Comparing characteristics and perspectives of U.S. anesthesiology fellows in training and anesthesiologists in their first year of practice.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate relationships between demographics, professional characteristics, and perceived challenges facing the specialty of anesthesiology among physicians who entered a fellowship and those who started independent practice immediately after finishing a U.S. anesthesiology residency. METHODS: Anesthesiologists in the year after their residency graduation were invited to take an online survey during the academic years of 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019, with questions about their personal characteristics, the nature of their professional lives, and their perceptions of the greatest challenge facing the profession of anesthesiology. RESULTS: A total of 884 fellows-in-training and 735 anesthesiologists starting independent practice right after the completion of their residency responded. Fellows were slightly younger (mean = 33.2 vs. 34.0 years old, p < 0.001), were more likely to have a spouse who works outside the home (63.9% vs. 57.0%, p = 0.002), had fewer children (mean = 0.69 vs. 0.88, p < 0.001), worked more hours per week (mean = 56.2 vs. 52.4, p < 0.001), and were less likely to report a personal and professional life balance (66.4% vs. 72.3% positive, p = 0.005) than direct-entry anesthesiologists. Fellows and direct-entry anesthesiologists identified similar challenges in three broad themes - workforce competition (80.3% and 71.8%), healthcare system changes (30.0% and 37.9%), and personal challenges (6.4% and 8.8%). Employment security issues posed by non-physician anesthesia providers and perceived lack of appreciation of anesthesiologists' value were commonly cited. Relative weighting of challenge concerns varied between fellows and direct-entry physicians, as well as within these groups based on gender, fellowship subspecialty, location or size of practice, and frequency of supervisory roles. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiology fellows and direct-entry anesthesiologists had largely similar demographics and perspectives on the challenges facing anesthesiology in the United States. Group differences found in some demographics and perspectives may reflect different motivations for choosing their professional paths and their diverse professional experiences.

Anesthesiology Residents' Experiences and Perspectives of Residency Training.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiology residents' experiences and perspectives about their programs may be helpful in improving training. The goals of this repeated cross-sectional survey study are to determine: (1) the most important factors residents consider in choosing an anesthesiology residency, (2) the aspects of the clinical base year that best prepare residents for anesthesia clinical training, and what could be improved, (3) whether residents are satisfied with their anesthesiology residency and what their primary struggles are, and (4) whether residents believe their residency prepares them for proficiency in the 6 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Core Competencies and for independent practice. METHODS: Anesthesiologists beginning their US residency training from 2013 to 2016 were invited to participate in anonymous, confidential, and voluntary self-administered online surveys. Resident cohort was defined by clinical anesthesia year 1, such that 9 survey administrations were included in this study-3 surveys for the 2013 and 2014 cohorts (clinical anesthesia years 1-3), 2 surveys for the 2015 cohort (clinical anesthesia years 1-2), and 1 survey for the 2016 cohort (clinical anesthesia year 1). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 36% (4707 responses to 12,929 invitations). On a 5-point Likert scale with 1 as "very unimportant" and 5 as "very important," quality of clinical experience (4.7-4.8 among the cohorts) and departmental commitment to education (4.3-4.5) were rated as the most important factors in anesthesiologists' choice of residency. Approximately 70% of first- and second-year residents agreed that their clinical base year prepared them well for anesthesiology residency, particularly clinical training experiences in critical care rotations, anesthesiology rotations, and surgery rotations/perioperative procedure management. Overall, residents were satisfied with their choice of anesthesiology specialty (4.4-4.5 on a 5-point scale among cohort-training levels) and their residency programs (4.0-4.1). The residency training experiences mostly met their expectations (3.8-4.0). Senior residents who reported any struggles highlighted academic more than interpersonal or technical difficulties. Senior residents generally agreed that the residency adequately prepared them for independent practice (4.1-4.4). Of the 6 ACGME Core Competencies, residents had the highest confidence in professionalism (4.7-4.9) and interpersonal and communication skills (4.6-4.8). Areas in residency that could be improved include the provision of an appropriate balance between education and service and allowance for sufficient time off to search and interview for a postresidency position. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiology residents in the United States indicated they most value quality of clinical training experiences and are generally satisfied with their choice of specialty and residency program.

Construct Validation of the American Board of Anesthesiology's APPLIED Examination for Initial Certification.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Anesthesiology administers the APPLIED Examination as a part of initial certification, which as of 2018 includes 2 components-the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE) and the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). The goal of this study is to investigate the measurement construct(s) of the APPLIED Examination to assess whether the SOE and the OSCE measure distinct constructs (ie, factors). METHODS: Exploratory item factor analysis of candidates' performance ratings was used to determine the number of constructs, and confirmatory item factor analysis to estimate factor loadings within each construct and correlation(s) between the constructs. RESULTS: In exploratory item factor analysis, the log-likelihood ratio test and Akaike information criterion index favored the 3-factor model, with factors reflecting the SOE, OSCE Communication and Professionalism, and OSCE Technical Skills. The Bayesian information criterion index favored the 2-factor model, with factors reflecting the SOE and the OSCE. In confirmatory item factor analysis, both models suggest moderate correlation between the SOE factor and the OSCE factor; the correlation was 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.55) for the 3-factor model and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.54-0.64) for the 2-factor model. The factor loadings were lower for Technical Skills stations of the OSCE (ranging from 0.11 to 0.25) compared with those of the SOE and Communication and Professionalism stations of the OSCE (ranging from 0.36 to 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: The analyses provide evidence that the SOE and the OSCE measure distinct constructs, supporting the rationale for administering both components of the APPLIED Examination for initial certification in anesthesiology.

Demographic Trends From 2005 to 2015 Among Physicians With Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-Accredited Anesthesiology Training and Active Medical Licenses.

BACKGROUND: A temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates that occurred around the turn of the millennium may have workforce implications. The aims of this study are to describe, between 2005 and 2015, (1) demographic changes in the workforce of physicians trained as anesthesiologists; (2) national and state densities of these physicians, as well as temporal changes in the densities; and (3) retention of medical licenses by mid- and later-career anesthesiologists. METHODS: Using records from the American Board of Anesthesiology and state medical and osteopathic boards, the numbers of licensed physicians aged 30-59 years who had completed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited anesthesiology residency training were calculated cross-sectionally for 2005, 2010, and 2015. Demographic trends were then described. Census data were used to calculate national and state densities of licensed physicians. Individual longitudinal data were used to describe retention of medical licenses among older physicians. RESULTS: The number of licensed physicians trained as anesthesiologists aged 30-59 years increased from 32,644 in 2005 to 36,543 in 2010 and 36,624 in 2015, representing a national density of 1.10, 1.18, and 1.14 per 10,000 population in those years, respectively. The density of anesthesiologists among states ranged from 0.37 to 3.10 per 10,000 population. The age distribution differed across the years. For example, anesthesiologists aged 40-49 years predominated in 2005 (47%), but by 2015, only 31% of anesthesiologists were aged 40-49 years. The proportion of female anesthesiologists grew from 22% in 2005, to 24% in 2010, and to 28% in 2015, particularly among early-career anesthesiologists. For anesthesiologists with licenses in 2005, the number who still had active licenses in 2015 decreased by 9.6% for those aged 45-49 years, by 14.1% for those aged 50-54 years, and by 19.7% for those aged 55-59 years. CONCLUSIONS: The temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates around the turn of the 21st century decreased the proportion of anesthesiologists who were midcareer as of 2015. This may affect the future availability of senior leaders as well as the future overall workforce in the specialty as older anesthesiologists retire. National efforts to plan for workforce needs should recognize the geographical variability in the distribution of anesthesiologists.

Milestone Learning Trajectories of Residents at Five Anesthesiology Residency Programs.

Construct: Every six months, residency programs report their trainees' Milestones Level achievement to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Milestones should enable the learner and training program to know an individual's competency development trajectory. Background: Milestone Level ratings for residents grouped by specialty (e.g., Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine) show that, in aggregate, senior residents receive higher ratings than junior residents. Anesthesiology Milestones, as assessed by both residents and faculty, also have a positive linear relationship with postgraduate year. However, these studies have been cross-sectional rather than longitudinal cohort studies, and studies of how individual residents progress during the course of training are needed. Longitudinal data analysis of performance assessment trajectories addresses a relevant validity question for the Next Accreditation System. We explored the application of learning analytics to longitudinal Milestones data to: 1) measure the frequency of "straight-lining"; 2) assess the proportion of residents that reach "Level 4" (ready for unsupervised practice) by graduation for each subcompetency; 3) identify variability among programs and individual residents in their baseline Milestone Level and rates of improvement; and 4) determine how hypothetically constructed growth curve models fit to the Milestones data reported to ACGME. Approach: De-identified Milestone Level ratings in each of the 25 subcompetencies submitted semiannually to the ACGME from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017 were retrospectively analyzed for graduating residents (n = 67) from a convenience sample of five anesthesia residency programs. The data reflected longitudinal resident Milestone progression from the beginning of the first year to the end of the third and final year of clinical anesthesiology training. The frequency of straight-lining, defined as the resident receiving the same exact Milestone Level rating for all 25 subcompetencies on a given 6-month report, was calculated for each program. Every resident was evaluated six times during training with the possibility of six straight-lined ratings. Findings: The number of residents in each program ranged from 5-21 (Median 13, range 16). Mean Milestone Level ratings for subcompetencies were significantly different at each six-month assessment (p < 0.001). Frequency of straight-lining varied significantly by program from 9% - 57% (Median 22%). Depending on the program, 53%-100% (median 86%) of residents reached the graduation target Level 4 or higher in all 25 anesthesiology subcompetencies. Nine to 18% of residents did not achieve a Level 4 rating for at least one subcompetency at any time during their residency. Across programs, significant variability was found in first-year clinical anesthesia training Milestone Levels, as well in the rate of improvement for five of the six core competencies. Conclusions: Anesthesia residents' Milestone Level growth trajectories as reported to the ACGME vary significantly across individual residents as well as by program. The present study offers a case example that raises concerns regarding the validity of the Next Accreditation System as it is currently used by some residency programs.

Assessment Scores of a Mock Objective Structured Clinical Examination Administered to 99 Anesthesiology Residents at 8 Institutions.

BACKGROUND: Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are used in a variety of high-stakes examinations. The primary goal of this study was to examine factors influencing the variability of assessment scores for mock OSCEs administered to senior anesthesiology residents. METHODS: Using the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) OSCE Content Outline as a blueprint, scenarios were developed for 4 of the ABA skill types: (1) informed consent, (2) treatment options, (3) interpretation of echocardiograms, and (4) application of ultrasonography. Eight residency programs administered these 4 OSCEs to CA3 residents during a 1-day formative session. A global score and checklist items were used for scoring by faculty raters. We used a statistical framework called generalizability theory, or G-theory, to estimate the sources of variation (or facets), and to estimate the reliability (ie, reproducibility) of the OSCE performance scores. Reliability provides a metric on the consistency or reproducibility of learner performance as measured through the assessment. RESULTS: Of the 115 total eligible senior residents, 99 participated in the OSCE because the other residents were unavailable. Overall, residents correctly performed 84% (standard deviation [SD] 16%, range 38%-100%) of the 36 total checklist items for the 4 OSCEs. On global scoring, the pass rate for the informed consent station was 71%, for treatment options was 97%, for interpretation of echocardiograms was 66%, and for application of ultrasound was 72%. The estimate of reliability expressing the reproducibility of examinee rankings equaled 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.63), which is reasonable for normative assessments that aim to compare a resident's performance relative to other residents because over half of the observed variation in total scores is due to variation in examinee ability. Phi coefficient reliability of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.35-0.50) indicates that criterion-based judgments (eg, pass-fail status) cannot be made. Phi expresses the absolute consistency of a score and reflects how closely the assessment is likely to reproduce an examinee's final score. Overall, the greatest (14.6%) variance was due to the person by item by station interaction (3-way interaction) indicating that specific residents did well on some items but poorly on other items. The variance (11.2%) due to residency programs across case items was high suggesting moderate variability in performance from residents during the OSCEs among residency programs. CONCLUSIONS: Since many residency programs aim to develop their own mock OSCEs, this study provides evidence that it is possible for programs to create a meaningful mock OSCE experience that is statistically reliable for separating resident performance.

First-Year Results of the American Board of Anesthesiology's Objective Structured Clinical Examination for Initial Certification.

In 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) into its initial certification examination system. Previously, the ABA's staged examination system consisted of 2 written examinations (the BASIC and ADVANCED examinations) and the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE). The OSCE and the existing SOE are now 2 separate components of the APPLIED Examination. This report presents the results of the first-year OSCE administration. A total of 1410 candidates took both the OSCE and the SOE in 2018. Candidate performance approximated a normal distribution for both the OSCE and the SOE, and was not associated with the timing of the examination, including day of the week, morning versus afternoon session, and order of the OSCE and the SOE. Practice-based Learning and Improvement was the most difficult station, while Application of Ultrasonography was the least difficult. The correlation coefficient between SOE and OSCE scores was 0.35 ([95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.30-0.39]; P < .001). Scores for the written ADVANCED Examination were modestly correlated with scores for the SOE (r = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.25-0.34]; P < .001) and the OSCE (r = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10-0.20]; P < .001). Most of the candidates who failed the SOE passed the OSCE, and most of the candidates who failed the OSCE passed the SOE. Of the 1410 candidates, 77 (5.5%) failed the OSCE, 155 (11.0%) failed the SOE, and 25 (1.8%) failed both. Thus, 207 (14.7%) failed at least 1 component of the APPLIED Examination. Adding an OSCE to a board certification examination system is feasible. Preliminary evidence indicates that the OSCE measures aspects of candidate abilities distinct from those measured by other examinations used for initial board certification.

Development of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination as a Component of Assessment for Initial Board Certification in Anesthesiology.

With its first administration of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate this type of assessment into its high-stakes certification examination system. The fundamental rationale for the ABA's introduction of the OSCE is to include an assessment that allows candidates for board certification to demonstrate what they actually "do" in domains relevant to clinical practice. Inherent in this rationale is that the OSCE will capture competencies not well assessed in the current written and oral examinations-competencies that will allow the ABA to judge whether a candidate meets the standards expected for board certification more properly. This special article describes the ABA's journey from initial conceptualization through first administration of the OSCE, including the format of the OSCE, the process for scenario development, the standardized patient program that supports OSCE administration, examiner training, scoring, and future assessment of reliability, validity, and impact of the OSCE. This information will be beneficial to both those involved in the initial certification process, such as residency graduate candidates and program directors, and others contemplating the use of high-stakes summative OSCE assessments.

Barriers and aids to routine neuromuscular monitoring and consistent reversal practice-A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular monitoring is recommended whenever a neuromuscular blocking agent is administered, but surveys have demonstrated inconsistent monitoring practices. Using qualitative methods, we aimed to explore barriers and aids to routine neuromuscular monitoring and consistent reversal practice. METHODS: Focus group interviews were conducted to obtain insights into the thoughts and attitudes of individual anaesthetists, as well as the influence of colleagues and department culture. Interviews were conducted at five Danish and one US hospital. Data were analysed using template analysis. RESULTS: Danish anaesthetists used objective neuromuscular monitoring when administering a non-depolarizing relaxant, but had challenges with calibrating the monitor and sometimes interpreting measurements. Residents from the US institution used subjective neuromuscular monitoring, objective neuromuscular monitoring was generally not available and most had not used it. Danish anaesthetists used neuromuscular monitoring to assess readiness for extubation, whereas US residents used subjective neuromuscular monitoring, clinical tests like 5-second head lift and ventilatory parameters. The residents described a lack of consensus between senior anaesthesiologists in reversal practice and monitoring use. Barriers to consistent and correct neuromuscular monitoring identified included unreliable equipment, time pressure, need for training, misconceptions about pharmacokinetics of neuromuscular blocking agents and residual block, lack of standards and guidelines and departmental culture. CONCLUSION: Using qualitative methods, we found that though Danish anaesthetists generally apply objective neuromuscular monitoring routinely and residents at the US institution often apply subjective neuromuscular monitoring, barriers to consistent and correct use still exist.

Repeated Cross-sectional Surveys of Burnout, Distress, and Depression among Anesthesiology Residents and First-year Graduates.

BACKGROUND: This repeated cross-sectional survey study was conducted to determine the prevalence of, and factors associated with, burnout, distress, and depression among anesthesiology residents and first-year graduates. We hypothesized that heavy workload and student debt burden were associated with a higher risk of physician burnout, distress, and depression, and that perception of having adequate workplace resources, work-life balance, and social support were associated with a lower risk. METHODS: Physicians beginning U.S. anesthesiology residency between 2013 and 2016 were invited to take online surveys annually from their clinical anesthesia year 1 to 1 yr after residency graduation. The Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Physician Well-Being Index, and the Harvard Department of Psychiatry/National Depression Screening Day Scale were used to measure burnout, distress, and depression, respectively. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine whether self-reported demographics, personal, and professional factors were associated with the risk of burnout, distress, and depression. RESULTS: The response rate was 36% (5,295 of 14,529). The prevalence of burnout, distress, and depression was 51% (2,531 of 4,966), 32% (1,575 of 4,941), and 12% (565 of 4,840), respectively. Factors associated with a lower risk of all three outcomes included respondents' perceived workplace resource availability, (odds ratio = 0.51 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.57] for burnout; 0.51 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.56] for distress; 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.60] for depression) and perceived ability to maintain work-life balance (0.61 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.67] for burnout; 0.50 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.55] for distress; 0.58 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.65] for depression). A greater number of hours worked per week and a higher amount of student debt were associated with a higher risk of distress and depression, but not burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout, distress, and depression are notable among anesthesiology residents. Perceived institutional support, work-life balance, strength of social support, workload, and student debt impact physician well-being.

The American Board of Anesthesiology's Staged Examination System and Performance on the Written Certification Examination After Residency.

This study compared anesthesiology residency graduates' written certification examination performance before and after the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) introduced the staged examination system. After equating test scores using common test items, the first 2 cohorts (2013, 2014) in the staged system scored 7.1 points and 8.3 points higher than the 2011 baseline cohort in the former examination system. The 2013 and 2014 cohorts' pass rates (94.2% and 95.9%) were also higher than the 2011 and 2012 cohorts (91.9% and 92.6%) if a common standard had been applied. The staged examination system may be associated with improved knowledge of anesthesiology graduates.

The American Board of Anesthesiology's Standardized Oral Examination for Initial Board Certification.

The American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) has been administering an oral examination as part of its initial certification process since 1939. Among the 24 member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties, 13 other boards also require passing an oral examination for physicians to become certified in their specialties. However, the methods used to develop, administer, and score these examinations have not been published. The purpose of this report is to describe the history and evolution of the anesthesiology Standardized Oral Examination, its current examination development and administration, the psychometric model and scoring, physician examiner training and auditing, and validity evidence. The many-facet Rasch model is the analytic method used to convert examiner ratings into scaled scores for candidates and takes into account how difficult grader examiners are and the difficulty of the examination tasks. Validity evidence of the oral examination includes that it measures aspects of clinical performance not accounted for by written certifying examinations, and that passing the oral examination is associated with a decreased risk of subsequent license actions against the anesthesiologist. Explaining the details of the Standardized Oral Examination provides transparency about this component of initial certification in anesthesiology.

Association Between Participation and Performance in MOCA Minute and Actions Against the Medical Licenses of Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: In January 2016, as part of the Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology (MOCA) program, the American Board of Anesthesiology launched MOCA Minute, a web-based longitudinal assessment, to supplant the former cognitive examination. We investigated the association between participation and performance in MOCA Minute and disciplinary actions against medical licenses of anesthesiologists. METHODS: All anesthesiologists with time-limited certificates (ie, certified in 2000 or after) who were required to register for MOCA Minute in 2016 were followed up through December 31, 2016. The incidence of postcertification prejudicial license actions was compared between those who did and did not register and compared between registrants who did and did not meet the MOCA Minute performance standard. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of license actions was 1.2% (245/20,006) in anesthesiologists required to register for MOCA Minute. Nonregistration was associated with a higher incidence of license actions (hazard ratio, 2.93 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.15-4.00]). For the 18,534 (92.6%) who registered, later registration (after June 30, 2016) was associated with a higher incidence of license actions. In 2016, 16,308 (88.0%) anesthesiologists met the MOCA Minute performance standard. Of those not meeting the standard (n = 2226), most (n = 2093, 94.0%) failed because they did not complete the required 120 questions. Not meeting the standard was associated with a higher incidence of license actions (hazard ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.36-2.72]). CONCLUSIONS: Both timely participation and meeting performance standard in MOCA Minute are associated with a lower likelihood of being disciplined by a state medical board.

Cost-benefit Analysis of Maintaining a Fully Stocked Malignant Hyperthermia Cart versus an Initial Dantrolene Treatment Dose for Maternity Units.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: The Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States recommends that dantrolene be available for administration within 10 min. One approach to dantrolene availability is a malignant hyperthermia cart, stocked with dantrolene, other drugs, and supplies. However, this may not be of cost benefit for maternity units, where triggering agents are rarely used. METHODS: The authors performed a cost-benefit analysis of maintaining a malignant hyperthermia cart versus a malignant hyperthermia cart readily available within the hospital versus an initial dantrolene dose of 250 mg, on every maternity unit in the United States. A decision-tree model was used to estimate the expected number of lives saved, and this benefit was compared against the expected costs of the policy. RESULTS: We found that maintaining a malignant hyperthermia cart in every maternity unit in the United States would reduce morbidity and mortality costs by $3,304,641 per year nationally but would cost $5,927,040 annually. Sensitivity analyses showed that our results were largely driven by the extremely low incidence of general anesthesia. If cesarean delivery rates in the United States remained at 32% of all births, the general anesthetic rate would have to be greater than 11% to achieve cost benefit. The only cost-effective strategy is to keep a 250-mg dose of dantrolene on the unit for starting therapy. CONCLUSIONS: It is not of cost benefit to maintain a fully stocked malignant hyperthermia cart with a full supply of dantrolene within 10 min of maternity units. We recommend that hospitals institute alternative strategies (e.g., maintain a small supply of dantrolene on the maternity unit for starting treatment).

Association between Performance in a Maintenance of Certification Program and Disciplinary Actions against the Medical Licenses of Anesthesiologists.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: In 2000, the American Board of Anesthesiology (Raleigh, North Carolina) began issuing time-limited certificates requiring renewal every 10 yr through a maintenance of certification program. This study investigated the association between performance in this program and disciplinary actions against medical licenses. METHODS: The incidence of postcertification prejudicial license actions was compared (1) between anesthesiologists certified between 1994 and 1999 (non-time-limited certificates not requiring maintenance of certification) and those certified between 2000 and 2005 (time-limited certificates requiring maintenance of certification); (2) within the non-time-limited cohort, between those who did and did not voluntarily participate in maintenance of certification; and (3) within the time-limited cohort, between those who did and did not complete maintenance of certification requirements within 10 yr. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of license actions was 3.8% (587 of 15,486). The incidence did not significantly differ after time-limited certificates were introduced (hazard ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.39; for non-time-limited cohort compared with time-limited cohort). In the non-time-limited cohort, 10% (n = 953) voluntarily participated in maintenance of certification. Maintenance of certification participation was associated with a lower incidence of license actions (hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.94). In the time-limited cohort, 90% (n = 5,329) completed maintenance of certification requirements within 10 yr of certificate issuance. Not completing maintenance of certification requirements (n = 588) was associated with a higher incidence of license actions (hazard ratio = 4.61; 95% CI, 3.27 to 6.51). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that meeting maintenance of certification requirements is associated with a lower likelihood of being disciplined by a state licensing agency. The introduction of time-limited certificates in 2000 was not associated with a significant change in the rate of license actions.

Cancellation of Elective Cases in a Recently Opened, Tertiary/Quaternary-Level Hospital in the Middle East.

Case cancellations have a negative financial impact due to revenue loss and the potential costs of underutilized time. The goals of this study at a recently opened hospital in the Middle East were to measure the cancellation rates for elective surgical or endoscopic cases and to identify the reasons for cancellation. During the 1-month study period, 170 (22.4%) of the 760 scheduled cases were cancelled. Cultural norms and patient no-shows on the day of surgery accounted for the majority of case cancellations. Understanding local factors on hospital functions may be vital for organizations expanding into new geographic areas.

Implementation of a Needs-Based, Online Feedback Tool for Anesthesia Residents With Subsequent Mapping of the Feedback to the ACGME Milestones.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing feedback that residents receive from faculty is important for learning. The goals of this study were to (1) conduct focus groups of anesthesia residents to define what constitutes optimal feedback; (2) develop, test, and implement a web-based feedback tool; and (3) then map the contents of the written comments collected on the feedback tool to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) anesthesiology milestones. METHODS: All 72 anesthesia residents in the program were invited to participate in 1 of 5 focus groups scheduled over a 2-month period. Thirty-seven (51%) participated in the focus groups and completed a written survey on previous feedback experiences. On the basis of the focus group input, an initial online feedback tool was pilot-tested with 20 residents and 62 feedback sessions, and then a final feedback tool was deployed to the entire residency to facilitate the feedback process. The completed feedback written entries were mapped onto the 25 ACGME anesthesiology milestones. RESULTS: Focus groups revealed 3 major barriers to good feedback: (1) too late such as, for example, at the end of month-long clinical rotations, which was not useful because the feedback was delayed; (2) too general and not specific enough to immediately remedy behavior; and (3) too many in that the large number of evaluations that existed that were unhelpful such as those with unclear behavioral anchors compromised the overall feedback culture. Thirty residents (42% of 72 residents in the program) used the final online feedback tool with 121 feedback sessions with 61 attendings on 15 rotations at 3 hospital sites. The number of feedback tool uses per resident averaged 4.03 (standard deviation 5.08, median 2, range 1-21, 25th-75th % quartile 1-4). Feedback tool uses per faculty averaged 1.98 (standard deviation 3.2, median 1, range 1-25, 25th-75th % quartile 1-2). For the feedback question item "specific learning objective demonstrated well by the resident," this yielded 296 milestone-specific responses. The majority (71.3%) were related to the patient care competency, most commonly the anesthetic plan and conduct (35.8%) and airway management (11.1%) milestones; 10.5% were related to the interpersonal and communication skills competency, most commonly the milestones communication with other professionals (4.4%) or with patients and families (4.4%); and 8.4% were related to the practice-based learning and improvement competency, most commonly self-directed learning (6.1%). For the feedback tool item "specific learning objective that resident may improve," 67.0% were related to patient care, most commonly anesthetic plan and conduct (33.5%) followed by use/interpretation of monitoring and equipment (8.5%) and airway management (8.5%); 10.2% were related to practice-based learning and improvement, most commonly self-directed learning (6.8%); and 9.7% were related to the systems-based practice competency. CONCLUSIONS: Resident focus groups recommended that feedback be timely and specific and be structured around a tool. A customized online feedback tool was developed and implemented. Mapping of the free-text feedback comments may assist in assessing milestones. Use of the feedback tool was lower than expected, which may indicate that it is just 1 of many implementation steps required for behavioral and culture change to support a learning environment with frequent and useful feedback.

No significant association between anesthesia group concentration and private insurer payments in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Markets for physician services are becoming increasingly concentrated, with many areas being dominated by a few groups. Antitrust authorities are concerned that increasing concentration will lead to inappropriately high payments for physician services from private insurers. The authors examined the association between market concentration and private insurer payments for anesthesia services. METHODS: The authors obtained data on average payments from private insurers for five commonly used anesthesia Current Procedure Terminology codes for physicians located in 229 counties in the United States between 2002 and 2010. The authors calculated a measure of market concentration (the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index [HHI]) for anesthesiologists in each county using Medicare claims data. The authors then estimated the association between market concentration and private insurer payments using a difference-in-differences approach to minimize confounding. RESULTS: Private insurer payments to anesthesiologists in more concentrated markets were not significantly different from payments in less concentrated markets. Compared with the 25% of counties with the least concentration (counties with an HHI in the 0th to 25th percentile), payments in counties in the 25th to 50th percentile of HHI were approximately 0.51% less (95% CI, -2.3 to 1.3%, P = 0.95), whereas payments in counties in the 50th to 75th percentile of HHI were approximately 2.8% less (95% CI, -6.7 to 1.4%, P = 0.41) and payments in counties in the 75th to 100th percentile were approximately 3.1% less (95% CI, -8.1 to 1.2%, P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: Increasing market concentration of anesthesia groups is not associated with significantly greater payments from private insurers.