Diversity, inclusion, and equity at the British Journal of Anaesthesia: 100 years of progress.

The past century, especially the past decade, has seen re-examination and evolution in our views about sex, gender, race, and ethnicity. The British Journal of Anaesthesia is part of an ongoing effort in research and medical publishing, and in health and education more generally, to improve diversity, inclusion, and equity. This editorial highlights the contributions and evolution of the Journal in these areas from its origin until today.

Maternal mortality, safe abortion, and the anaesthetist.

Reproductive health is an active area of practice and research for anaesthetists, intensivists, and pain medicine specialists. The purpose of the British Journal of Anaesthesia is to promote the health, welfare, and safety of all persons by disseminating knowledge to further our understanding of anaesthetic principles and improve practice and skills. This includes supporting safe abortion care as an integral part of safe reproductive health.

Association of Medicaid Expansion With Neuraxial Labor Analgesia Use in the United States: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act has been associated with increased Medicaid coverage for childbirth among low-income US women. We hypothesized that Medicaid expansion was associated with increased use of labor neuraxial analgesia. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of US women with singleton live births who underwent vaginal delivery or intrapartum cesarean delivery between 2009 and 2017. Data were sourced from births in 26 US states that used the 2003 Revised US Birth Certificate. Difference-in-difference linear probability models were used to compare changes in the prevalence of neuraxial labor analgesia in 15 expansion and 11 nonexpansion states before and after Medicaid expansion. Models were adjusted for potential maternal and obstetric confounders with standard errors clustered at the state level. RESULTS: The study sample included 5,703,371 births from 15 expansion states and 5,582,689 births from 11 nonexpansion states. In the preexpansion period, the overall rate of neuraxial analgesia in expansion and nonexpansion states was 73.2% vs 76.3%. Compared with the preexpansion period, the rate of neuraxial analgesia increased in the postexpansion period by 1.7% in expansion states (95% CI, 1.6-1.8) and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.9-1.0) in nonexpansion states. The adjusted difference-in-difference estimate comparing expansion and nonexpansion states was 0.47% points (95% CI, -0.63 to 1.57; P = .39). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion was not associated with an increase in the rate of neuraxial labor analgesia in expansion states compared to the change in nonexpansion states over the same time period. Increasing Medicaid eligibility alone may be insufficient to increase the rate of neuraxial labor analgesia.

Gender differences in career development awards in United States' anesthesiology and surgery departments, 2006-2016.

BACKGROUND: Although the status of women in anesthesiology has advanced by many measures, obtaining career development funding remains challenging. Here, we sought to compare the characteristics of funded career development awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) between the specialties of anesthesiology and surgery. We hypothesized that the two groups differ in percentage of faculty with awards, gender distribution among principal investigators, as well as the number of awards promoting diversity. METHODS: The NIH grant-funding database RePORT was queried for career development awards for the years 2006-2016 using the filters "Anesthesiology" and "Surgery." Grants were characterized based on the gender of the principal investigator and whether the funding opportunity announcement indicated promotion of underrepresented minorities (URM). The 2016 Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) report on "Distribution of U.S. Medical School Faculty by Sex and Rank" was used to adjust comparisons according to baseline gender distributions in anesthesiology and surgery departments. Cohorts were characterized using descriptive methods and compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Based on our AAMC data query, in 2016, the number of women faculty members at the instructor or assistant professor level in U.S. medical schools was 2314 (41%) for anesthesiology and 2281 (30%) for surgery. Between 2006 and 2016, there were 88 career development grants awarded to investigators in anesthesiology departments compared to 261 in surgery departments. Of the grantees in each specialty, 29 (33%) were women in anesthesiology and 72 (28%) in surgery (P = 0.344). Awards to promote URM were identified for two grants (2%) in anesthesiology and nine grants (3%) in surgery (P = 0.737). Faculty members in surgery were more likely to receive an award than in anesthesiology (P < 0.0001), and women were less likely to receive an award than men (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: The major difference between US anesthesiology and surgery departments is that the number of faculty career development awards is significantly higher in surgery departments. Future efforts should aim to identify the reasons for such differences in order to inform strategies that can improve the likelihood for junior faculty members to receive career development funding.

United States State-Level Variation in the Use of Neuraxial Analgesia During Labor for Pregnant Women.

Importance: Neuraxial labor analgesia is recognized as the most effective method of providing pain relief during labor. Little is known about variation in the rates of neuraxial analgesia across US states. Identifying the presence and extent of variation may provide insights into practice variation and may indicate where access to neuraxial analgesia is inadequate. Objective: To test the hypothesis that variation exists in neuraxial labor analgesia use among US states. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, population-based, cross-sectional analysis using US birth certificate data. Participants were 2 625 950 women who underwent labor in 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures: State-specific prevalence of neuraxial analgesia per 100 women who underwent labor and variability in neuraxial analgesia use among states, assessed using multilevel multivariable regression modeling with the median odds ratio and the intraclass correlation coefficient to evaluate variation by state. Results: In the study population of 2 625 950 women, 0.1% (n = 2010) were younger than 15 years, 7.0% (n = 183 546) were between the ages of 15 and 19 years, 23.6% (n = 620 118) were between the ages of 20 and 24 years, 29.6% (n = 777 957) were between the ages of 25 and 29 years, 26.0% (n = 683 656) were between the ages of 30 and 34 years, 11.4% (n = 298 237) were between the ages of 35 and 39 years, 2.2% (n = 57 130) were between the ages of 40 and 44 years, and 0.1% (n = 3296) were between the ages of 45 and 54 years. More than 90% were privately insured or insured with Medicaid. Neuraxial analgesia was used by 73.1% (n = 1 920 368) of women. After adjustment for antepartum, obstetric, and intrapartum factors, Maine had the lowest neuraxial analgesia prevalence (36.6%; 95% CI, 33.2%-40.1%) and Nevada the highest (80.1%; 95% CI, 78.3%-81.7%). The adjusted median odds ratio was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.4-1.6), and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 5.4% (95% CI, 4.0%-7.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that a small portion of the overall variation in neuraxial analgesia use is explained by US states. Unmeasured patient-level and hospital-level factors likely account for a large portion of the variation between states. Efforts should be made to understand what the main reasons are for this variation and whether the variation influences maternal or perinatal outcomes.

Diversity in the American Society of Anesthesiologists Leadership.

BACKGROUND: Women and minorities are underrepresented in US academic medicine. The Sullivan Commission on Diversity in the Healthcare Workforce emphasized the importance of diverse leadership for reducing health care disparities. The objective of this study was to evaluate the demographics of the American Society of Anesthesiologists leadership. We hypothesized that the percentage of women and underrepresented minorities is less than that of their respective proportions in the general physician workforce. METHODS: An electronic survey was developed by the authors and mailed to 595 members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists leadership who had valid email addresses, including the members of the 2014 House of Delegates and state society leaders who were not the members of the House of Delegates. Univariate statistics were used to characterize survey responses and the probability distributions were estimated using the binomial distribution. A one-sample t test was used to compare the percentage of women and minorities in the survey pool to that of the corresponding percentages in the general physician workforce (38.0% women and 8.9% minorities), and the US population (51.0% women and 32.0% minorities). RESULTS: The survey response rate was 54%. A total of 21.1% (95% confidence interval: 16.4%-25.7%) of respondents were women and 6.0% (95% confidence interval: 3.3%-8.7%) were minorities. The proportion of women in the American Society of Anesthesiologist leadership was lower than the general medical workforce and the US population (P < .001 for both); the proportion of underrepresented minorities was lower than the US population (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Women and minorities are underrepresented in the leadership of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. Efforts should be made to increase the diversity of the American Society of Anesthesiologists leadership with the goal of reducing overall anesthesia workforce disparities.

Hospital-Level Factors Associated with Anesthesia-Related Adverse Events in Cesarean Deliveries, New York State, 2009-2011.

BACKGROUND: Marked variation across hospitals in adverse maternal outcomes in cesarean deliveries is reported, including anesthesia-related adverse events (ARAEs). Identification of hospital-level characteristics accounting for this variation may help guide interventions to improve anesthesia care quality. In this study, we examined the association between hospital-level characteristics and ARAEs in cesarean deliveries and assessed individual hospital performance. METHODS: Discharge records for cesarean deliveries, ARAEs, and patient characteristics in the State Inpatient Database for New York State 2009 to 2011 were identified with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The hospital reporting index was calculated as the sum of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes divided by the number of discharges. Data on hospital characteristics were obtained from the American Hospital Association and the Area Health Resources files. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the association of hospital-level characteristics with ARAEs and to assess individual hospital performance. RESULTS: The study included 236,960 discharges indicating cesarean deliveries in 141 hospitals; 1557 discharges recorded at least 1 ARAE (6.6 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2-6.9). The following factors were associated with a significantly increased risk of ARAEs: Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 1 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.2), multiple gestation (aOR, 1.3), postpartum hemorrhage (aOR, 1.5), general anesthesia (aOR, 1.3), hospital annual cesarean delivery volume <200 (aOR, 2.3), and reporting index (aOR, 1.1 per 1 increase per discharge). Fifteen percent of the between-hospital variation in ARAEs was explained by the hospital annual cesarean delivery volume and 6% by the reporting index. Eight hospitals (6%) were classified as good-performing, 104 (74%) as average-performing, and 29 (21%) as bad-performing hospitals. Compared with good-performing hospitals, a 2.3-fold (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) and 5.9-fold (95% CI, 4.5-7.8) increase in the rate of ARAEs was observed in average- and bad-performing hospitals, respectively. Bringing up bad-performing hospitals to the level of average-performing hospitals would prevent 466 ARAEs (30%). CONCLUSIONS: Low cesarean delivery volume is the strongest hospital-level predictor of ARAEs in cesarean deliveries and the main determinant of between-hospital variation. Future study to identify other factors and interventions to improve performance in bad-performing hospitals is warranted.

Evaluation of the Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Medical Student Anesthesia Research Fellowship Program Participants' Scholarly Activity and Career Choices.

BACKGROUND: The Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Medical Student Anesthesia Research Fellowship (MSARF) program is an 8-week program that pairs medical students with anesthesiologists performing anesthesia-related research. This study evaluated the proportion of students who published an article from their work, as well as the percentage of students who entered anesthesiology residency programs. METHODS: A list of previous MSARF participants (2005 to 2012), site, and project information was obtained. Searches for publications were performed using PubMed. The primary outcome was the publication rate for MSARF projects. The MSARF abstract-to-publication ratio was compared with the percentage of abstracts presented at biomedical meetings that resulted in publication as estimated by a Cochrane review (44%). For students who had graduated from medical school, match lists from the students' medical schools were reviewed for specialty choice. RESULTS: Forty-two percent of the 346 MSARF projects were subsequently published. There was no difference between the MSARF abstract-to-publication ratio and the publication rate of articles from abstracts presented at scientific meetings (P = 0.57). Thirty percent (n = 105; 95% CI, 25 to 35%) of all the MSARF students were authors on a publication. Fifty-eight percent of the students for whom residency match data (n = 255) were available matched into anesthesiology residencies (95% CI, 52 to 64%). CONCLUSIONS: The MSARF program resulted in many students being included as a co-author on a published article; the majority of these students entered anesthesiology residency programs. Future research should determine whether the program has a long-term impact on the development of academic anesthesiologists.

Readability, Content, and Quality Assessment of Web-Based Patient Education Materials Addressing Neuraxial Labor Analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Studies in a variety of disciplines have shown that the readability of Web-based patient education materials is above that of the sixth grade reading level recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The aim of this study was to evaluate the readability, content, and quality of English- and Spanish-language patient education materials addressing neuraxial labor analgesia. METHODS: The websites of 122 U.S. academic medical centers with obstetric anesthesia divisions were searched for English- and Spanish-language patient education materials. Readability of English-language patient education materials was assessed with 3 validated indices: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook. Readability of Spanish-language patient education materials was assessed using the Spanish Lexile Measure. A 1-sample t test was used to evaluate the mean readability level against the recommended sixth grade reading level. A scoring matrix was developed to evaluate the content of patient education materials. Website quality was assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Print. RESULTS: We identified 72 English-language and 29 Spanish-language patient education materials. The mean readability levels of all patient education materials were higher than the recommended sixth grade reading level using all indices (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 9.1 ± 1.9, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook: 8.6 ± 1.4, Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook: 11.8 ± 2.1; P < 0.001 for all). All patient education materials discussed the benefits of neuraxial analgesia. However, only 14% (upper 95% confidence interval: 24%) discussed contraindications to neuraxial anesthesia. Postdural puncture headache and hypotension were the most commonly addressed complications (92%). All other complications were addressed by less than half of patient education materials. Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Print scores were consistent with poor website understandability (median score, 64%; interquartile range, 64-73). CONCLUSIONS: The mean readability of Web-based patient education materials addressing neuraxial labor analgesia was above the recommended sixth grade reading level. Although most patient education materials explained the benefits of neuraxial analgesia, possible contraindications and complications were not consistently presented. The content, readability, and quality of patient education materials are poor and should be improved to help patients make more informed decisions about analgesic options during labor and delivery.

Racial and ethnic disparities in neuraxial labor analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in the treatment of pain have been well documented, and there is evidence of such disparities in neuraxial analgesia use. Our objectives of this study were to analyze racial/ethnic disparities in neuraxial analgesia use, as well as anticipated use, among laboring Hispanic, African-American, and Caucasian women, and to evaluate sociodemographic, clinical, and decision-making predictors of actual and anticipated neuraxial analgesia use among these women. METHODS: Laboring women, in a large urban academic hospital, were interviewed using a face-to-face survey to determine individual factors that may influence choice of labor analgesia. After delivery, the type of labor analgesia used was recorded. The primary outcome was use of neuraxial analgesia. Multivariable logistic regression models were estimated to test the likelihood that race and ethnicity were significantly associated with neuraxial analgesia use, anticipated neuraxial analgesia use, and the intrapartum decision to use neuraxial analgesia. RESULTS: There was a univariate association between race/ethnicity and anticipated as well as actual use of neuraxial analgesia. However, there was no association between race/ethnicity and the intrapartum decision to use neuraxial analgesia. After controlling for confounders, the association between race/ethnicity and actual use of neuraxial analgesia no longer remained significant (adjusted odds ratio: Hispanic versus Caucasian women 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24 to 1.80; African-American versus Caucasian women 0.93, 95% CI: 0.31 to 2.77). In contrast, Hispanic women were less likely than Caucasian women to anticipate using neuraxial analgesia even after controlling for confounders (adjusted odds ratio 0.40, 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for confounding variables, Hispanic women anticipated using neuraxial analgesia at a lower rate than other racial/ethnic groups; however, actual use was similar among groups.

NIH consensus development conference draft statement on vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights.

OBJECTIVE: To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). PARTICIPANTS: A non-DHHS, nonadvocate 15-member panel representing the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, urogynecology, maternal and fetal medicine, pediatrics, midwifery, clinical pharmacology, medical ethics, internal medicine, family medicine, perinatal and reproductive psychiatry, anesthesiology, nursing, biostatistics, epidemiology, health care regulation, risk management, and a public representative, and a public representative. In addition, 21 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. EVIDENCE: Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. CONFERENCE PROCESS: The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government. CONCLUSIONS: Given the available evidence, trial of labor is a reasonable option for many pregnant women with one prior low transverse uterine incision. The data reviewed in this report show that both trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery for a pregnant woman with one prior transverse uterine incision have important risks and benefits and that these risks and benefits differ for the woman and her fetus. This poses a profound ethical dilemma for the woman, as well as her caregivers, because benefit for the woman may come at the price of increased risk for the fetus and vice versa. This conundrum is worsened by the general paucity of high-level evidence about both medical and nonmedical factors, which prevents the precise quantification of risks and benefits that might help to make an informed decision about trial of labor compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery. The panel was mindful of these clinical and ethical uncertainties in making the following conclusions and recommendations. One of the panel's major goals is to support pregnant women with one prior transverse uterine incision to make informed decisions about trial of labor compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery. The panel recommends that clinicians and other maternity care providers use the responses to the six questions, especially questions 3 and 4, to incorporate an evidence-based approach into the decisionmaking process. Information, including risk assessment, should be shared with the woman at a level and pace that she can understand. When trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery are medically equivalent options, a shared decisionmaking process should be adopted and, whenever possible, the woman's preference should be honored. The panel is concerned about the barriers that women face in gaining access to clinicians and facilities that are able and willing to offer trial of labor. Given the low level of evidence for the requirement for "immediately available" surgical and anesthesia personnel in current guidelines, the panel recommends that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Anesthesiologists reassess this requirement with specific reference to other obstetric complications of comparable risk, risk stratification, and in light of limited physician and nursing resources. Healthcare organizations, physicians, and other clinicians should consider making public their trial of labor policies and VBAC rates, as well as their plans for responding to obstetric emergencies. The panel recommends that hospitals, maternity care providers, healthcare and professional liability insurers, consumers, and policymakers collaborate on the development of integrated services that could mitigate or even eliminate current barriers to trial of labor. The panel is concerned that medical-legal considerations add to, and in many instances exacerbate, these barriers to trial of labor. Policymakers, providers, and other stakeholders must collaborate in developing and implementing appropriate strategies to mitigate the chilling effect the medical-legal environment has on access to care. High-quality research is needed in many areas. The panel has identified areas that need attention in response to question 6. Research in these areas should be given appropriate priority and should be adequately funded--especially studies that would help to characterize more precisely the short-term and long-term maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes of trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery.

Nerve injuries after neuraxial anaesthesia and their medicolegal implications.

Serious and permanent neurologic complications in the obstetric population are rare. Most neurologic complications following childbirth are intrinsic obstetric palsies. The most common intrinsic obstetric palsy is lateral femoral neuropathy. Palsies of the femoral, obturator, sciatic, common peroneal nerves and lumbosacral plexus have also been reported. Meticulous technique during neuraxial anaesthesia will decrease the risk of injury secondary to neuraxial procedures. Direct trauma to the spinal cord and spinal nerves may occur during neuraxial anaesthesia. Sterile technique should be employed during neuraxial procedures and precautions should be taken to ensure that the proper drug/concentration is being injected. Postpartum complaints should be addressed promptly. For infection and space-occupying lesions of the neuraxial canal, prompt diagnosis and treatment are essential to prevent permanent injury or death. Survey studies have demonstrated that women want to be told of the risks of neuraxial procedures, even when the incidence is rare.