Effectiveness of Written and Oral Specialty Certification Examinations to Predict Actions against the Medical Licenses of Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Anesthesiology administers written and oral examinations for its primary certification. This retrospective cohort study tested the hypothesis that the risk of a disciplinary action against a physician's medical license is lower in those who pass both examinations than those who pass only the written examination. METHODS: Physicians who entered anesthesiology training from 1971 to 2011 were followed up to 2014. License actions were ascertained via the Disciplinary Action Notification Service of the Federation of State Medical Boards. RESULTS: The incidence rate of license actions was relatively stable over the study period, with approximately 2 to 3 new cases per 1,000 person-years. In multivariable models, the risk of license actions was higher in men (hazard ratio = 1.88 [95% CI, 1.66 to 2.13]) and lower in international medical graduates (hazard ratio = 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66 to 0.81]). Compared with those passing both examinations on the first attempt, those passing neither examination (hazard ratio = 3.60 [95% CI, 3.14 to 4.13]) and those passing only the written examination (hazard ratio = 3.51 [95% CI, 2.87 to 4.29]) had an increased risk of receiving an action from a state medical board. The risk was no different between the latter two groups (P = 0.81), showing that passing the oral but not the written primary certification examination is associated with a decreased risk of subsequent license actions. For those with residency performance information available, having at least one unsatisfactory training record independently increased the risk of license actions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the concept that an oral examination assesses domains important to physician performance that are not fully captured in a written examination.

The impaired and/or disabled anesthesiologist.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Impairment and/or disability resulting from any of a number of etiologies will afflict a significant number of anesthesiologists at some point during their career. The impaired anesthesiologist can be difficult to identify and challenging to manage. Questions will arise as to if, how, and when colleagues, family members, or friends should intercede if significant impairment is suspected.This review will examine the common sources of impairment among anesthesiologists and the professional implications of these conditions. We will discuss the obligations of an anesthesiologist and his/her colleagues when there is sufficient suspicion that he/she might be impaired. RECENT FINDINGS: Substance use disorder remains one of the commonest sources of impairment among both resident and attending anesthesiologists. Other common etiologies of impairment include various physical ailments, major psychiatric disorders, especially depression and burnout, and age related dementia. Many regulatory organizations, healthcare systems, and state licensing agencies have developed programmes and protocols with which to identify and direct into treatment those suspected of significant impairment. SUMMARY: Some degree of impairment will occur to one-third of anesthesiologists during the course of their career. It is important to understand how such impairments might impact the safe practice of anesthesiology.

Quality organization and risk in anaesthesia: the French perspective.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ensuring the quality and safety of anaesthesia in the face of budgetary restrictions and changing demographics is challenging. In France, the environment is regulated by the legislation, and it is often necessary to find solutions that seize opportunities to break with the traditional organization. RECENT FINDINGS: Postoperative mortality remains excessively high. The move towards ambulatory care is being adequately integrated into all the stages of patient management in the context of a single therapeutic plan that is mutually agreed upon by all caregivers. The French National Health Authority, which provides certification for healthcare establishments, encourages this 'seamless' approach between private practice and the hospital setting, based on teamwork and interdisciplinary consultation. By daring to break with traditional organizational structures, and by taking account of human factors and staged strategies, it is possible to deliver appropriate care, with a level of quality and safety that meets users' demands. SUMMARY: The management of a patient undergoing surgery with anaesthesia is a seamless spectrum from the patient's home to the hospital and back to home. Decision-making must be multidisciplinary. Increased use of ambulatory care, breaks with traditional organizational structures, and efforts to reduce postoperative mortality represents opportunities to improve overall system performance. Demographic and economic constraints are potential threats to be identified.

The Effect of "Opt-Out" Regulation on Access to Surgical Care for Urgent Cases in the United States: Evidence from the National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a rule permitting states to "opt-out" of federal regulations requiring physician supervision of nurse anesthetists. We examined the extent to which this rule increased access to anesthesia care for urgent cases. METHODS: Using data from a national sample of inpatient discharges, we examined whether opt-out was associated with an increase in the percentage of patients receiving a therapeutic procedure among patients admitted for appendicitis, bowel obstruction, choledocholithiasis, or hip fracture. We chose these 4 diagnoses because they represent instances where urgent access to a procedure requiring anesthesia is often indicated. In addition, we examined whether opt-out was associated with a reduction in the number of appendicitis patients who presented with a ruptured appendix. In addition to controlling for patient morbidities and demographics, our analysis incorporated a difference-in-differences approach, with additional controls for state-year trends, to reduce confounding. RESULTS: Across all 4 diagnoses, opt-out was not associated with a statistically significant change in the percentage of patients who received a procedure (0.0315 percentage point increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.843 to 0.906 percentage point increase). When broken down by diagnosis, opt-out was also not associated with statistically significant changes in the percentage of patients who received a procedure for bowel obstruction (0.511 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.26), choledocholithiasis (2.78 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -6.12 to 0.565), and hip fracture (0.291 percentage point increase, 95% CI -1.76 to 2.94). Opt-out was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the percentage of appendicitis patients receiving an appendectomy (0.876 percentage point increase, 95% CI 0.194 to 1.56); however, there was no significant change in the percentage of patients presenting with a ruptured appendix (-0.914 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -2.41 to 0.582). Subanalyses showed that the effects of opt-out did not differ in rural versus urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Based on 2 measures of access, opt-out does not appear to have significantly increased access to anesthesia for urgent inpatient conditions.

Presence of anesthesiologists and nurses in the operating room: Liability of surgeons and health care facilities.

The presence of an anesthesiologist and certified registered nurse anesthesiologist in the operating room remains a topic of discussion in many facilities. This article provides an overview on the legislation and recommendations on this topic and recounts some of the related jurisprudence. The opinions of various actors, surgeons, anesthesiologists, anesthesiology-intensive care physicians, certified registered nurse anesthesiologists, care-facility directors and insurance companies are included. Based on these elements, we attempt to answer the question of presence of competence in anesthesiology in the operating room.

A medicolegal analysis of positioning-related perioperative peripheral nerve injuries occurring between 1996 and 2015.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To provide an analysis of closed malpractice claims brought against anesthesiologists for positioning-related perioperative nerve injury (PRPNI). DESIGN: In this retrospective study, we analyzed closed claims data from the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) database. SETTING: Closed claims involving nerve injuries that occurred between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2015 in all surgical settings, provided the alleged damaging event occurred under general anesthesia. PATIENTS: Patient ages ranged from 23 to 94. Patients underwent a variety of surgical procedures. Severity of nerve injury ranged from "Insignificant" to "Grave" according to the NAIC Severity of Injury Code. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Patient age and gender, alleged nerve injury type and severity, operating surgical specialty, contributing factors to the alleged nerve injury, and case outcome. Some of these data were drawn directly from coded variables in the CBS database, and some were gathered by the authors from CRICO-encoded narrative case summaries. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-five claims were determined to represent PRPNI. Ninety-two percent of all PRPNI claims involved practitioner technical knowledge/performance. Of all the recorded nerve injuries in this series, 56% involved brachial plexus injuries, and supine patient positioning represented 55% of brachial plexus claims. Settlement payments were made in 33% of claims, and the average payment for all cases was $46,269. Twenty-four percent of PRPNI claims were found to be temporary, while 76% were permanent. CONCLUSIONS: PRPNI is multifactorial, and stems both from practitioner errors as well as from patient comorbidities and pre-existing neuropathies. Supine positioning can increase PRPNI risk. There are likely still causes of PRPNI of which we are not yet aware, given that despite concerted efforts towards positioning and padding interventions, injuries such as those described in this study still occur.

A medicolegal analysis of malpractice claims involving anesthesiologists in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite (2007-2016).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Gastrointestinal endoscopy cases make up the largest portion of out of operating room malpractice claims involving anesthesiologists. To date, there has been no closed claims analysis specifically focusing on the claims from the endoscopy suite. We aim to identify associated case characteristics and contributing factors. DESIGN: Retrospective review of closed claims. SETTING: Multi-institutional setting of hospitals that submit data to the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Comparative Benchmarking System, a database representing approximately 30% of annual malpractice cases in the United States. PATIENTS: A total of 58 claims in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. MEASUREMENTS: We analyzed associated factors for each case as well as payments, and severity scores. MAIN RESULTS: There was a difference in the percent of cases that resulted in payment by procedure type, with 91% of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) cases resulting in payment compared with 37.5% of colonoscopy cases, 25% of combined esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/colonoscopy cases, 21.4% of EGD cases and 0.0% of endoscopic ultrasound cases (P = 0.0008). Oversedation was a possible contributing factor in 62.5% of cases. The mean payment for all claims involving anesthesiologists in the endoscopy suite was $99,754. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the rates of payment of malpractice claims between procedures. ERCPs made up a disproportionate percentage of the total amount paid to patients. While a significant percent of cases involved possible oversedation, these errors were compounded by other factors, such as failure to resuscitate or recognize the acute clinical change. With medically complex patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, it is critical to have well prepared anesthesia providers.

The liability of the anaesthesiologist in ambulatory surgery.

With the development of ambulatory surgery, there may be questions about the legal risk of this procedure. Indeed, the discharge of the patient from the hospital on the same day as the medical treatment raises the problem of monitoring and supervising potential complications, with a substantial delay in medical care, and the anaesthesiologists can be confronted with new areas of liability. This article specifies the French statutory and legal framework of the ambulatory surgery, and shows how the responsibility of the anaesthesiologist can be involved during patient care at all steps. The analysis of judicial precedent shows that the legal risk for the anaesthesiologist also exists in outpatient surgery. Surgery and anaesthesia are medical procedures involving a relatively high risk of damage for the patient. The damage can be attributed to malpractice from one or several health care professionals or to a medical complication (abnormal damage not related to malpractice and independent of past medical history of the patient). In the light of the ongoing and significant development in ambulatory surgery, there may be questions about the legal risk of this procedure. Indeed, the discharge of the patient from the hospital on the same day as the medical treatment raises the problem of monitoring and supervising potential complications, with a substantial delay in medical care. If the patient suffers any damage, the surgeon, the anaesthesiologist and in some cases, the hospital will have to answer in courts: the surgeon for the surgical procedure, the anaesthesiologist for the medical care and the hospital as the liable institution. After having specified the statutory framework of ambulatory surgery, we will see how the responsibility of the anaesthesiologist can be involved during patient care at all steps.

Ethical and legal duty of anesthesiologists regarding Jehovah's Witness patient: care protocol.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Jehovah's Witnesses patients refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons. Anesthesiologists must master specific legal knowledge to provide care to these patients. Understanding how the Law and the Federal Council of Medicine treat this issue is critical to know how to act in this context. The aim of this paper was to establish a treatment protocol for the Jehovah's Witness patient with emphasis on ethical and legal duty of the anesthesiologist. CONTENT: The article analyzes the Constitution, Criminal Code, resolutions of the Federal Council of Medicine, opinions, and jurisprudence to understand the limits of the conflict between the autonomy of will of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse transfusion and the physician's duty to provide the transfusion. Based on this evidence, a care protocol is suggested. CONCLUSIONS: The Federal Council of Medicine resolution 1021/1980, the penal code Article 135, which classifies denial of care as a crime and the Supreme Court decision on the HC 268,459/SP process imposes on the physician the obligation of blood transfusion when life is threatened. The patient's or guardian's consent is not necessary, as the autonomy of will manifestation of the Jehovah's Witness patient refusing blood transfusion for himself and relatives, even in emergencies, is no not forbidden.

Ethical and legal duty of anesthesiologists regarding Jehovah's Witness patient: care protocol / Dever ético e legal do anestesiologista frente ao paciente testemunha de Jeová: protocolo de atendimento

Abstract Background and objectives: Jehovah's Witnesses patients refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons. Anesthesiologists must master specific legal knowledge to provide care to these patients. Understanding how the Law and the Federal Council of Medicine treat this issue is critical to know how to act in this context. The aim of this paper was to establish a treatment protocol for the Jehovah's Witness patient with emphasis on ethical and legal duty of the anesthesiologist. Content: The article analyzes the Constitution, Criminal Code, resolutions of the Federal Council of Medicine, opinions, and jurisprudence to understand the limits of the conflict between the autonomy of will of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse transfusion and the physician's duty to provide the transfusion. Based on this evidence, a care protocol is suggested. Conclusions: The Federal Council of Medicine resolution 1021/1980, the penal code Article 135, which classifies denial of care as a crime and the Supreme Court decision on the HC 268,459/SP process imposes on the physician the obligation of blood transfusion when life is threatened. The patient's or guardian's consent is not necessary, as the autonomy of will manifestation of the Jehovah's Witness patient refusing blood transfusion for himself and relatives, even in emergencies, is no not forbidden.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos: Os pacientes testemunhas de Jeová recusam transfusão sanguínea por motivos religiosos. O anestesiologista deve dominar conhecimentos jurídicos específicos para atender esses pacientes. Entender como o direito e o Conselho Federal de Medicina tratam essa questão é fundamental para saber agir dentro desse contexto. O objetivo deste artigo foi estabelecer um protocolo de atendimento do paciente testemunha de Jeová com ênfase no dever ético e legal do anestesiologista. Conteúdo: O artigo analisa a Constituição, o Código Penal, resoluções do Conselho Federal de Medicina (CFM), pareceres e jurisprudência para entender os limites do conflito entre a autonomia de vontade da testemunha de Jeová em recusar transfusão e a obrigação do médico em transfundir. Baseado nessas evidências um protocolo de atendimento é sugerido. Conclusões: A resolução do CFM 1021/1980, o Código Penal no artigo 135, que classifica como crime a omissão de socorro, e a decisão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça sobre o processo HC 268.459/SP impõem ao médico a obrigação de transfusão quando houver risco de vida. Não é necessário concordância do paciente ou de seu responsável, pois não é proibida a manifestação de vontade do paciente testemunha de Jeová ao recusar transfusão sanguínea para si e seus dependentes, mesmo em emergências.