Improving Anesthesia Safety in Low-Resource Settings.

The safety of anesthesia characteristic of high-income countries today is not matched in low-resource settings with poor infrastructure, shortages of anesthesia providers, essential drugs, equipment, and supplies. Health care is delivered through complex systems. Achieving sustainable widespread improvement globally will require an understanding of how to influence such systems. Health outcomes depend not only on a country's income, but also on how resources are allocated, and both vary substantially, between and within countries. Safety is particularly important in anesthesia because anesthesia is intrinsically hazardous and not intrinsically therapeutic. Nevertheless, other elements of the quality of health care, notably access, must also be considered. More generally, there are certain prerequisites within society for health, captured in the Jakarta declaration. It is necessary to have adequate infrastructure (notably for transport and primary health care) and hospitals capable of safely carrying out the "Bellwether Procedures" (cesarean delivery, laparotomy, and the treatment of compound fractures). Surgery, supported by safe anesthesia, is critical to the health of populations, but avoidable harm from health care (including very high mortality rates from anesthesia in many parts of the world) is a major global problem. Thus, surgical and anesthesia services must not only be provided, they must be safe. The global anesthesia workforce crisis is a major barrier to achieving this. Many anesthetics today are administered by nonphysicians with limited training and little access to supervision or support, often working in very challenging circumstances. Many organizations, notably the World Health Organization and the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists, are working to improve access to and safety of anesthesia and surgery around the world. Challenges include collaboration with local stakeholders, coordination of effort between agencies, and the need to influence national health policy makers to achieve sustainable improvement. It is conceivable that safe anesthesia and perioperative care could be provided for essential surgical services today by clinicians with moderate levels of training using relatively simple (but appropriately designed and maintained) equipment and a limited number of inexpensive generic medications. However, there is a minimum standard for these resources, below which reasonable safety cannot be assured. This minimum (at least) should be available to all. Not only more resources, but also more equitable distribution of existing resources is required. Thus, the starting point for global access to safe anesthesia is acceptance that access to health care in general should be a basic human right everywhere.

A Primer on Population Health Management and Its Perioperative Application.

The movement toward value-based payment models, driven by governmental policies, federal statutes, and market forces, is propelling the importance of effectively managing the health of populations to the forefront in the United States and other developed countries. However, for many anesthesiologists, population health management is a new or even foreign concept. A primer on population health management and its potential perioperative application is thus presented here. Although it certainly continues to evolve, population health management can be broadly defined as the specific policies, programs, and interventions directed at optimizing population health. The Population Health Alliance has created a particularly cogent conceptual framework and interconnected and very useful population health process model, which together identify the key components of population health and its management. Population health management provides a useful rationale for patients, providers, payers, and policymakers to move collectively away from the traditional system of individual, siloed providers to a more integrated, coordinated, team-based approach, thus creating a holistic view of the patient population. The goal of population health management is to keep the targeted patient population as healthy as possible, thus minimizing the need for costly interventions such as emergency department visits, acute hospitalizations, laboratory testing and imaging, and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Population health management strategies are increasingly more important to leaders of health care systems as the health of populations for which they care, especially in a strong cost risk-sharing environment, must be optimized. Most population health management efforts rely on a patient-centric team approach, coordination of care, effective communication, robust outcomes data analysis, and continuous quality improvement. Anesthesiologists have an opportunity to help lead these efforts in concert with their surgical and nursing colleagues. The Triple Aim of Healthcare includes (1) improving the patient experience of care (including quality and satisfaction); (2) improving the health of populations; and (3) reducing per-capita costs of care. The Perioperative Surgical Home essentially seeks to transform perioperative care by achieving the Triple Aim, including improving the health of the surgical population. Many health care delivery systems and many clinicians (including anesthesiologists) are just beginning their population health management journeys. However, by doing so, they are preparing to navigate a much greater risk-sharing landscape, where these efforts can create greater financial stability by preventing major financial loss. Anesthesiologists can and should be leaders in this effort to add value by improving the comprehensive continuum of care of our patients.

[Acute pain therapy in German hospitals as competitive factor. Do competition, ownership and case severity influence the practice of acute pain therapy?]. / Akutschmerztherapie in deutschen Krankenhäusern als Wettbewerbsfaktor. Wird die Praxis der Akutschmerztherapie von Wettbewerb, Trägerschaft und Fallschwere beeinflusst?

BACKGROUND: Due to the implementation of the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system, the competitive pressure on German hospitals increased. In this context it has been shown that acute pain management offers economic benefits for hospitals. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the competitive situation, the ownership and the economic resources required on structures and processes for acute pain management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A standardized questionnaire on structures and processes of acute pain management was mailed to the 885 directors of German departments of anesthesiology listed as members of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin). RESULTS: For most hospitals a strong regional competition existed; however, this parameter affected neither the implementation of structures nor the recommended treatment processes for pain therapy. In contrast, a clear preference for hospitals in private ownership to use the benchmarking tool QUIPS (quality improvement in postoperative pain therapy) was found. These hospitals also presented information on coping with the management of pain in the corporate clinic mission statement more often and published information about the quality of acute pain management in the quality reports more frequently. No differences were found between hospitals with different forms of ownership in the implementation of acute pain services, quality circles, expert standard pain management and the implementation of recommended processes. Hospitals with a higher case mix index (CMI) had a certified acute pain management more often. The corporate mission statement of these hospitals also contained information on how to cope with pain, presentation of the quality of pain management in the quality report, implementation of quality circles and the implementation of the expert standard pain management more frequently. There were no differences in the frequency of using the benchmarking tool QUIPS or the implementation of recommended treatment processes with respect to the CMI. CONCLUSION: In this survey no effect of the competitive situation of hospitals on acute pain management could be demonstrated. Private ownership and a higher CMI were more often associated with structures of acute pain management which were publicly accessible in terms of hospital marketing.

Choice of anesthetic technique for needle localized breast biopsy.

General anesthesia has been recommended to increase the accuracy and safety of needle localized biopsy (NLB). The authors' NLB experience was reviewed to determine whether the method of anesthesia affected accuracy, yield, complication rate, or cost. All biopsies were performed in a standard operating room using either local anesthesia (Group 1, n = 14), local anesthesia with an anesthesiologist present (Group 2, n = 14), or general anesthesia (Group 3, n = 10). The mean operative times were 54, 59, and 56 minutes for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In groups 1 and 2, 100 per cent of the specimen radiographs showed the target lesion had been excised, although one biopsy was indeterminate. Among Group 3 two target lesions could not be identified on specimen radiographs and one was indeterminate. There was one malignancy in Group 1 compared with four malignancies in Group 2 and two in Group 3. The average hospital bill was $1,172 for Group 1, $1,418 for Group 2, and $1,488 for Group 3. Anesthesiologists' fees added an additional $224 to Groups 2 and 3. NLB can be performed using local anesthesia without sacrificing accuracy or yield, increasing operative time, or increasing complication rate; the cost is significantly less than with general anesthesia.