Chronic post amputation pain: pathophysiology and prevention options for a heterogenous phenomenon.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic postamputation pain (cPAP) remains a clinical challenge, and current understanding places a high emphasis on prevention strategies. Unfortunately, there is still no evidence-based regimen to reliably prevent chronic pain after amputation. RECENT FINDINGS: Risk factors for the development of phantom limb pain have been proposed. Analgesic preventive interventions are numerous and no silver bullet has been found. Novel techniques such as neuromodulation and cryoablation have been proposed. Surgical techniques focusing on reimplantation of the injured nerve might reduce the incidence of phantom limb pain after surgery. SUMMARY: Phantom limb pain is a multifactorial process involving profound functional and structural changes in the peripheral and central nervous system. These changes interact with individual medical, psychosocial and genetic patient risk factors. The patient collective of amputees is very heterogeneous. Available evidence suggests that efforts should focus on prevention of phantom limb pain, since treatment is notoriously difficult. Questions as yet unanswered include the evidence-base of specific analgesic interventions, their optimal "window of opportunity" where they may be most effective, and whether patient stratification according to biopsychosocial risk factors can help guide preventive therapy.

Understanding the Economic Impact of an Essential Service: Applying Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing to the Hospital Airway Response Team.

BACKGROUND: As the United States moves toward value-based care metrics, it will become essential for anesthesia groups nationwide to understand the costs of their services. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) estimates the amount of time it takes to perform a clinical activity by dividing complex tasks into process steps and mapping each step and has historically been used to estimate the costs of various health care services. TDABC is a tool that can be adapted for variable staffing models and the volume of service provided. Anesthesia departments often provide staffing for airway response teams (ART). The economic implications of staffing ART have not been well described. We present a TDABC model for ART activation in a tertiary-care center to estimate the cost incurred by an anesthesiology department to staff an ART. METHODS: Pages received by the Brigham and Women's Hospital ART over a 24-month time period (January 2019 to December 2020) were analyzed and categorized. The local administrative database was queried for the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code used to bill for emergency airway placements. Sessions were held by multiple members of the ART to create process maps for the different types of ART activations. We estimated the staffing costs using the estimated time it took for each type of ART activation as well as the data collected for local ART activations. RESULTS: From the paging records, we analyzed 3368 activations of the ART. During the study period, 1044 airways were billed for with emergency airway CPT code. The average revenue collected per airway was $198.45 (95% CI, $190-$207). For STAT/Emergency airway team activations, process maps and non-STAT airway team activations were created, and third subprocess map was created for performing endotracheal intubation. Using the TDABC, the total staffing costs are estimated to be $218,601 for the 2-year study period. The ART generated $207,181 in revenue during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of ART-activation pages suggests that while the revenue generated may cover the cost of staffing the team during ART activations, it does not cover consumable equipment costs. Additionally, the current fee-for-service model relies on the team being able to perform other clinical duties in addition to covering the airway pager and would be impossible to capture using traditional top-down costing methods. By using TDABC, anesthesia groups can demonstrate how certain services, such as ART, are not fully covered by current reimbursement models and how to negotiate for subsidy agreements.As the transition from traditional fee-for-service payments to value-based care models continues in the United States, improving the understanding and communication of medical care costs will be essential. In the United States, it is common for anesthesia groups to receive direct revenue from hospitals to preserve financial viability, and therefore, knowledge of true cost is essential regardless of payer model.1 With traditional payment models, what is billable and nonbillable may not reflect either the need for or the cost of providing the service. As anesthesia departments navigate the transition of care from volume to value, actual costs will be essential to understand for negotiations with hospitals for support when services are nonbillable, when revenue from payers does not cover anesthesia costs, and when calculating the appropriate share for anesthesia departments when bundled payments are distributed.

The Reporting on ERAS Compliance, Outcomes, and Elements Research (RECOvER) Checklist: A Joint Statement by the ERAS® and ERAS® USA Societies.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs are multimodal care pathways designed to minimize the physiological and psychological impact of surgery for patients. Increased compliance with ERAS guidelines is associated with improved patient outcomes across surgical types. As ERAS programs have proliferated, an unintentional effect has been significant variation in how ERAS-related studies are reported in the literature. METHODS: To improve the quality of ERAS reporting, ERAS® USA and the ERAS® Society launched an effort to create an instrument to assist authors in manuscript preparation. Criteria to include were selected by a combination of literature review and expert opinion. The final checklist was refined by group consensus. RESULTS: The Societies present the Reporting on ERAS Compliance, Outcomes, and Elements Research (RECOvER) Checklist. The tool contains 20 items including best practices for reporting clinical pathways, compliance auditing, and formatting guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The RECOvER Checklist is intended to provide a standardized framework for the reporting of ERAS-related studies. The checklist can also assist reviewers in evaluating the quality of ERAS-related manuscripts. Authors are encouraged to include the RECOvER Checklist when submitting ERAS-related studies to peer-reviewed journals.

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery for Colorectal Surgery: A Review of the Economic Implications.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs are transdisciplinary, evidence-based perioperative protocols that aim to standardize best practices and increase the value of delivered healthcare. Quality improvement programs such as ERAS for colorectal surgery have been linked to a reduction in rates of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) including surgical site infection as well as a reduction in overall length of stay. Importantly, to achieve these results, hospitals must commit to fostering transdisciplinary collaboration across surgery, anesthesiology, and nursing, as well as alignment between frontline providers and hospital executives. This requires upfront investment as well as ongoing resource allocation to sustain the program but given the magnitude of the potential impact of a successful ERAS program on multiple domains of quality and safety, the investment will easily reap ongoing rewards. The purpose of this manuscript is to outline implementation and sustainability costs of an ERAS program as well as discuss the potential cost savings related to the program to further inform hospitals considering adoption of this approach to care.

Labeling Morphine Milligram Equivalents on Opioid Packaging: a Potential Patient Safety Intervention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Given that the primary cause of overdose death in the USA is related to prescribed opioids, one potential strategy to improve awareness and decrease morbidity and/or mortality could include improved labeling. Specific patient populations which significantly struggle with adverse outcomes related to opioid abuse are seen in palliative care, chronic pain, and acute pain treatment settings. RECENT FINDINGS: An unexplored option for improving the healthcare quality and safety for patients currently prescribed opioids would be to require pharmaceutical companies to provide a morphine milligram equivalent (MME) on opioid packaging. Some limitations to MME conversions include equianalgesic conversions being estimates at best and may not account for variations in genetics and pharmacokinetics. Changing opioid labeling requirements is feasible as it falls under the purview of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has been mandated to provide mechanisms to reduce or to minimize overdoses related to opioid prescriptions. Labeling opioid packaging with MME per dose will promote clearer communication about opioid strength between patients and physicians. Labeling MME on packaging could help prevent prescriber errors.

Are Anesthesia Providers Ready for Hypnosis? Anesthesia Providers' Attitudes Toward Hypnotherapy.

This study sought to measure current attitudes toward hypnosis among anesthesia providers using an in-person survey distributed at a single grand rounds at a single academic teaching hospital. One hundred twenty-six anesthesia providers (anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists) were included in this study. A 10-question Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved questionnaire was developed. One hundred twenty-six (73% of providers at the meeting) anesthesia providers completed the survey. Of the respondents, 54 (43%) were anesthesiologists, 42 (33%) were trainees (interns/residents/fellows) in anesthesia, and 30 (24%) were nurse anesthetists. Over 70% of providers, at each level of training, rated their knowledge of hypnosis as either below average or having no knowledge. Fifty-two (42%) providers agreed or strongly agreed that hypnotherapy has a place in the clinical practice of anesthesia, while 103 (83%) believed that positive suggestion has a place in the clinical practice of anesthesia (p < .0001). Common reasons cited against using hypnosis were that it is too time consuming (41%) and requires special training (34%). Only three respondents (2%) believed that there were no reasons for using hypnosis in their practice. These data suggest that there is a self-reported lack of knowledge about hypnosis among anesthesia providers, although many anesthesia providers are open to the use of hypnosis in their clinical practice. Anesthesia providers are more likely to support the use of positive suggestion in their practice than hypnosis. Practical concerns should be addressed if hypnosis and therapeutic verbal techniques are to gain more widespread use.

Cost of sterility: probe covers should not be mandated for single-shot peripheral nerve blocks.

Ultrasound guidance has become ubiquitous with regional anesthesia, but little consistency exists on necessary ultrasound probe hygiene and sterility barriers. Fear of possible infection has led to calls for universal use of sterile ultrasound probe covers. Available data seems to suggest that single-shot peripheral nerve blocks have a low infectious risk. The widespread use of single-use disposable probe covers would carry an associated cost, increased environmental impact, and little evidence to suggest that they are effective at preventing infection if proper technique is used. While various parties have labeled single-shot nerve blocks as a sterile procedure, in practice, it is a clean technique. In this article, we argue that mandating the use of probe covers is unnecessary and that it should be left to the anesthesiologist to determine what type of anti-infection equipment is necessary for single-shot nerve blocks based on their practice situation and expertize.

Anesthesia start time documentation accuracy where peripheral nerve block is the primary anesthetic.

INTRODUCTION: When used as the primary anesthetic, nerve blocks are not billed as separate procedures. In this scenario, the anesthesia start (AStart) time should include the block procedural time. We measured how often AStart time was documented before the nerve block was placed in the preoperative area, and compared cases where a block team performed the nerve block and cases where the intraoperative anesthesia attending supervised the nerve block. We hypothesized that the involvement of a regional anesthesia team would lead to more accurate documentation of AStart. We also estimated the lost revenue due to inaccurate start time documentation. METHODS: The study population were patients undergoing surgery with a peripheral nerve block as the primary anesthetic. For this analysis, AStart occurring less than 10 min before the in-operating room time was defined as potentially inaccurate. Lost potential revenue was estimated by taking the difference between the documented time of local anesthetic administration and the documented AStart time. RESULTS: A total of 745 cases were analyzed. Overall, 439 cases (58%) cases were identified as having potentially inaccurate start times. There were higher rates of inaccurate AStart documentation by the block team (316/482, 65.5%) compared with blocks supervised by the in-room anesthesia attendings (123/263, 46.7%, p<0.001). Overall, the estimated loss in billable revenue during the study period was a total of $70 265. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of primary regional anesthesia procedure by a block team increased the incidence of inaccurate documentation and uncaptured potential revenue. There is need for education about accurate nerve block documentation for anesthesiologists, especially when separate teams are used.

There remains a role for neuraxial anesthesia for hip fracture surgery in the post-REGAIN era.

Two recent, large-scale, randomized controlled trials comparing neuraxial anesthesia with general anesthesia for patients undergoing surgical fixation of a hip fracture have sparked interest in the comparison of general and neuraxial anesthesia. These studies both reported non-superiority between general and neuraxial anesthesia in this patient cohort, yet they have limitations, like their sample size and use of composite outcomes. We worry that that if there is a perception among surgeons, nurses, patients and anesthesiologists that general and spinal anesthesia are equivalent (which is not what the authors of the studies conclude), it may become difficult to argue for the resources and training to provide neuraxial anesthesia to this patient population. In this daring discourse, we argue that despite the recent trials, there remain benefits of neuraxial anesthesia for patients who have suffered hip fractures and that abandoning offering neuraxial anesthesia to these patients would be an error.

Opioid sparing effects of intravenous and oral acetaminophen in hip fracture patients: A population-based study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Acetaminophen (APAP) and intravenous acetaminophen (IVAPAP) has been proposed as a part of many opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic pathways. The aim of this analysis was to compare the effectiveness of IVAPAP with oral APAP on opioid utilization and opioid-related adverse effects. DESIGN: Retrospective study of population-based database. PATIENTS: The Premier Healthcare database was queried patients undergoing surgery for a primary diagnosis of hip fracture from 2011 to 2019 yielding 245,976 patients. Primary exposure was use of IVAPAP or oral APAP on the day of surgery. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of interest was opioid utilization over the hospital stay, secondary outcomes included opioid-related adverse effects, length, and costs of hospital stay. Mixed effect models measured the association of IVPAP and APAP and outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: In the study population 30.67% (75,445) received at least 1 dose of IVAPAP on the day of surgery. Upon adjusting for relevant covariates, patients who received IVPAP on the day of surgery had slightly higher opioid use standardized by length of hospital stay (2.8% CI: 2%, 3.6%; p < .001), higher hospital cost (2.7% CI: 2.1%, 3.4%), and higher odds of naloxone use (1.18, CI: 1.1, 1.27; p < .001) when compared with patients who received oral APAP. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, IVAPAP use on the day of surgery failed to reduce opioid use or associated opioid related adverse effects when compared with oral APAP. IVAPAP was associated with increased overall costs, opioid requirements, and naloxone use. These results do not support the use of IV over oral APAP routinely for hip fracture surgery patients.

Intraoperative Methadone and Short Stay Spine Surgery: Possible Barriers to Implementation and Future Opportunities.

The frequency of shorter stay spine surgery is increasing. Acute pain is a common barrier to discharge following spine surgery. Long-acting opioid medications like methadone have the potential to provide sustained analgesia when given intraoperatively. Methadone has been effectively used in complex spine surgery, cardiac surgery, and more recently applied to ambulatory procedures. In this article, we summarize the pertinent available literature on the use of intraoperative methadone for spine surgery as well as the recent data on intraoperative methadone for ambulatory surgery. The aim of this perspectives article is to describe the potential opportunities for applying intraoperative methadone to shorter stay spine surgery as well as barriers to more widespread use. While there are currently no trials that have specifically studied methadone for shorter stay spine surgery specifically to date, it is a promising area for future research.

Ultrasound-Guided Nerve Blocks: Suggested Procedural Guidelines for Emergency Physicians.

Acute pain is one of the most frequent, and yet one of the most challenging, complaints physicians encounter in the emergency department (ED). Currently, opioids are one of several pain medications given for acute pain, but given the long-term side effects and potential for abuse, alternative pain regimens are sought. Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks (UGNB) can provide quick and sufficient pain control and therefore can be considered a component of a physician's multimodal pain plan in the ED. As UGNB are more widely implemented at the point of care, guidelines are needed to assist emergency providers to acquire the skill necessary to incorporate them into their acute pain management.