Predictive value of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and the Mini-Mental State Examination for neurologic outcome after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We intended to define the role of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and the Mini-Mental State Examination in identifying adverse neurologic outcomes in a large international sample of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: We evaluated 4707 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass at 72 centers in 17 countries between November 1996 and June 2000. Prespecified overt neurologic outcomes were categorized as type I (clinically diagnosed stroke, transient ischemic attack, encephalopathy, or coma) or type II (deterioration of intellectual function). The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Mini-Mental State Examination were administered preoperatively and on postoperative day 3, 4, or 5. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to determine the predictive value of worsening in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Mini-Mental State Examination scores with respect to type I and II outcomes. RESULTS: The receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for changes in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (n = 4620) was 0.89 for type I outcomes and 0.66 for type II outcomes. A 1-point worsening in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score provided excellent discrimination (86% specificity; 84% sensitivity) of type I outcomes. The receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for changes in Mini-Mental State Examination score (n = 4707) was 0.75 for type I outcomes and 0.71 for type II outcomes. A 2-point worsening in Mini-Mental State Examination score provided only fair discrimination (73% specificity; 62% sensitivity) of type II outcomes. CONCLUSION: We used baseline controls and postoperative worsening in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Mini-Mental State Examination scores to predict both serious adverse neurologic outcome and deterioration of intellectual function. Our findings provide the only reference for evaluating these tests that are used in cardiac surgical clinical trials.

Incentive payments to academic anesthesiologists for late afternoon work did not influence turnover times.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists are often paid extra for hours worked in the late afternoon and evening. Although anesthesiologists have little influence on their operating room (OR) assignments and workloads late in the afternoon, they can influence turnover times. METHODS: OR turnover times on workdays were reviewed for n = 30 mo before there was incremental pay, for n = 15 mo with incremental pay for work past 3:30 pm, and for n = 8 mo with pay for work past 4:00 pm. The end point was the percentage of turnovers that were prolonged, defined as longer than 1 h. Turnovers straddling 3:30 pm (n = 3945), 4:00 pm (n = 3602), and 5:00 pm (n = 2834) were studied, as were those straddling 2:00 pm (n = 4407) as a control. In addition, qualitative (survey) assessment of n = 30 anesthesiologists was performed the last month to learn about their opinions on working late on weekdays. RESULTS: Most respondents considered an OR to run late if it finished after a specific time of day (87%, P < 0.001), unrelated to the room's type of procedures (90%, P < 0.001) or to the payment for working after 4:00 pm (100%, P < 0.001). There was no significant effect of implementation or changes to the incentive program on the incidences of prolonged turnover times at each of the studied times in the afternoon (all P > 0.14). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that hospital administrators, deans, and other executives need not be especially concerned about disincentives produced by methods of internal compensation of anesthesiologists on highly visible OR turnover times late in afternoons.

Both bias and lack of knowledge influence organizational focus on first case of the day starts.

BACKGROUND: The economic costs of reducing first case delays are often high, because efforts need to be applied to multiple operating rooms (ORs) simultaneously. Nevertheless, delays in starting first cases of the day are a common topic in OR committee meetings. METHODS: We added three scientific questions to a 24 question online, anonymous survey performed before the implementation of a new OR information system. The 57 respondents cared sufficiently about OR management at the United States teaching hospital to complete all questions. RESULTS: The survey revealed reasons why personnel may focus on the small reductions in nonoperative time achievable by reducing tardiness in first cases of the day. (A) Respondents lacked knowledge about principles in reducing over-utilized OR time to increase OR efficiency, based on their answering the relevant question correctly at a rate no different from guessing at random. Those results differed from prior findings of responses at a rate worse than random, resulting from a bias on the day of surgery of making decisions that increase clinical work per unit time. (B) Most respondents falsely believed that a 10 min delay at the start of the day causes subsequent cases to start at least 10 min late (P < 0.0001 versus random chance). (C) Most respondents did not know that cases often take less time than scheduled (P = 0.008 versus chance). No one who demonstrated knowledge (C) about cases sometimes taking less time than scheduled applied that information to their response to (B) regarding cases starting late (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of OR efficiency was low among the respondents working in ORs. Nevertheless, the apparent absence of bias shows that education may influence behavior. In contrast, presence of bias on matters of tardiness of start times shows that education may be of no benefit. As the latter results match findings of previous studies of scheduling decisions, interventions to reduce patient and surgeon waiting from start times may depend principally on the application of automation to guide decision-making.

Operating room nursing directors' influence on anesthesia group operating room productivity.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of initiatives to increase anesthesia group productivity depends not just on anesthesia groups, but on operating room (OR) nursing administration. OR nursing directors may encourage organizational change based on the needs of their hospitals and nurses. These changes may differ from those that would increase the anesthesia group's productivity. We assessed reward structures using (A) letters of nomination for the "OR Manager of the Year" award offered annually by the publication OR Manager, and (B) data from a salary/career survey of OR directors by the same publication. METHODS: (A) There were 164 nomination letters submitted from 2004 through 2007 for 45 nominees. The letters contained n = 2659 full sentences and n = 50,821 words. We systematically created a list of 36 terms related to finance, profit, and productivity. We also analyzed the frequency of use of these terms relative to the use of the 15 most common relationship-oriented terms (e.g., compassion, encourage, mentor, and respect). (B) The salary/career survey's questions relevant to anesthesia group productivity had responses from 303 US OR directors, 97% of whom were nurses. We tested the strength of the relationship between the budget responsibility of the OR nursing director and his or her annual salary. RESULTS: (A) 2.6% of sentences in the nomination letters included at least one term related to profit and productivity (95% confidence interval 2.0%-3.2%). Relationship-oriented terms were 9.0 times more prevalent (95% confidence interval 7.1-11.4). (B) There was statistically significant positive proportionality between the OR nursing director's operational budget (including personnel) and his or her salary (Pearson r = 0.64, P < 0.001). The 10th percentile of the operational budget was $1 million and the 90th percentile was $36 million. The budget of $1 million was associated with a salary 22% less than the median and the budget of $36 million was associated with a salary 22% larger than the median. CONCLUSION: Through (A) organizational constituencies, and (B) compensation, many US OR nursing directors likely are encouraged to enhance relations with nursing staff, not to champion organizational initiatives that would reduce under-utilized OR time and OR nursing labor costs. Resulting decisions can differ from those that would increase the productivity (profit) of the anesthesia group. Anesthesia groups need to champion initiatives to increase anesthesia productivity, while being sensitive to institutional expectations of nursing directors.

Predicting orthopedic surgeons' preferences for peripheral nerve blocks for their patients.

BACKGROUND: A 2002 survey of 468 Canadian orthopedic surgeons found that the "two principal reasons regional anesthesia is not favored" are "delays in operating rooms" and "unpredictable success." We reanalyzed the data from the study to evaluate whether these concerns were the best predictors of an individual surgeon's willingness to use peripheral nerve blocks for their patients. METHODS: Of the five procedures included in the survey, three had relevant questions for our reanalysis of the results: arthroscopic shoulder surgery, arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and total knee replacement. RESULTS: A surgeon's preference for peripheral nerve block for him or herself strongly predicted his or her anesthetic preference for patients (all P < 0.001). Concordance rates were 89% for arthroscopic shoulder surgery, 87% for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and 93% for total knee replacement. There was almost no incremental predictive value for the surgeon's preference for patients from the surgeon's perception of the times to perform a block (P > or = 0.27) or perception of block success rate (P > or = 0.30). There was also almost no direct predictive value for the surgeon's preference for patients from the surgeon's perception of the times to perform a block (Kendall's tau < or = 0.04, P > or = 0.28) or perception of block success rate (Kendall's tau < or = 0.02, P > or = 0.24). An economically important percentage of surgeons (37%, 95% confidence interval: 32%-41%) would choose a peripheral nerve block for their own surgery for some, but not all, of the procedures (i.e., for 1 or 2 versus 0 or 3). CONCLUSIONS: A surgeon's preference for peripheral nerve blocks for his or her own surgery predicted a surgeon's preference for his or her patients. Perceptions of delays and success rate did not add sufficient incremental information to the surgeon's preferences to be of economic importance. These results are important to better forecast the net economic impact on an anesthesia group of a regional block team.