In-House Anesthesia and Interventional Radiology Technologist Support Optimize Mechanical Thrombectomy Workflow after Hours.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prior literature suggests after-hours delay leads to poor functional outcomes in stroke patients undergoing thrombectomy. We aimed to evaluate the impact of time of presentation on mechanical thrombectomy (MT) metrics and its association with long-term functional outcome in an Interventional Radiology (IR) suite equipped operating room (OR) setting. METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively maintained database on all stroke patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy between January 2015 and December 2018 at our CSC. Work hours were defined by official OR work hours (Monday-Friday 7 AM and 5 PM) and after-hours as between 5 PM and 7 AM during weekdays and weekends as well as official hospital holidays. Primary outcome was 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Secondary outcomes included door to groin puncture time and procedural complications. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients were included in the analyses. 209 (66.4%) received mechanical thrombectomy after hours and 106 (33.6%) during work hours. There was no difference in the shift distribution of functional outcome on the mRS at 90 days (OR: 1.14, CI: 0.72-1.78, p=0.58) and the percentage of patients achieving functional independence (mRS 0-2) at 90 days (43.1% vs. 41.3%; p=0.83) between the after hour and work hour groups respectively. Similarly, there was no difference in median door to groin times and procedural complications among both groups, with significant year on year improvement in overall time metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that undergoing MT during off-hours had similar functional outcomes when compared to MT during working hours in an OR setting. The after-hours deleterious effect might disappear when MT is performed in a system with 24-hours in-house Anesthesia and IR tech services.

Cardiogenic Shock in Perioperative and Intraoperative Settings: A Team Approach.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a multifactorial disease process with high morbidity and mortality. When it occurs in a peri- or intraoperative setting, factors such as surgery, anesthesia, and post-surgical physiology can negatively affect patient outcomes. Since patient needs often escalate during CS-from medications to mechanical support to palliative care-this disease demands a multidisciplinary approach that encompasses all aspects of medical delivery. Preliminary studies have indicated that a multidisciplinary team approach to CS results in earlier diagnosis and treatment and improves patient outcomes. Here we discuss various management strategies for CS from an anesthesiology, surgery, and critical care perspective.

Improving Access to Safe Anesthetic Care in Rural and Remote Communities in Affluent Countries.

Inadequate access to anesthesia and surgical services is often considered to be a problem of low- and middle-income countries. However, affluent nations, including Canada, Australia, and the United States, also face shortages of anesthesia and surgical care in rural and remote communities. Inadequate services often disproportionately affect indigenous populations. A lack of anesthesia care providers has been identified as a major contributing factor to the shortfall of surgical and obstetrical care in rural and remote areas of these countries. This report summarizes the challenges facing the provision of anesthesia services in rural and remote regions. The current landscape of anesthesia providers and their training is described. We also explore innovative strategies and emerging technologies that could better support physician-led anesthesia care teams working in rural and remote areas. Ultimately, we believe that it is the responsibility of specialist anesthesiologists and academic health sciences centers to facilitate access to high-quality care through partnership with other stakeholders. Professional medical organizations also play an important role in ensuring the quality of care and continuing professional development. Enhanced collaboration between academic anesthesiologists and other stakeholders is required to meet the challenge issued by the World Health Organization to ensure access to essential anesthesia and surgical services for all.

Anesthesiologists and Disaster Medicine: A Needs Assessment for Education and Training and Reported Willingness to Respond.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists provide comprehensive health care across the emergency department, operating room, and intensive care unit. To date, anesthesiologists' perspectives regarding disaster medicine and public health preparedness have not been described. METHODS: Anesthesiologists' thoughts and attitudes were assessed via a Web-based survey at 3 major academic institutions. Frequencies, percentages, and odds ratios (ORs) were used to assess self-reported perceptions of knowledge and skills, as well as attitudes and beliefs regarding education and training, employee development, professional obligation, safety, psychological readiness, efficacy, personal preparedness, and willingness to respond (WTR). Three representative disaster scenarios (natural disaster [ND], radiological event [RE], and pandemic influenza [PI]) were investigated. Results are reported as percent or OR (95% confidence interval). RESULTS: Participants included 175 anesthesiology attendings (attendings) and 95 anesthesiology residents (residents) representing a 47% and 51% response rate, respectively. A minority of attendings indicated that their hospital provides adequate pre-event preparation and training (31% [23-38] ND, 14% [9-21] RE, and 40% [31-49] PI). Few residents felt that their residency program provided them with adequate preparation and training (22% [14-33] ND, 16% [8-27] RE, and 17% [9-29] PI). Greater than 85% of attendings (89% [84-94] ND, 88% [81-92] RE, and 87% [80-92] PI) and 70% of residents (81% [71-89] ND, 71% [58-81] RE, and 82% [70-90] PI) believe that their hospital or residency program, respectively, should provide them with preparation and training. Approximately one-half of attendings and residents are confident that they would be safe at work during response to a ND or PI (55% [47-64] and 58% [49-67] of attendings; 59% [48-70] and 48% [35-61] of residents, respectively), whereas approximately one-third responded the same regarding a RE (31% [24-40] of attendings and 28% [18-41] of residents). Fewer than 40% of attendings (34% [26-43]) and residents (38% [27-51]) designated who would take care of their family obligations in the event they were called into work during a disaster. Regardless of severity, 79% (71-85) of attendings and 73% (62-82) of residents indicated WTR to a ND, whereas 81% (73-87) of attendings and 70% (58-81) of residents indicated WTR to PI. Fewer were willing to respond to a RE (63% [55-71] of attendings and 52% [39-64] of residents). In adjusted logistic regression analyses, those anesthesiologists who reported knowing one's role in response to a ND (OR, 15.8 [4.5-55.3]) or feeling psychologically prepared to respond to a ND (OR, 6.9 [2.5-19.0]) were found to be more willing to respond. Similar results were found for RE and PI constructs. Both attendings and residents were willing to respond in whatever capacity needed, not specifically to provide anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Few anesthesiologists reported receiving sufficient education and training in disaster medicine and public health preparedness. Providing education and training and enhancing related employee services may further bolster WTR and help to build a more capable and effective medical workforce for disaster response.

A Survey of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Regarding Environmental Attitudes, Knowledge, and Organization.

Our planet is in the midst of an environmental crisis. Government and international agencies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urge radical and transformative change at every level of how we conduct our personal and professional lives. The health care industry contributes to climate change. According to a study from the University of Chicago, the health care sector accounts for 8% of the United States' total greenhouse gas emissions. In an effort to understand the current state of environmental practice, attitudes, and knowledge among anesthesiologists in the United States, we conducted a survey of American anesthesiologists regarding environmental sustainability. The environmental survey was sent out by e-mail to a random sampling of 5200 members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. This process was repeated a second time. A total of 2189 anesthesiologists of 5200 responded to the survey, a 42% response rate. Of the survey respondents, 80.1% (confidence interval, 78.2%-81.9%) were interested in recycling. Respondents reported recycling in 27.7% of operating rooms where they work. The majority of respondents (67%; confidence interval, 64%-69%) reported there was insufficient information on how to recycle intraoperatively. Respondents supported sustainability practices such as reprocessing equipment, using prefilled syringes, and donating unused equipment and supplies. The affirmative response rate was 48.4% for reprocessing equipment, 56.6% for using prefilled syringes, and 65.1% for donating equipment and supplies to medical missions. Questions about hospital-wide organization of sustainability programs elicited many "I don't know" responses. Eighteen percent of responders indicated the presence of a sustainability or "green" task force. A total of 12.6% of responders indicated the presence of a mandate from hospital leadership to promote sustainability programs. Two important conclusions drawn from the survey data are a lack of hospital-wide organization of sustainability programs and a belief among survey responders that they lack adequate information on recycling and sustainability.