation that includes cardiac risk and a systematic review of systems, the evaluation should be supplemented with a review of geriatric syndromes. Age-based laboratory testing protocols can lead to unnecessary testing, and all testing should be requested if indicated by underlying disease and surgical risk.

Cost-Effectiveness Research in Anesthesiology.

Perioperative interventions aimed at decreasing costs and improving outcomes have become increasingly popular in recent years. Anesthesiologists are often faced with a choice among different treatment strategies with little data available on the comparative cost-effectiveness. We performed a systematic review of the English language literature between 1980 and 2014 to identify cost-effectiveness analyses of anesthesiology and perioperative medicine interventions. We excluded interventions related to critical care or pediatric anesthesiology, and articles on interventions not normally ordered or performed by anesthesiologists. Of the >5000 cost-effectiveness analyses published to date, only 28 were applicable to anesthesiology and perioperative medicine and met inclusion criteria. Multidisciplinary interventions were the most cost-effective overall; 8 of 8 interventions were "dominant" (improved outcomes, reduced cost) or cost-effective, including accelerated, standardized perioperative recovery pathways, and perioperative delirium prevention bundles. Intraoperative measures were dominant in 3 of 5 cases, including spinal anesthesia for benign abdominal hysterectomy. With regard to prevention of perioperative infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) decolonization was dominant or cost-effective in 2 of 2 studies. Three studies assessing various antibiotic prophylaxis regimens had mixed results. Autologous blood donation was not found to be cost-effective in 5 of 7 studies, and intraoperative cell salvage therapy was also not cost-effective in 2 of 2 reports. Overall, there remains a paucity of cost-effectiveness literature in anesthesiology, particularly relating to intraoperative interventions and multidisciplinary perioperative interventions. Based on the available studies, multidisciplinary perioperative optimization interventions such as accelerated, standardized perioperative recovery pathways, and perioperative delirium prevention bundles tended to be most cost-effective. Our review demonstrates that there is a need for more rigorous cost-effective analyses in many areas of anesthesiology and that anesthesiologists should continue to lead collaborative, multidisciplinary efforts in perioperative medicine.

Prospective Assessment of Pain and Comfort in Chronic Pain Patients Undergoing Interventional Pain Management Procedures.

Objective: Interventional pain management procedures have an important role in the management of chronic pain. The present study seeks to identify the proportion of patients who experience severe pain during pain procedures either with or without sedation. There is then an attempt to identify any association of high pain levels with factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, preprocedure pain level, procedure type, tobacco use, and baseline pharmaceuticals taken for both pain and/or mood disorder management. Methods: This is a prospective survey study evaluating patients' discomfort during interventional pain procedures in an outpatient academic facility. Patient discomfort was assessed by the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS) and modified for nonsedation cases. Results: There were 155 patients in the survey, with 20 of these receiving nonspinal injections. Of the remaining 135 patients who underwent spinal injections, only 10 received conscious sedation. On average, 14.2% experienced severe pain during spinal injections, whereas 20% experienced severe pain with nonspinal injections. Though few patients received conscious sedation, most of these (60%) experienced high levels of pain. There was no correlation between level of procedural pain with age, gender, ethnicity, preprocedure pain level, procedure type, tobacco use, or medication type used. Conclusions: The majority of patients who undergo nonsedated interventional pain management procedures do not experience severe pain. There is a small but appreciable group of subjects who seem to experience severe pain that cannot be correlated to any particular clinical characteristic in a standard patient evaluation. Even with standard conscious sedation, there is no clear best method to ensure patient comfort for this high-pain level group.

The future of nonoperating room anesthesia in the 21st century: emphasis on quality and safety.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) has grown from an insignificant percentage of total anesthesia cases into a major percentage of anesthesia workload over the past 30 years. This trend evidences no signs of abating. RECENT FINDINGS: With the rapid development of novel interventional techniques in cardiology, radiology, gastroenterology and pulmonary medicine and other areas, the core responsibilities of the anesthesia provider will no longer be confined to delivering care in traditional operating rooms. This change presents challenges for the profession on several fronts. Efficient staffing of multiple locations poses challenges. The demand for anesthesia services continues to increase, but underutilization is a major problem. Each clinical area presents unique patient care issues. New interventional techniques are continually developed with which anesthesiologists need to be familiar in each specific area. NORA patients are older and medically complex, yet many are treated on an outpatient basis. Consequently, anesthetic management for NORA will of necessity require techniques that allow patients to recover quickly. SUMMARY: It may be anticipated that in the next decade that NORA cases will constitute over 50% of the number of cases performed with anesthesia involvement. As the last century belonged to invasive surgery, the next century will belong to interventionalists. There is also an increasing national emphasis on quality measurement and metrics reporting. Future anesthesia payment models under Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, such as merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS), emphasize various process and outcomes measures. Anesthesiologists will be evaluated based on a composite performance score consisting of four components: quality, resource use, clinical practice improvement activities and meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.

Anesthesia Lost in Translation: Perspective and Comprehension.

BACKGROUND: Care of non-English speaking patients poses a unique challenge to the anesthesiologist in the perioperative setting. Communication limitations can be frustrating to both the patient and provider, and at times can compromise the quality of care, resulting in health care disparities. An often overlooked, but critical component is the interaction between the anesthesia provider and the interpreter. The goal of our study was to identify misconceptions regarding anesthesia and determine common knowledge gaps amongst medical interpreters. METHODS: A survey inquiring about past perioperative experiences, level of training, and barriers to effective communication was sent to the Department of Interpreter Services (IS). Concurrently, a survey was sent to the Department of Anesthesia, about their experiences with interpreters in the perioperative setting. RESULTS: Our survey had 29 respondents from IS and 42 respondents from Anesthesia. 85% of interpreters had >5 years experience, but 96% denied having anesthesia specific training. Additionally, 42.5% of our interpreters felt that less than half of their patients were sufficiently literate to read and consent in their native language. Anesthesia providers were primarily concerned about the fidelity of the interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Misunderstanding one another's field appears to play a significant role in the communication issues surrounding interpretation for anesthesia. Educating both departments may prove beneficial to resolving misconceptions, improving perioperative interactions and ultimately improving patient care. Based on the gathered information, a continuing education lecture was created by the Anesthesia Department in order to improve our interpreters' understanding of anesthesia, associated procedures and vocabulary.

Capnographic Monitoring of Moderate Sedation During Low-Risk Screening Colonoscopy Does Not Improve Safety or Patient Satisfaction: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Appropriate monitoring during sedation has been recognized as vital to patient safety in procedures outside of the operating room. Capnography can identify hypoventilation prior to hypoxemia; however, it is not clear whether the addition of capnography improves safety or is cost effective during routine colonoscopy, a high volume, low-risk procedure. Our aim was to evaluate the value of EtCO2 monitoring during colonoscopy with moderate sedation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of sedation safety and patient satisfaction before and after the introduction of EtCO2 monitoring during outpatient colonoscopy with midazolam and fentanyl using the validated PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS). Complications of sedation and PROSAS scores were compared among colonoscopies with and without capnography. RESULTS: A total of 966 patients participated in our study, 465 in the pre-EtCO2 group and 501 in the EtCO2 group. On multivariate analysis, patients and nurses reported higher levels of procedural discomfort after adoption of capnography (1.71 vs. 1.00, P<0.001). No serious adverse events were seen, and minor sedation-related adverse events occurred with similar frequency in both groups (8.2% pre-EtCO2 vs. 11.2% EtCO2, P=0.115). The cost of implementing EtCO2 in our unit was $40,169.95 and added $11.68 per case. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy with moderate sedation is a low-risk procedure, and the addition of EtCO2 did not improve safety or patient satisfaction but did increase cost. These data suggest that routine capnography in this setting may not be cost effective and that EtCO2 might be reserved for patients at higher risk of adverse events.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Reversal Agent Use in Moderate Sedation During Endoscopy and Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Moderate sedation has been standard for noninvasive gastrointestinal procedures for decades yet there are limited data on reversal agent use and outcomes associated with need for reversal of sedation. AIM: To determine prevalence and clinical significance of reversal agent use during endoscopies and colonoscopies. METHODS: Individuals with adverse events requiring naloxone and/or flumazenil during endoscopy or colonoscopy from 2008 to 2013 were identified. A control group was obtained by random selection of patients matched by procedure type and date. Prevalence of reversal agent use and statistical comparison of patient demographics and risk factors against controls were determined. RESULTS: Prevalence of reversal agent use was 0.03% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.02-0.04]. Events triggering reversal use were oxygen desaturation (64.4%), respiration changes (24.4%), hypotension (8.9%), and bradycardia (6.7%). Two patients required escalation of care and the majority of patients were stabilized and discharged home. Compared with the control group, the reversal group was older (61±1.8 vs. 55±1.6, P=0.01), mostly female (82% vs. 50%, P<0.01), and had lower body mass index (24±0.8 vs. 27±0.7, P=0.03) but received similar dosages of sedation. When adjusted for age, race, sex, and body mass index, the odds of reversal agent patients having a higher ASA score than controls was 4.7 (95% CI, 1.7-13.1), and the odds of having a higher Mallampati score than controls was 5.0 (95% CI, 2.1-11.7) with P<0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of reversal agent use during moderate sedation is low and outcomes are generally good. Several clinically relevant risk factors for reversal agent use were found suggesting that certain groups may benefit from closer monitoring.

Development and validation of the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS) for assessment of procedural sedation quality.

BACKGROUND: More than 20 million invasive procedures are performed annually in the United States. The vast majority are performed with moderate sedation or deep sedation, yet there is limited understanding of the drivers of sedation quality and patient satisfaction. Currently, the major gap in quality assurance for invasive procedures is the lack of procedural sedation quality measures. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a robust, patient-centered measure of procedural sedation quality, the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS). DESIGN: Through a series of interviews with patients, proceduralists, nurses, anesthesiologists, and an interactive patient focus group, major domains influencing procedural sedation quality were used to create a multipart survey. The pilot survey was administered and revised in sequential cohorts of adults receiving moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. After revision, the PROSAS was administered to a validation cohort. SETTING: GI endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: A expert panel of proceduralists, nurses, and anesthesiologists, an initial survey development cohort of 40 patients, and a validation cohort of 858 patients undergoing sedation for outpatient GI endoscopy with additional surveys completed by the gastroenterologist, procedure nurse, and recovery nurse. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASUREMENTS: Survey characteristics of the PROSAS. RESULTS: Patients were able to independently complete the PROSAS after procedural sedation before discharge. Of the patients, 91.6% reported minimal discomfort; however, 8.4% of patients reported significant discomfort and 2.4% of patients experienced hemodynamic and/or respiratory instability. There was a high correlation between patient-reported intraprocedure discomfort and both clinician assessments of procedural discomfort and patient recall of procedural pain 24 to 48 hours post procedure (P < .001 for all), suggesting high external validity. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study, variability of sedation technique between providers, inclusion of patients with chronic pain taking analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: The PROSAS is a clinically relevant, patient-centered, easily administered instrument that allows for standardized evaluation of procedural sedation quality. The PROSAS may be useful in both research and clinical settings.

Monitored anesthesia care without endotracheal intubation is safe and efficacious for single-balloon enteroscopy.

BACKGROUND: General endotracheal (GET) anesthesia is often used during single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE). However, there is currently limited data regarding monitored anesthesia care (MAC) without endotracheal intubation for this procedure. AIMS: The aim of the study was to determine the safety and efficacy of MAC sedation during SBE and to identify risk factors for adverse events. METHODS: All patients who underwent SBE and SBE-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography between June 2011 and July 2013 at a tertiary-care referral center were studied in a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. Patients received MAC anesthesia or GET. The main outcome measurements were sedation-related adverse events, diagnostic yield, and therapeutic yield. RESULTS: Of the 178 cases in the study, 166 cases (93 %) were performed with MAC and 12 (7 %) with GET. Intra-procedure sedation-related adverse events occurred in 17 % of cases. The most frequent event was transient hypotension requiring pharmacologic intervention in 11.8 % of procedures. In MAC cases, the diagnostic yield was 58.4 % and the therapeutic yield was 30.1 %. Anesthesia duration was strongly associated with the occurrence of a sedation-related adverse event (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: MAC is a safe and efficacious sedation approach for most patients undergoing SBE. Sedation-related complications in SBE are uncommon, but are more frequent in longer procedures.

Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The optimum method for sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is not known. Propofol deep sedation has a faster recovery time than traditional sedative agents, but may be associated with increased complication rates. The aim of the present study was to pool data from all available studies to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of propofol with traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated as of January 2013 were searched. Main outcome measures were procedure duration, recovery time, incidence of complications (hypotension, hypoxia), sedation level, patient cooperation and amnesia during advanced endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, and deep small bowel enteroscopy. RESULTS: Nine prospective randomized trials with a total of 969 patients (485 propofol, 484 conscious sedation) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled mean difference in procedure duration between propofol and traditional sedative agents was -2.3 min [95% CI: -6.36 to 1.76, P = 0.27], showing no significant difference in procedure duration between the two groups. Pooled mean difference in recovery time was -30.26 min [95% CI: -46.72 to -13.80, P < 0.01], showing significantly decreased recovery time with propofol. There was also no significant difference between the two groups with regard to hypoxia and hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures is associated with shorter recovery time, better sedation and amnesia level without an increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications. Overall patient cooperation was also improved with propofol sedation.