Comparing Anesthesia and Surgery Controlled Time for Primary Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty Between an Academic Medical Center and a Community Hospital: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a significant cause of disability, resulting in increased joint replacement surgeries and health care costs. Establishing benchmarks that more accurately predict surgical duration could help to decrease costs, maximize efficiency, and improve patient experience. We compared the anesthesia-controlled time (ACT) and surgery-controlled time (SCT) of primary total knee (TKA) and total hip arthroplasties (THA) between an academic medical center (AMC) and a community hospital (CH) for 2 orthopedic surgeons. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to validate and compare benchmarking times for ACT and SCT in a single patient population at both an AMC and a CH. METHODS: This retrospective 2-center observational cohort study was conducted at the University of Colorado Hospital (AMC) and UCHealth Broomfield Hospital (CH). Cases with current procedural terminology codes for THA and TKA between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, were assessed. Cases with missing data were excluded. The primary outcomes were ACT and SCT. Primary outcomes were tested for association with covariates of interest. The primary covariate of interest was the location of the procedure (CH vs AMC); secondary covariates of interest included the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification and anesthetic type. Linear regression models were used to assess the relationships. RESULTS: Two surgeons performed 1256 cases at the AMC and CH. A total of 10 THA cases and 12 TKA cases were excluded due to missing data. After controlling for surgeon, the ACT was greater at the AMC for THA by 3.77 minutes and for TKA by 3.58 minutes (P<.001). SCT was greater at the AMC for THA by 11.14 minutes and for TKA by 14.04 minutes (P<.001). ASA III/IV classification increased ACT for THA by 3.76 minutes (P<.001) and increased SCT for THA by 6.33 minutes after controlling for surgeon and location (P=.008). General anesthesia use was higher at the AMC for both THA (29.2% vs 7.3%) and TKA (23.8% vs 4.2%). No statistically significant association was observed between either ACT or SCT and anesthetic type (neuraxial or general) after adjusting for surgeon and location (all P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: We observed lower ACT and SCT at the CH for both TKA and THA after controlling for the surgeon of record and ASA classification. These findings underscore the efficiency advantages of performing primary joint replacements at the CH, showcasing an average reduction of 16 minutes in SCT and 4 minutes in ACT per case. Overall, establishing more accurate benchmarks to improve the prediction of surgical duration for THA and TKA in different perioperative environments can increase the reliability of surgical duration predictions and optimize scheduling. Future studies with study populations at multiple community hospitals and academic medical centers are needed before extrapolating these findings.

Operational outcomes of propofol sedation versus fentanyl, midazolam and diphenhydramine sedation for endoscopies and colonoscopies at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: On July 1st, 2021, the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) implemented new sedation protocols in the luminal gastrointestinal (GI) suite. GI proceduralist supervised, Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS) sedation was transitioned to Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol under physician anesthesiologist supervision (MAC). OBJECTIVE: To determine if there are statistically significant reductions in Sedation-Start to Scope-In time (SSSI) when using Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol (MAC) versus Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS). Secondary objectives were to determine if statistically significant improvements to other operational times, quality measures, and satisfaction metrics were present. METHOD: This study was a retrospective analysis of a natural experiment resultant of a change from NAS to MAC sedation protocols. Outcomes for NAS protocols from 1/1/21-6/30/21 were compared to outcomes of MAC protocols from the dates 8/1/21-10/31/21. Results were analyzed using Quasi-Poisson regression analysis and stratified based on upper GI, lower GI, and combined procedures. Patient demographic data including age, biological sex, comorbidities, and BMI, were adjusted for in the analysis. ASA matching was not performed as nursing sedation does not use ASA classifications. Pre-anesthesia co-morbidities were assessed via evaluation of a strict set of comorbidities abstracted from the electronic medical record. Perioperative operational outcomes include Sedation Start to Scope-In (SSSI), In-Room to Scope-In Time (IRSI), Scope Out to Out of Room (SOOR), Total Case Length (TCL), and Post Anesthesia Care Unit Length of Stay (PACU LOS). Quality outcomes include PACU Administered Medications (PAM), and Clinician Satisfaction Scores (CSS). RESULTS: A total of 5,582 gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic cases (upper, lower, and combined endoscopies) were observed. Statistically significant decreases in SSSI of 2.5, 2.1, and 2.2 minutes for upper, lower, and dual GI procedures were observed when using MAC protocols. A statistically significant increase in satisfaction scores of 47.0 and 19.6 points were observed for nurses and proceduralists, respectively, when using MAC. CONCLUSION: MAC protocols for endoscopic GI procedures at UCH led to statistically significant decreases in the time required to complete procedures thus increasing operational efficiency.

Year in Review 2021: Noteworthy Literature in Cardiothoracic Critical Care.

This year marked a number of milestones in critical care. As vaccines for the SARS-CoV-2 virus became widely available and were confirmed to be exceptionally effective against severe illness and hospitalization, we were then faced with new variants and the resource-intense responses necessary to combat them. Despite challenges new and old, we have persevered and continued to provide excellent care to our patients while pushing the boundaries of clinical research. This article is a collection of studies published in 2021 relevant to critical care, with a specific focus on cardiothoracic critical care. To ignore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic would do a disservice to our colleagues, many of whom have made incredible breakthroughs in novel therapies to the coronavirus, and yet we present additional themes of delirium, acute kidney injury, lung transplant, advances in ECMO as well as biomarkers of sepsis.

Year in Review 2021: Noteworthy Literature in Cardiothoracic Anesthesia.

In 2021, progress in clinical science related to Cardiac Anesthesiology continued, but at a slower rate due to the ongoing pandemic and disruptions to clinical research. Most progress was incremental and addressed persistent questions related to our field. To identify articles for this review, we completed a structured review using our previously reported methods (1). Specifically, we used the search terms: "cardiac anesthesiology and outcomes" (n = 177), "cardiothoracic anesthesiology" (n = 34), "cardiac anesthesia," and "clinical outcomes" (n = 42) filtered on clinical trials and the year 2021 in PubMed. We also reviewed clinical trials from the most prominent clinical journals to identify additional studies for a narrative review. We then selected the most noteworthy publications for inclusion in this review and identified key themes.

Benchmarking of Anesthesia and Surgical Control Times by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) Codes.

Over half of hospital revenue results from perioperative patient care, thus emphasizing the importance of efficient resource utilization within a hospital's suite of operating rooms (ORs). Predicting surgical case duration, including Anesthesia-controlled time (ACT) and Surgical-controlled time (SCT) has been significantly detailed throughout the literature as a means to help manage and predict OR scheduling. However, this information has previously been divided by surgical specialty, and only limited benchmarking data regarding ACT and SCT exists. We hypothesized that advancing the granularity of the ACT and SCT from surgical specialty to specific Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) codes will produce data that is more accurate, less variable, and therefore more useful for OR schedule modeling and management. This single center study was conducted using times from surgeries performed at the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) between September 2018 - September 2019. Individual cases were categorized by surgical specialty based on the specialty of the primary attending surgeon and CPT codes were compiled from billing data. Times were calculated as defined by the American Association of Clinical Directors. I2 values were calculated to assess heterogeneity of mean ACT and SCT times while Levene's test was utilized to assess heterogeneity of ACT and SCT variances. Statistical analyses for both ACT and SCT were calculated using JMP Statistical Discovery Software from SAS (Cary, NC) and R v3.6.3 (Vienna, Austria). All surgical cases (n = 87,537) performed at UCH from September 2018 to September 2019 were evaluated and 30,091 cases were included in the final analysis. All surgical subspecialties, with the exception of Podiatry, showed significant variability in ACT and SCT values between CPT codes within each surgical specialty. Furthermore, the variances of ACT and SCT values were also highly variable between CPT codes within each surgical specialty. Finally, benchmarking values of mean ACT and SCT with corresponding standard deviations are provided. Because each mean ACT and SCT value varies significantly between different CPT codes within a surgical specialty, using this granularity of data will likely enable improved accuracy in surgical schedule modeling compared to using mean ACT and SCT values for each surgical specialty as a whole. Furthermore, because there was significant variability of ACT and SCT variances between CPT codes, incorporating variance into surgical schedule modeling may also improve accuracy. Future investigations should include real-time simulations, logistical modeling, and labor utilization analyses as well as validation of benchmarking times in private practice settings.

The surgical debrief: Just another checklist or an instrument to drive cultural change?

INTRODUCTION: Post-procedural debrief is recommended to improve patient safety. We examined operating room (OR) clinicians' perceptions of the impact of a multi-disciplinary debrief on OR culture. METHODS: A survey was administered to 182 OR clinicians at a major academic medical center. Attitudes toward the surgical debrief and its effect on patient safety and OR culture were evaluated. RESULTS: Majority of clinicians (58.2%) believed creating a culture of safety in the OR was a shared care team responsibility, however, surgical attendings and trainees were more likely to assign this responsibility to the surgical attending. Few circulating nurses and trainees felt comfortable initiating a surgical debrief. Overall clinicians agreed that a debrief would impact both patient safety outcomes and OR culture. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians felt implementation of a surgical debrief would positively affect the OR culture of safety by improving interdisciplinary communication and influencing the power hierarchy that exists in many ORs.

Year in Review 2020: Noteworthy Literature in Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology.

The year 2020 was marred by the emergence of a deadly pandemic that disrupted every aspect of life. Despite the disruption, notable research accomplishments in the practice of cardiothoracic anesthesiology occurred in 2020 with an emphasis on optimizing care, improving outcomes, and expanding what is possible for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This year's edition of Noteworthy Literature Review will focus on specific themes in cardiac anesthesiology that include preoperative anemia, predictors of acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery, pain management modalities, anticoagulation strategies after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, mechanical circulatory support, and future directions in research.

Year in Review 2020: Noteworthy Literature in Cardiothoracic Critical Care.

This year will be forever marked by the drastic changes COVID-19 wrought on our personal and professional lives. New roles and challenges in critical care have forced us to be constantly nimble and flexible in how we approach medicine. The strain of these challenges is apparent throughout the health care community and our society as a whole. Despite this adversity, 2020 will also be remembered for fantastic advances in research. This article is a collection of influential and exciting studies published in 2020 encompassing a broad swath of critical care with a focus on cardiothoracic critical care. Themes include examinations of early extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, the impact of sedation and other risk factors on perioperative mortality, a novel fluid resuscitation strategy following cardiac surgery, and advances in the fields of heart and lung transplantation as well as how they were affected by COVID-19. Given that many cardiothoracic intensivists were redeployed to the care of SARS-CoV-2 patients, we also discuss important advances in therapeutics for the virus.

Noteworthy Literature in Cardiac Anesthesia for 2019.

This article represents a selective review of literature published in 2019. Initial results from PubMed searching for a combination of terms, including cardiac anesthesiology and anesthesiology outcomes, yielded more than 1400 publications. From there, we manually screened the results and identified 5 major themes for the year of 2019, including transcatheter techniques, delirium and anesthesiology, coagulation management following cardiopulmonary bypass, perfusion management with del Nido cardioplegia, and applied clinical research. The following research accomplishments have expanded what is possible and set ambitious goals for the future.