The Global Anesthesia Workforce Survey: Updates and Trends in the Anesthesia Workforce.

BACKGROUND: There is a large global deficit of anesthesia providers. In 2016, the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA) conducted a survey to count the number of anesthesia providers worldwide. Much work has taken place since then to strengthen the anesthesia health workforce. This study updates the global count of anesthesia providers. METHODS: Between 2021 and 2023, an electronic survey was sent to national professional societies of physician anesthesia providers (PAPs), nurse anesthetists, and other nonphysician anesthesia providers (NPAPs). Data included number of providers and trainees, proportion of females, and limited intensive care unit (ICU) capacity data. Descriptive statistics were calculated by country, World Bank income group, and World Health Organization (WHO) region. Provider density is reported as the number of providers per 100,000 population. RESULTS: Responses were obtained for 172 of 193 United Nations (UN) member countries. The global provider density was 8.8 (PAP 6.6 NPAP 2.3). Seventy-six countries had a PAP density <5, whereas 66 countries had a total provider density <5. PAP density increased everywhere except for high- and low-income countries and the African region. CONCLUSIONS: The overall size of the global anesthesia workforce has increased over time, although some countries have experienced a decrease. Population growth and differences in which provider types that are counted can have an important impact on provider density. More work is needed to define appropriate metrics for measuring changes in density, to describe anesthesia cadres, and to improve workforce data collection processes. Effort to scale up anesthesia provider training must urgently continue.

The Impact of the Global SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Neuroanesthesiology Fellowship Programs Worldwide and the Potential Future Role for ICPNT Accreditation.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is an international crisis placing tremendous strain on medical systems around the world. Like other specialties, neuroanesthesiology has been adversely affected and training programs have had to quickly adapt to the constantly changing environment. METHODS: An email-based survey was used to evaluate the effects of the pandemic on clinical workflow, clinical training, education, and trainee well-being. The impact of the International Council on Perioperative Neuroscience Training (ICPNT) accreditation was also assessed. RESULTS: Responses were received from 14 program directors (88% response rate) in 10 countries and from 36 fellows in these programs. Clinical training was adversely affected because of the cancellation of elective neurosurgery and other changes in case workflow, the introduction of modified airway and other protocols, and redeployment of trainees to other sites. To address educational demands, most programs utilized online platforms to organize clinical discussions, journal clubs, and provide safety training modules. Several initiatives were introduced to support trainee well-being during the pandemic. Feelings of isolation and despair among trainees varied from 2 to 8 (on a scale of 1 to 10). Fellows all reported concerns that their clinical training had been adversely affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because of decreased exposure to elective subspecialty cases and limited opportunities to complete workplace-based assessments and training portfolio requirements. Cancellation of examination preparation courses and delayed examinations were cited as common sources of stress. Programs accredited by the ICPNT reported that international networking and collaboration was beneficial to reduce feelings of isolation during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Neuroanesthesia fellowship training program directors introduced innovative ways to maintain clinical training, educational activity and trainee well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

National Institutes of Health-Funded Anesthesiology Research and Anesthesiology Physician-Scientists: Trends, Promises, and Concerns.

With a difficult National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding climate, the pipeline of physician-scientists in Anesthesiology is continuing to get smaller with fewer new entrants. This article studies current NIH funding trends and offers potential solutions to continue the historical trend of academic innovation and research that has characterized academic Anesthesiology. Using publicly available data, specifically the NIH REPORTeR and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, we examined NIH trends in funding in academic Anesthesiology departments that have Anesthesiology residency training programs. When adjusted for inflation, median NIH funding of departments of Anesthesiology declined approximately 15% between 2008 and 2017. The majority (55%) of NIH funding to academic Anesthesiology departments, including R01 and K-series grants, went to 10 departments in the United States. This trend has remained relatively constant for the 9-year period we studied (2009-2017). There is an inequitable distribution of NIH funding to Anesthesiology departments. Arguably, this may be a case of the "rich get richer," but the implications for those who are trying to become or remain NIH-funded investigators are that success may depend, in part, on securing a faculty position in one of these well-funded departments.

Preparing for a Fellowship in Adult Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology: Resources and Approaches for the Anesthesiology Trainee.

Adult cardiothoracic anesthesiology (ACTA) is a competitive fellowship. Despite increases in both the number of programs offering cardiothoracic fellowships and the number of residents applying each year, there is little direction or advice for prospective candidates. This review aims to educate anesthesiology residents who are hoping to pursue cardiothoracic anesthesiology, by examining a brief history of the advanced perioperative echocardiography qualification, the credentialing goals of ACTA fellowships, and the current status of ACTA fellowships. The second part of the review covers the ACTA fellowship application and aims to assist the candidate in navigating this process. The review examines the qualifications that fellowship programs look for in a candidate, including a discussion on professional behavior, and what an applicant can look for in a program. Finally, there is a brief discussion on post-match preparation.

Nonoperating room anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To assess the trends in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) for gastrointestinal endoscopy over the past few years, and to describe alternative methods of delivering propofol sedation in selected low-risk patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of NORA for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has been rising steadily over the past decade in the United States, considerably increasing healthcare costs. Because of this, there have been attempts to develop nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation methods in low-risk patients. There is controversy as to whether properly trained nonanesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation SUMMARY: The deployment of nonanesthesia-administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall healthcare costs without sacrificing sedation quality. We also address the realm of anesthesia provider care for advanced endoscopic procedures including setup for administration of anesthesia, decision-making regarding placement of an endotracheal tube, and the potential need to move a challenging case to the operating room.

Integrating Academic and Private Practices: Challenges and Opportunities.

As health care reform shifts toward value over volume, academic medical centers, known for highly specialized, high-cost care, will suffer from erosion of their traditional funding sources. Academic medical centers have undertaken mergers and partnerships with community medical centers, to maintain a more diversified, cost-effective, and competitive presence in their markets. These consolidations have seen varying results. Cultural factors are frequently cited as a cause of dysfunction and disintegration. Anesthesiology groups integrating academic and private practice physicians are likely to face many of the same challenges. Appropriate attention to culture and other key issues may help realize numerous benefits.

Analysis of the distribution and scholarly output from National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) research grants.

The National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) was founded in 2008 to lead a UK strategy for developing academic anaesthesia. We aimed to assess the distribution of applications and quantify the academic returns of NIAA-supported research grants, as this has hitherto not been analysed. We sought data on the baseline characteristics of all grant applicants and recipients. Every grant recipient from 2008 to 2015 was contacted to ascertain the status of their supported research projects. We also examined Google Scholar, Scopus® database and InCites Journal Citation Reports for citation, author and journal metrics, respectively. In total, 495 research project applications were made, with 150 grants being awarded. Data on 121 out of 150 (80.7%) grant awards, accounting for £3.5 million, were collected, of which 91 completed studies resulted in 140 publications and 2759 citations. The median (IQR [range]) time to first or only publication was 3 (2-4 [0-9]) years. The overall cost per publication was £14,970 (£7457-£24,998 [£2212-£73,755]) and the cost per citation was £1515 (£323-£3785 [£70-£36,182]), with 1 (0-2 [0-8]) publication and 4 (0-25 [0-265]) citations resulting per grant. The impact factor of journals in which publications arose was 4.7 (2.5-6.2 [0-47.8]), with the highest impact arising from clinical and basic science studies, particularly in the fields of pain and peri-operative medicine. Grants were most frequently awarded to clinical and basic science categories of study, but in terms of specialty, critical care medicine and peri-operative medicine received the greatest number of grants. Superficially, there seemed a geographical disparity, with 123 (82%) grants being awarded to researchers in England, London receiving 48 (32%) of these. However, this was in proportion to the number of grant applications received by country or city of application, such that there was no significant difference in overall success rates. There was no significant difference in productivity in terms of publications and citations from grants awarded to each city. The 150 grants were awarded to 107 recipients (identified as the most senior applicant for each grant), 27 of whom received ≥ two grants. Recipients had a median career total of 21 (8-76 [0-254]) publications and 302 (44-1320 [0-8167]) citations, with an h-index of 8 (3-22 [0-54]). We conclude that a key determinant of grant success is simply applying. This is the first study to report the distribution and scholarly output of individual anaesthesia research grants, particularly from a collaborative body such as the NIAA, and can be used as a benchmark to further develop academic anaesthesia in the UK and beyond.

Anaesthesiology research in the European Union and the European Free Trade Association: An overview from 2001 to 2015.

BACKGROUND: Publication performance in anaesthesiology hints at research activity and attractiveness for a particular centre or country for anaesthetists. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective bibliographic study is to compare the publication performance of anaesthesiology departments within the countries of the European Union (EU) and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) combined. Outcome measures were the number of publications, the number of original articles, the average impact factor and the number of publications and average impact factor per million inhabitants. METHODS: Articles from anaesthesiology departments within the EU and EFTA countries published between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2015 were included. Articles were electronically imported from Medline into a database and linked to anaesthesiology departments according to the authors' affiliations. Publication performance was assessed for 2001 to 2005, 2006 to 2010, 2011 to 2015 and 2001 to 2015. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2015, the absolute number of articles increased from 10 513 to 19 037 (+81%), whereas the number of original research articles decreased from 3786 to 1563 (-58%). Germany had the most publications (8948) with 1967 of these being original articles. Denmark achieved not only the highest average impact factor per million inhabitants (319.9) but also the most articles per anaesthesiologist (1.46), and per million habitants (105.7). Countries which moved up the income scale to a higher income class also increased the number of publications. DISCUSSION: In the EU and EFTA countries, the total number of publications increased from 2001 to 2015, but the number of original research articles fell by more than 50%. CONCLUSION: Between 2001 and 2015, in the EU and EFTA countries, the number of publications increased, whereas the number of original articles decreased. Germany published most, but Denmark had most publications per anaesthesiologist and per capita, and also achieved the highest impact factor per article.