An Expedited Care Pathway with Ambulatory Brachial Plexus Analgesia Is a Cost-effective Alternative to Standard Inpatient Care after Complex Arthroscopic Elbow Surgery: A Randomized, Single-blinded Study.

BACKGROUND: Common standard practice after complex arthroscopic elbow surgery includes hospital admission for 72 h. The authors hypothesized that an expedited care pathway, with 24 h of hospital admission and ambulatory brachial plexus analgesia and continuous passive motion at home, results in equivalent elbow range of motion (ROM) 2 weeks after surgery compared with standard 72-h hospital admission. METHODS: A randomized, single-blinded study was conducted after obtaining approval from the research ethics board. Forty patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated list of random numbers into an expedited care pathway group (24-h admission) and a control group (72-h admission). They were treated equally aside from the predetermined hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Patients in the control (n = 19) and expedited care pathway (n = 19) groups achieved similar elbow ROM 2 weeks (119 ± 18 degrees and 121 ± 15 degrees, P = 0.627) and 3 months (130 ± 18 vs. 130 ± 11 degrees, P = 0.897) postoperatively. The mean difference in elbow ROM at 2 weeks was 2.6 degrees (95% CI, -8.3 to 13.5). There were no differences in analgesic outcomes, physical function scores, and patient satisfaction up to 3 months postoperatively. Total hospital cost of care was 15% lower in the expedited care pathway group. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that an expedited care pathway with early hospital discharge followed by ambulatory brachial plexus analgesia and continuous passive motion at home is a cost-effective alternative to 72 h of hospital admission after complex arthroscopic elbow surgery.

A valid and reliable assessment tool for remote simulation-based ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to establish construct and concurrent validity and interrater reliability of an assessment tool for ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) performance on a high-fidelity simulation model. METHODS: Twenty participants were evaluated using a Checklist and Global Rating Scale designed for assessing any UGRA block. The participants performed an ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block on both a patient and a simulator. Evaluations were completed in-person by an expert and remotely by a blinded expert using video recordings. Using previous number of blocks performed as an indication of expertise, participants were divided into Novice (n = 8) and Experienced (n = 12) groups. Construct validity was assessed through the tool's reliable on-site and remote discrimination of Novice and Experienced anesthetists. Concurrent validity was established by comparisons of patient versus simulator scoring. Finally, interrater reliability was determined by comparing the scores of on-site and off-site evaluators. RESULTS: The Global Rating Scale was able to differentiate Novice from Experienced anesthetists both by on-site and remote assessment on a patient and simulation model. The Checklist was unable to discern the 2 groups on a simulation model remotely and was marginally significant with on-site scoring. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate the validity and reliability of a Global Rating Scale assessment tool for use in UGRA simulation training. Although the checklist may require further refinement, the Global Rating Scale can be used for remote and on-site assessment of UGRA skills.