Assessment of the Educational and Training Modalities in Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) for Anesthesiologists.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been developed as a critical tool for diagnostic patient evaluation and clinical management. Its transcendence into anesthesiology necessitates appropriate and effective educational strategies to assist in the development of anesthesia POCUS learners. Several professional societies, including the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Society of Regional Anesthesia (ASRA), and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) for anesthesiology have established minimum training standards for POCUS education for anesthesiologists, residents, and fellows.1,4 The article at hand aims to summarize and provide insight into the various educational modalities utilized in POCUS training, incorporate these strategies in the established "Indication, Acquisition, Interpretation, and Medical decision-making" (I-AIM) framework, and include recommendations on the minimum number of POCUS exams to aid in achieving competency. 3.

Brain drain in pediatric anesthesiology: The geographic and demographic distribution of national origin among pediatric anesthesiologists in the United States.

BACKGROUND: American pediatric anesthesiologists have a long history of international volunteerism. However, the US healthcare system also benefits from the contributions of a large number of physicians who come from other nations to work within its borders. Despite this fact, little is known about the contribution of international medical graduates (IMG) to the pediatric anesthesiology subspecialty. AIMS: To characterize the contribution of IMG to the field of pediatric anesthesiology in the United States, and to elucidate the geographic and demographic distribution of their national origins so as to understand the movement of skilled personnel between countries. METHODS: Online physician directories of American children's hospitals were searched, and anesthesiologists were recorded for their national origin of medical education. International graduates were reported as a percentage of the pediatric anesthesiology workforce. Those attending medical colleges catering to American students ("offshore" medical schools) were analyzed separately from other IMGs. The cohort of non-offshore IMGs were analyzed for national and continental origins, and by national level of economic development. RESULTS: Of 1979 anesthesiologists analyzed, 397 attended medical school outside the United States, with 58 being from offshore schools. The remaining 338 represented 17.1% of the total pediatric anesthesiology workforce. They came from 58 countries on six continents. Of those, 65.1% attended medical school in low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: International medical graduates, disproportionately from low- and middle-income countries, compose a large proportion of the US Pediatric Anesthesiology workforce. While these clinicians play a vital role in providing care for American children, the potential impacts of skilled physician loss on their nations of origin must also be considered.

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.

An Evaluation of Commercial Payer Reimbursement and Contracting Factors for Physician Anesthesiologists and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists for Services Performed in 2019.

We sought to establish commercial rate benchmarks specific to certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) anesthesia delivery models (QZ), quantify any payer disparities discovered between CRNAs and anesthesiologists, and determine payer alignment with nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Lewin Group administered the exploratory, descriptive study of QZ billing practices by surveying a targeted cross-section of 345 CRNAs known for QZ billing. Forty-one respondents reported information from 1,089 CRNAs and 351,920 cases with 127,888 commercial claims billed under 144 unique commercial contracts as performed in 2019. There was a 24% payer disparity in rates negotiated reported between anesthesia providers: CRNAs overall average of $58.62; $55.33-$64.57, compared with anesthesiologist average of $77.01 overall; $73.79-$80.76. Other findings included QZ payment adjustments, denials for reimbursement, and exclusion from plan participation. The study found disparities in rate and discriminatory payer practices specific to CRNA contracting and reimbursement, which suggests payer misalignment with nondiscrimination provisions of the ACA.

Preoperative Assessment of a Patient Undergoing Bariatric Surgery.

Over the past few decades, obesity rates in the United States have risen drastically, and with this, there has been a rising demand for bariatric surgery. As such, anesthesiologists need to be familiar with the challenges presented by patients seeking bariatric surgery. Obesity causes pathophysiologic changes which may affect decision-making during the management of these patients. Patients seeking bariatric surgery also have a long, prescribed preoperative course that offers anesthesiologists the opportunity to be involved earlier during the pre-surgical evaluation and optimization process.

Social Determinants of Health and Preoperative Care.

Preoperative care exists as part of perioperative continuum during which anesthesiologists and surgeons optimize patients for surgery. These multispecialty efforts are important, particularly for patients with complex medical histories and those requiring major surgery. Preoperative care improves planning and determines the clinical pathway and discharge disposition. The role of nonmedical social factors in the preoperative planning is not well described in anesthesiology. Research to improve outcomes based on social factors is not well described for anesthesiologists but could be instrumental in decreasing disparities and advancing health equity in surgical patients.

Racial and Ethnic Patient Care Disparities in Anesthesiology: History, Current State, and a Way Forward.

Disparities in patient care and outcomes are well-documented in medicine but have received comparatively less attention in anesthesiology. Those disparities linked to racial and ethnic identity are pervasive, with compelling evidence in operative anesthesiology, obstetric anesthesiology, pain medicine, and critical care. This narrative review presents an overview of disparities in perioperative patient care that is grounded in historical context followed by potential solutions for mitigating disparities and inequities.

Enhanced recovery protocols for ambulatory surgery.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, ambulatory surgeries account for up to 87% of all surgical procedures. (1) It was estimated that 19.2 million ambulatory surgeries were performed in 2018 (https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb287-Ambulatory-Surgery-Overview-2019.pdf). Cataract procedures and musculoskeletal surgeries are the most common surgical interventions performed in ambulatory centers. However, more complex surgical interventions, such as sleeve gastrectomies, oncological, and spine surgeries, and even arthroplasties are routinely performed as day cases or in a model of an ambulatory extended recovery. (2-5) The ambulatory surgery centers industry has grown since 2017 by 1.1% per year and reached a market size of $31.2 billion. According to the Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, there is a potential to save $57.6 billion in Medicare costs over the next decade (https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/ambulatory-surgery-centers-united-states/). These data suggest an expected rise in the volume of ambulatory (same day) or extended ambulatory (23 h) surgeries in coming years. Similar increases are also observed in other countries. For example, 75% of elective surgeries are performed as same-day surgery in the United Kingdom. (6) To reduce costs and improve the quality of care after those more complex procedures, ambulatory surgery centers have started implementing patient-centered, high-quality, value-based practices. To achieve those goals, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been implemented to reduce the length of stay, decrease costs, increase patients' satisfaction, and transform clinical practices. The ERAS fundamentals for ambulatory surgery are based on five pillars, including (1) preoperative patient counseling, education, and optimization; (2) multimodal and opioid-sparing analgesia; (3) nausea and vomiting, wound infection, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; (4) maintenance of euvolemia; and (5) encouragement of early mobility. Those pillars rely on interdisciplinary teamwork led by anesthesiologists, surgery-specific workgroups, and safety culture. (2) Research shows that a team of ambulatory anesthesiologists is crucial in improving postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain control. (7) This review will summarize the current evidence on the elements and clinical importance of implementing ERAS protocol for ambulatory surgery.

Practice Model Trends in Medicare Payments Across States and Regions.

Anesthesia delivery models have long been shaped by workforce trends, state and federal regulations, economic incentives driven by reimbursement, and the normative preferences of provider and facility organizations. In recent years, there has been a significant shift toward greater use of more efficient certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA)-oriented delivery models observed at the national level Medicare data. However, given the wide range of these factors across states and regions, this shift has likely occurred at an uneven pace. This study analyzes the influence of provider workforce composition and CRNA scope of practice (SOP) regulations on usage of competing types of anesthesia delivery models, including anesthesiologist alone, care team, and undirected CRNA models. Results show that over the period from 2010-2019, anesthesia delivery models utilized under Medicare Part B have become increasingly oriented around the use of CRNAs. However, increases in the care team vs undirected CRNA model are highly uneven and inconsistent across states, even after adjusting for workforce and SOP. Speculation on additional normative or organization-driven reasons for persistent use of inefficient delivery models in some places is offered.

Delivery of Safe Pediatric Anesthesia Care in the First 8000 days: Realities, Challenges, and Solutions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, perioperative mortality has declined over the past 50 years, but the reduction is skewed toward high-income countries (HICs). Currently, pediatric perioperative mortality is much higher in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared to HICs, despite studied cohorts being predominantly low-risk. These disparities must be studied and addressed. METHODS: A narrative review of the literature was undertaken to identify contributing factors and potential knowledge gaps. Interventions aimed at alleviating the outcomes disparities are discussed, and recommendations are made for future directions. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of adequately trained pediatric anesthesia providers in LMICs, and the number must be bolstered by making such training available. Essential anesthesia medications and equipment, in pediatric-appropriate sizes, are often not available; neither are essential infrastructure items. Perioperative staff are underprepared for emergent situations that may arise and simulation training may help to ameliorate this. The global anesthesia community has implemented several solutions to address these issues. The World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA) and Global Initiative for Children's Surgery have published standards that outline essential items for the provision of safe perioperative pediatric care. Several short educational courses have been developed and introduced in LMICs that either specifically address pediatric patients, or contain a pediatric component. The WFSA also maintains a collection of discrete tutorials for educational purposes. Finally, in Africa, large-scale, prospective data collection is underway to examine pediatric perioperative outcomes. More work needs to be done, though, to improve perioperative outcomes for pediatric patients in LMICs.

A survey of United States obstetric anesthesiologists' perceived value of obstetric anesthesiology fellowship.

INTRODUCTION: Subspecialty training in obstetric anesthesiology is associated with improved patient outcomes and reduced anesthesia-related morbidity and mortality. Despite this, the demand for fellowship-trained obstetric anesthesiologists far exceeds the supply. This survey study aimed to evaluate the perceived value of obstetric anesthesiology subspecialty training on career trajectory, job satisfaction, quality of life, and job autonomy. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, we conducted a cross-sectional study of fellowship-trained obstetric anesthesiologists in the United States of America. In March and April 2022, program directors of obstetric anesthesiology fellowships distributed an electronic survey link containing 29 multiple-choice questions to their program alumni. Survey content included respondent demographic characteristics, practice models, career information, and perceived value of an obstetric anesthesiology fellowship. RESULTS: We surveyed 217/502 (43%) fellowship-trained obstetric anesthesiologists with a response rate of 158/217 (73%). Most worked in urban, academic, and level IV perinatal health centers. The majority believed an obstetric anesthesiology fellowship was "extremely beneficial" (77%), enhanced quality of life (84%), improved the quality of patient care (99%), and was influential in helping obtain their first post-training job (86%). The perceived value of the fellowship included an enhanced career trajectory, a sense of purpose, improved job satisfaction, a sense of work community, lower burnout, involvement in maternal health initiatives, increased mentorship, and departmental leadership. CONCLUSION: In this survey study, fellowship-trained obstetric anesthesiologists perceived a positive impact of fellowship training on career trajectory, job protection and autonomy, quality of life, and job satisfaction. This information may be meaningful to trainees considering pursuing a fellowship and a career in obstetric anesthesiology.

Should All Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension Undergoing Non-Cardiac Surgery Be Managed by Cardiothoracic Fellowship-Trained Anesthesiologists?

OBJECTIVES: To identify differences in practice patterns and outcomes related to the induction of general anesthesia for patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) performed by anesthesiologists who have completed a cardiothoracic fellowship (CTA group) vs those who have not (non-CTA group). DESIGN: Retrospective study with propensity score matching. SETTING: Operating room. PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients with PH undergoing general anesthesia requiring intubation at a single academic center over 5 years. INTERVENTIONS: Patient baseline characteristics, peri-induction management variables, post-induction mean arterial pressure (MAP), and other outcomes were compared between CTA and non-CTA groups. METHODS AND MAIN RESULTS: Following propensity scoring matching, 402 patients were included in the final model, 100 in the CTA group and 302 in the non-CTA group. Also following matching, only cases of mild to moderate PH without right ventricular dysfunction remained in the analysis. Matched groups were overall statistically similar with respect to baseline characteristics; however, there was a greater incidence of higher ASA class (P = .025) and cardiology and thoracic procedures (P < .001) being managed by the CTA group. No statistical differences were identified in practice patterns or outcomes related to the induction of anesthesia between groups, except for longer hospital length of stay in the CTA group (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: These results provide early evidence to suggest the induction of general anesthesia of patients with non-severe PH disease can be comparably managed by either anesthesiologists with or without a cardiothoracic fellowship. However, these findings should be confirmed in a prospective study.

Preoperative assessment of postoperative delirium: a cross-sectional study of patients and anesthesiologists in Canada.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate 1) patient- and anesthesiologist-reported rates of postoperative delirium (POD) risk discussion during preoperative meetings, 2) patients' and anesthesiologists' ratings of the importance of POD, and 3) predictors of patient-reported discussion of POD risk during preoperative meetings. METHODS: In this multicentre two-part cross-sectional survey study, patients ≥ 65 yr scheduled to undergo elective noncardiac surgery completed a five-minute survey after preoperative anesthesia consultation. Patients were asked about their perception of POD importance, and whether they discussed or were assessed for POD risk. Anesthesiologists were surveyed using self-administered surveys circulated via institutional email lists. Anesthesiologists were asked about the frequency of POD risk assessment and discussion in older adults, tools used, and perception of POD-screening barriers. RESULTS: Four hundred and twelve (of 510 approached) patients (50% male; mean age, 73 yr) and 267 anesthesiologists (of 1,205 invited via e-mail) participated in this study conducted in five Canadian hospitals. Postoperative delirium screening and discussion was reported by 88/412 (22%) patients and 229/267 (86%) anesthesiologists. Postoperative delirium was rated as "somewhat-extremely" important by 64% of patients. A previous history of delirium, higher education, the number of daily medications, and longer surgical duration were associated with POD discussion. On average, anesthesiologists rated the importance of POD at 8/10, and 42% ranked "patient risk factors" as the top reason prompting discussion. CONCLUSION: The combined evaluation of patients' and anesthesiologists' perspectives provides valuable information on preoperative POD screening and risk assessment, and highlights areas for improvement in the current practice. Most factors we identified to be associated with higher odds of POD discussion are recognized risk factors of POD.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à évaluer 1) les taux de discussion concernant le risque de delirium postopératoire (DPO) déclarés par les patient·es et les anesthésiologistes lors des rencontres préopératoires, 2) les évaluations des patient·es et des anesthésiologistes de l'importance de DPO, et 3) les prédicteurs d'une discussion telle que rapportée par les patient·es sur le risque de DPO pendant les rencontres préopératoires. MéTHODE: Dans ce sondage transversal multicentrique en deux parties, les patient·es ≥ 65 ans devant subir une chirurgie non cardiaque non urgente ont rempli un sondage de cinq minutes après la consultation d'anesthésie préopératoire. Les patient·es ont été interrogé·es sur leur perception de l'importance du DPO et si leur risque de DPO avait été discuté ou évalué. Des sondages auto-administrés ont été distribués aux anesthésiologistes via les listes de courriels institutionnelles. Ce sondage interrogeait les anesthésiologistes quant à la fréquence de l'évaluation et de la discussion des risques de DPO chez les personnes âgées, aux outils utilisés et à la perception des obstacles au dépistage de DPO. RéSULTATS: Quatre cent douze (des 510 personnes approchées) patient·es (50 % d'hommes; âge moyen, 73 ans) et 267 anesthésiologistes (sur 1205 invité·es par courriel) ont participé à cette étude menée dans cinq hôpitaux canadiens. Le dépistage et la discussion sur le delirium postopératoire ont été signalés par 88/412 (22 %) des patient·es et 229/267 (86 %) des anesthésiologistes. Le delirium postopératoire a été jugé « assez ­ extrêmement ¼ important par 64 % des patient·es. Des antécédents de delirium, des études supérieures, le nombre de médicaments quotidiens et une durée chirurgicale plus longue ont été associés à la discussion sur le DPO. En moyenne, les anesthésiologistes ont évalué l'importance du DPO à 8/10, et 42 % ont classé les « facteurs de risque liés au/à la patient·e ¼ comme la principale raison suscitant la discussion. CONCLUSION: L'évaluation combinée des points de vue des patient·es et des anesthésiologistes fournit des informations précieuses sur le dépistage préopératoire des DPO et l'évaluation des risques, et met en évidence les domaines à améliorer dans la pratique actuelle. La plupart des facteurs que nous avons identifiés comme étant associés à des probabilités plus élevées de discussion sur le DPO sont des facteurs de risque reconnus de DPO.

Ultrasound Rounds: Anesthesiologist-Performed Intraoperative Point-of-Care Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma Examination Changes Surgical Management.

Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) examinations have been performed for decades by surgeons during initial patient presentation for emergency care and surgical planning, as well as for guiding resuscitation. This case highlights how use of intraoperative FAST examinations performed by anesthesiologists can dramatically change patient management. Use by anesthesiologists perioperatively is an important skill, although it is not widely practiced.

ASA Physical Status Determination by General Internists and Impact on Cardiac Risk Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Estimating cardiac risk is important for preoperative evaluation, and several risk calculators incorporate the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score. The purpose of this study was to determine the concordance of ASA scores assigned by general internists and anesthesiologists and assess whether discrepancies affected cardiac risk estimation. METHODS: This observational study included military veterans evaluated in a preoperative evaluation clinic at a single center during a 12-month period. ASA scores were recorded by General Internal Medicine residents under the supervision of a General Internal Medicine attending, performing a preoperative medical consultation, and were compared with ASA scores assigned by an anesthesiologist on the day of surgery. ASA scores and Gupta Cardiac Risk Scores incorporating each ASA score were compared. RESULTS: Data were collected on 206 patients, 163 of whom had surgery within 90 days and were included. ASA scores were concordant in 60 patients (37.3%), whereas the ASA scores were rated lower by the general internist in 101 (62.0%) and higher in 2 (1.2%). Interrater reliability was low (κ = 0.08), and general internist scores were significantly lower than anesthesiologist scores (P < 0.01). Gupta Cardiac Risk Scores were calculated for 160 patients, and they exceeded 1% in 14 patients using the anesthesiologist ASA score, compared with 5 patients using the general internist score. CONCLUSIONS: ASA scores assigned by general internists in this study were significantly lower than those assigned by anesthesiologists, and these discrepancies in the ASA score can lead to substantially different conclusions about cardiac risk.