Closing the Chasm: Understanding and Addressing the Anesthesia Workforce Supply and Demand Imbalance.

The imbalance in anesthesia workforce supply and demand has been exacerbated post-COVID due to a surge in demand for anesthesia care, especially in non-operating room anesthetizing sites, at a faster rate than the increase in anesthesia clinicians. The consequences of this imbalance or labor shortage compromise healthcare facilities, adversely affect the cost of care, worsen anesthesia workforce burnout, disrupt procedural and surgical schedules, and threaten academic missions and the ability to educate future anesthesiologists. In developing possible solutions, one must examine emerging trends that are affecting the anesthesia workforce, new technologies that will transform anesthesia care and the workforce, and financial considerations, including governmental payment policies. Possible practice solutions to this imbalance will require both short- and long-term multifactorial approaches that include increasing training positions and retention policies, improving capacity through innovations, leveraging technology, and addressing financial constraints.

Brief Assessment of Patient Phenotype to Explain Variability in Postsurgical Pain and Opioid Consumption after Cesarean Delivery: Performance of a Novel Brief Questionnaire Compared to Long Questionnaires.

BACKGROUND: Understanding factors that explain why some women experience greater postoperative pain and consume more opioids after cesarean delivery is crucial to building an evidence base for personalized prevention. Comprehensive psychosocial assessment with validated questionnaires in the preoperative period can be time-consuming. A three-item questionnaire has shown promise as a simpler tool to be integrated into clinical practice, but its brevity may limit the ability to explain heterogeneity in psychosocial pain modulators among individuals. This study compared the explanatory ability of three models: (1) the 3-item questionnaire, (2) a 58-item questionnaire (long) including validated questionnaires (e.g., Brief Pain Inventory, Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System [PROMIS]) plus the 3-item questionnaire, and (3) a novel 19-item questionnaire (brief) assessing several psychosocial factors plus the 3-item questionnaire. Additionally, this study explored the utility of adding a pragmatic quantitative sensory test to models. METHODS: In this prospective, observational study, 545 women undergoing cesarean delivery completed questionnaires presurgery. Pain during local anesthetic skin wheal before spinal placement served as a pragmatic quantitative sensory test. Postoperatively, pain and opioid consumption were assessed. Linear regression analysis assessed model fit and the association of model items with pain and opioid consumption during the 48 h after surgery. RESULTS: A modest amount of variability was explained by each of the three models for postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Both the brief and long questionnaire models performed better than the three-item questionnaire but were themselves statistically indistinguishable. Items that were independently associated with pain and opioid consumption included anticipated postsurgical pain medication requirement, surgical anxiety, poor sleep, pre-existing pain, and catastrophic thinking about pain. The quantitative sensory test was itself independently associated with pain across models but only modestly improved models for postoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: The brief questionnaire may be more clinically feasible than longer validated questionnaires, while still performing better and integrating a more comprehensive psychosocial assessment than the three-item questionnaire.

Financial Viability of the No Surprises Act Independent Dispute Resolution Process: Radiology and Other Hospital-Based Specialties.

BACKGROUND. The federal No Surprises Act (NSA), designed to eliminate surprise medical billing for out-of-network (OON) care for circumstances beyond patients' control, established the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to settle clinician-payer payment disputes for OON care. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess the fraction of OON claims for which radiologists and other hospital-based specialists can expect to at least break even when challenging payer-determined payments through the NSA IDR process, as a measure of the process's financial viability. METHODS. This retrospective study extracted claims from a national commercial database (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart) for hospital-based specialties occurring on the same day as in-network emergency department (ED) visits or inpatient stays from January 2017 to December 2021. OON claims were identified. OON claims batching was simulated using IDR rules. Maximum potential recovered payments from the IDR process were estimated as the difference between the charges and the allowed amount. The percentages of claims for which the maximum potential payment and one-quarter of this amount (a more realistic payment recovery estimate) would exceed IDR fees were determined, using US$150 and US$450 fee thresholds to approximate the range of final 2024 IDR fees. These values represented the percentage of OON claims that would be financially viable candidates for IDR submission. RESULTS. Among 76,221,264 claims for hospital-based specialties associated with in-network ED visits or inpatient stays, 1,482,973 (1.9%) were OON. The maximum potential payment exceeded fee thresholds of US$150 and US$450 for 55.0% and 32.1%, respectively, of batched OON claims for radiologists and 76.8% and 61.3% of batched OON claims for all other hospital-based specialties combined. At payment of one-quarter of that amount, these values were 26.9% and 10.6%, respectively, for radiologists and 56.6% and 38.4% for all other hospital-based specialties combined. CONCLUSION. The IDR process would be financially unviable for a substantial fraction of OON claims for hospital-based specialists (more so for radiology than for other such specialties). CLINICAL IMPACT. Although the NSA enacted important patient protections, IDR fees limit clinicians' opportunities to dispute payer-determined payments and potentially undermine their bargaining power in contract negotiations. Therefore, IDR rulemaking may negatively impact patient access to in-network care.

Procedure-specific acute pain trajectory after elective total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and data synthesis.

BACKGROUND: For most procedures, there is insufficient evidence to guide clinicians in the optimal timing of advanced analgesic methods, which should be based on the expected time course of acute postoperative pain severity and aimed at time points where basic analgesia has proven insufficient. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature of analgesic trials for total hip arthroplasty (THA), extracting and pooling pain scores across studies, weighted for study size. Patients were grouped according to basic anaesthetic method used (general, spinal), and adjuvant analgesic interventions such as nerve blocks, local infiltration analgesia, and multimodal analgesia. Special consideration was given to high-risk populations such as chronic pain or opioid-dependent patients. RESULTS: We identified and analysed 71 trials with 5973 patients and constructed pain trajectories from the available pain scores. In most patients undergoing THA under general anaesthesia on a basic analgesic regimen, postoperative acute pain recedes to a mild level (<4/10) by 4 h after surgery. We note substantial variability in pain intensity even in patients subjected to similar analgesic regimens. Chronic pain or opioid-dependent patients were most often actively excluded from studies, and never analysed separately. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that it is feasible to construct procedure-specific pain curves to guide clinicians on the timing of advanced analgesic measures. Acute intense postoperative pain after THA should have resolved by 4-6 h after surgery in most patients. However, there is a substantial gap in knowledge on the management of patients with chronic pain and opioid-dependent patients.

The Use of Contrast Agents in Interventional Pain Procedures: A Multispecialty and Multisociety Practice Advisory on Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis, Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain, Encephalopathy After Unintentional Intrathecal Gadolinium Injection, and Hypersensitivity Reactions.

This Practice Advisory presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of position statements and recommendations for the use of contrast media in interventional pain procedures. The advisory was established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of 11 multinational and multispecialty organizations based on a comprehensive review of the literature up to December 31, 2019. The advisory discusses the risks of using gadolinium-based contrast agents. These include nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, gadolinium brain deposition/retention, and encephalopathy and death after an unintentional intrathecal gadolinium injection. The advisory provides recommendations on the selection of a specific gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with renal insufficiency, those who had multiple gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examinations, and in cases of paraspinal injections. Additionally, recommendations are made for patients who have a history of mild, moderate, or severe hypersensitivity reactions to contrast medium.

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.

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.

A Contemporary Medicolegal Analysis of Outpatient Interventional Pain Procedures: 2009-2016.

BACKGROUND: Closed malpractice claim studies allow a review of rare but often severe complications, yielding useful insight into improving patient safety and decreasing practitioner liability. METHODS: This retrospective observational study of pain medicine malpractice claims utilizes the Controlled Risk Insurance Company Comparative Benchmarking System database, which contains nearly 400,000 malpractice claims drawn from >400 academic and community medical centers. The Controlled Risk Insurance Company Comparative Benchmarking System database was queried for January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2016, for cases with pain medicine as the primary service. Cases involving outpatient interventional pain management were identified. Controlled Risk Insurance Company-coded data fields and the narrative summaries were reviewed by the study authors. RESULTS: A total of 126 closed claims were identified. Forty-one claims resulted in payments to the plaintiffs, with a median payment of $175,000 (range, $2600-$2,950,000). Lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections were the most common procedures associated with claims (n = 34), followed by cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections (n = 31) and trigger point injections (n = 13). The most common alleged injuring events were an improper performance of a procedure (n = 38); alleged nonsterile technique (n = 17); unintentional dural puncture (n = 13); needle misdirected to the spinal cord (n = 11); and needle misdirected to the lung (n = 10). The most common alleged outcomes were worsening pain (n = 26); spinal cord infarct (n = 16); epidural hematoma (n = 9); soft-tissue infection (n = 9); postdural puncture headache (n = 9); and pneumothorax (n = 9). According to the Controlled Risk Insurance Company proprietary contributing factor system, perceived deficits in technical skill were present in 83% of claims. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural steroid injections are among the most commonly performed interventional pain procedures and, while a familiar procedure to pain management practitioners, may result in significant neurological injury. Trigger point injections, while generally considered safe, may result in pneumothorax or injury to other deep structures. Ultimately, the efforts to minimize practitioner liability and patient harm, like the claims themselves, will be multifactorial. Best outcomes will likely come from continued robust training in procedural skills, attention paid to published best practice recommendations, documentation that includes an inclusive consent discussion, and thoughtful patient selection. Limitations for this study are that closed claim data do not cover all complications that occur and skew toward more severe complications. In addition, the data from Controlled Risk Insurance Company Comparative Benchmarking System cannot be independently verified.

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.

Safe Use of Epidural Corticosteroid Injections: Recommendations of the WIP Benelux Work Group.

BACKGROUND: Epidural corticosteroid injections are used frequently worldwide in the treatment of radicular pain. Concerns have arisen involving rare major neurologic injuries after this treatment. Recommendations to prevent these complications have been published, but local implementation is not always feasible due to local circumstances, necessitating local recommendations based on literature review. METHODS: A work group of 4 stakeholder pain societies in Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg (Benelux) has reviewed the literature involving neurological complications after epidural corticosteroid injections and possible safety measures to prevent these major neurologic injuries. RESULTS: Twenty-six considerations and recommendations were selected by the work group. These involve the use of imaging, injection equipment particulate and nonparticulate corticosteroids, epidural approach, and maximal volume to be injected. CONCLUSION: Raising awareness about possible neurological complications and adoption of safety measures recommended by the work group aim at reducing the risks for these devastating events.

Scope and Nature of Pain- and Analgesia-Related Content of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE).

Background: "The ongoing opioid crisis lies at the intersection of two substantial public health challenges-reducing the burden of suffering from pain and containing the rising toll of the harms that can result from the use of opioid medications" [1]. Improved pain education for health care providers is an essential component of the multidimensional response to both still-unmet challenges [2,3]. Despite the importance of licensing examinations in assuring competency in health care providers, there has been no prior appraisal of pain and related content within the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). Methods: An expert panel developed a novel methodology for characterizing USMLE questions based on pain core competencies and topical and public health relevance. Results: Under secure conditions, raters used this methodology to score 1,506 questions, with 28.7% (432) identified as including the word "pain." Of these, 232 questions (15.4% of the 1,506 USMLE questions reviewed) were assessed as being fully or partially related to pain, rather than just mentioning pain but not testing knowledge of its mechanisms and their implications for treatment. The large majority of questions related to pain (88%) focused on assessment rather than safe and effective pain management, or the context of pain. Conclusions: This emphasis on assessment misses other important aspects of safe and effective pain management, including those specific to opioid safety. Our findings inform ways to improve the long-term education of our medical and other graduates, thereby improving the health care of the populations they serve.

Measuring and Improving the Quality of Preprocedural Assessments.

BACKGROUND: Preprocedural assessments are used by anesthesia providers to optimize perioperative care for patients undergoing invasive procedures. When these assessments are performed in advance by providers who are not caring for the patient during the procedure, there is an additional layer of complexity in ensuring that the workup meets the needs of the primary anesthesia care team. In this study, anesthesia providers were asked to rate the quality of preprocedural assessments prepared by other providers to evaluate anesthesia care team satisfaction. METHODS: Quality ratings for preprocedural assessments were collected from anesthesia providers on the day of surgery using an electronic quality assurance tool from January 9, 2014 to October 21, 2014. Users could rate assessments as "exemplary," "satisfactory," or "unsatisfactory." Free text comments could be entered for any of the quality ratings chosen. A reviewer trained in clinical anesthesia categorized all comments as "positive," "constructive," or "neutral" and conducted in-depth chart reviews triggered by 67 "constructive" comments submitted during the first 3 months of data collection to further subcategorize perceived deficiencies in the preprocedural assessments. In May 2014, providers were asked to participate in a midpoint survey and provide general feedback about the preprocedural process and evaluations. RESULTS: 37,611 procedures requiring anesthesia were analyzed. Of the 17,522 (46.6%) cases with a rated preprocedural assessment, anesthesia providers rated 3828 (21.8%) as "exemplary," 13,454 (76.8%) as "satisfactory," and 240 (1.4%) as "unsatisfactory." The monthly proportion of "unsatisfactory" ratings ranged from 3.1% to 0% over the study period, whereas the midpoint survey showed that anesthesia providers estimated that the number of unsatisfactory evaluations was 11.5%. Preprocedural evaluations performed on inpatients received significantly better ratings than evaluations performed on outpatients by the preadmission testing clinic or phone program (P < .0001). The most common reason given for "unsatisfactory" ratings was a perception of "missing information" (49.2%). Chart reviews revealed that inadequate documentation was in reality the most common deficiency in preprocedural evaluations (35 of 67 reviews, 52.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The overwhelming majority of preprocedural assessments performed at our institution were considered satisfactory or exemplary by day-of-surgery anesthesia providers. This was demonstrated by both the case-by-case ratings and midpoint survey. However, the perceived frequency of "unsatisfactory" evaluations was worse when providers were asked to reflect on the quality of preprocedural evaluations generally versus rate them individually. Analysis of comments left by providers allowed us to identify specific and actionable areas for improvement. This method can be used by other institutions to identify systemic deficiencies in the preprocedural evaluation process.

A Contemporary Medicolegal Analysis of Implanted Devices for Chronic Pain Management.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of closed malpractice claims allows the study of rare but serious complications and likely results in improved patient safety by raising awareness of such complications. Clinical studies and closed claims analyses have previously reported on the common complications associated with intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) and spinal cord stimulators (SCS). This study provides a contemporary analysis of claims from within the past 10 years. METHODS: We performed a closed claims analysis for a period January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013 for cases with pain medicine as the primary service. These cases were identified using the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS), a database containing more than 300,000 malpractice claims from more than 400 academic and community institutions, representing approximately 30% of malpractice cases in the United States. The clinical narratives, which included medical files, claims files, depositions, and expert witness testimony, were reviewed by the authors, as were the CRICO coded variables, which included algorithmically determined contributing factors to the patient injury. RESULTS: Intrathecal drug delivery systems represented 17 of the closed claims; spinal cord stimulators represented 11 of the closed claims. The most common chronic pain diagnoses for which a device was implanted included failed back surgery syndrome and spasticity. The average total incurred for pain medicine claims was $166,028. Damaging events included IDDS refill errors (eg, subcutaneous administration of medication, reprogramming errors), intraoperative nerve damage, and postoperative infection (eg, epidural abscess, meningitis). High-severity outcomes included nerve damage (eg, paraplegia) and death. Medium-severity outcomes included drug reactions (eg, respiratory arrest from opioid overdose) and the need for reoperation. For both IDDS and SCS, deficits in technical skill were the most common contributing factor to injury, followed by deficits in clinical judgment, communication, and documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Implanted devices used for pain management involve a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Proper education of providers and patients is essential. Providers must acquire the technical skills required for the implantation and refilling of these devices and the clinical skills required for the identification and management of complications such as intrathecal granuloma. Proper patient selection and clear communication between the provider and the patient about these possible complications are of paramount importance.

A Contemporary Medicolegal Analysis of Outpatient Medication Management in Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently used in chronic pain management but are associated with significant morbidity and mortality in some patient populations. An important avenue for identifying complications-including serious or rare complications-is the study of closed malpractice claims. The present study is intended to complement the existing closed claims literature by drawing on claims from a more recent timeframe through a partnership with a large malpractice carrier, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO). The goal of this study was to identify patient medical comorbidities and aberrant drug behaviors, as well as prescriber practices associated with patient injury and malpractice claims. Another objective was to identify claims most likely to result in payments and use this information to propose a strategy for reducing medicolegal risk. METHODS: The CRICO Strategies Comparative Benchmarking System is a database of claims drawing from >350,000 malpractice claims from Harvard-affiliated institutions and >400 other academic and community institutions across the United States. This database was queried for closed claims from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013, and identified 37 cases concerning noninterventional, outpatient chronic pain management. Each file consisted of a narrative summary, including expert witness testimony, as well as coded fields for patient demographics, medical comorbidities, the alleged damaging event, the alleged injurious outcome, the total financial amount incurred, and more. We performed an analysis using these claim files. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 43.5 years, with men representing 59.5% of cases. Payments were made in 27% of cases, with a median payment of $72,500 and a range of $7500-$687,500. The majority of cases related to degenerative joint disease of the spine and failed back surgery syndrome; no patients in this series received treatment of malignant pain. Approximately half (49%) of cases involved a patient death. The use of long-acting opioids and medical conditions affecting the cardiac and pulmonary systems were more closely associated with death than with other outcomes. The nonpain medical conditions present in this analysis included obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. Other claims ranged from alleged addiction to opioids from improper prescribing to alleged abandonment with withdrawal of care. The CRICO analysis suggested that patient behavior contributed to over half of these claims, whereas deficits in clinical judgment contributed to approximately 40% of the claims filed. CONCLUSIONS: Claims related to outpatient medication management in pain medicine are multifactorial, stemming from deficits in clinical judgment by physicians, noncooperation in care by patients, and poor clinical documentation. Minimization of both legal risk and patient harm can be achieved by carefully selecting patients for chronic opioid therapy and documenting compliance and improvement with the treatment plan. Medical comorbidities such as obstructive sleep apnea and the use of long-acting opioids may be particularly dangerous. Continuing physician education on the safest and most effective approaches to manage these medications in everyday practice will lead to both improved legal security and patient safety.

Variations in the Use of Perioperative Multimodal Analgesic Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines for perioperative pain management recommend that multimodal analgesic therapy should be used for all postsurgical patients. However, the proportion of patients who actually receive this evidence-based approach is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe hospital-level patterns in the utilization of perioperative multimodal analgesia. METHODS: Data for the study were obtained from the Premier Research Database. Patients undergoing below-knee amputation, open lobectomy, total knee arthroplasty, and open colectomy between 2007 and 2014 were included in the analysis. Patients were considered to have multimodal therapy if they received one or more nonopioid analgesic therapies. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to estimate the hospital-specific frequency of multimodal therapy use while adjusting for the case mix of patients and hospital characteristics and accounting for random variation. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 799,449 patients who underwent a procedure at 1 of 315 hospitals. The mean probability of receiving multimodal therapy was 90.4%, with 95% of the hospitals having a predicted probability between 42.6 and 99.2%. A secondary analysis examined whether patients received two or more nonopioid analgesics, which gave an average predicted probability of 54.2%, with 95% of the hospitals having a predicted probability between 9.3 and 93.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In this large nationwide sample of surgical admissions in the United States, the authors observed tremendous variation in the utilization of multimodal therapy not accounted for by patient or hospital characteristics. Efforts should be made to identify why there are variations in the use of multimodal analgesic therapy and to promote its adoption in appropriate patients.