Decision-Making During High-Risk Events: A Systematic Literature Review.

Effective decision-making in crisis events is challenging due to time pressure, uncertainty, and dynamic decisional environments. We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed and PsycINFO, identifying 32 empiric research papers that examine how trained professionals make naturalistic decisions under pressure. We used structured qualitative analysis methods to extract key themes. The studies explored different aspects of decision-making across multiple domains. The majority (19) focused on healthcare; military, fire and rescue, oil installation, and aviation domains were also represented. We found appreciable variability in research focus, methodology, and decision-making descriptions. We identified five main themes: (1) decision-making strategy, (2) time pressure, (3) stress, (4) uncertainty, and (5) errors. Recognition-primed decision-making (RPD) strategies were reported in all studies that analyzed this aspect. Analytical strategies were also prominent, appearing more frequently in contexts with less time pressure and explicit training to generate multiple explanations. Practitioner experience, time pressure, stress, and uncertainty were major influencing factors. Professionals must adapt to the time available, types of uncertainty, and individual skills when making decisions in high-risk situations. Improved understanding of these decisional factors can inform evidence-based enhancements to training, technology, and process design.

Liberal vs. restricted opioid prescribing following midurethral sling dataset.

Postoperative opioid prescribing has historically lacked information critical to balancing the pain control needs of the individual patient with our professional responsibility to judiciously prescribe these high-risk medications. This data evaluates pain control, satisfaction with pain control, and opioid utilization among patients undergoing isolated mid-urethral sling (MUS) randomized to one of two different opioid prescribing regimens. This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04277975). Women undergoing isolated MUS by a Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery physician at a Penn State Health hospital from June 1, 2020 to November 22, 2021 were offered enrollment into this prospective, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial. Participants gave informed consent and were enrolled by a member of the study team. Allocation was concealed to patient and study personnel until randomization on the day of surgery. Preoperatively, all participants completed baseline demographic and pain surveys including CSI-9, PCS, and Likert pain score (scale 0-10). Participants were randomized to either receive a standard prescription of ten 5 mg tablets oxycodone provided preoperatively (standard) or opioid prescription provided only upon patient request postoperatively (restricted). Randomization was performed by the study team surgeon using the REDCap randomization module on the day of surgery. Following MUS, subjects completed a daily diary for 1 week, i.e., postoperative day (POD) 0 through 7. Within the dairy, subjects provided the following information: average daily pain score, opioid use and amount of opioid utilized, other forms of pain management, satisfaction with pain control, perception of the amount of opioid prescribed, and need for pain management hospital/clinic visits. The online Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) was queried for all patients to determine if prescriptions for opioids were filled during the postoperative period. The primary outcome was average postoperative day 1 pain score and an a priori determined margin of non-inferiority was set at 2 points. Secondary outcomes included whether subject filled an opioid prescription (indicated by the online PDMP), opioid use (yes/no), satisfaction with pain control (on a scale of 1= "much worse" to 5= "much better" than expected), and how subjects felt about the amount of opioid prescribed (on a scale of 1="prescribed far more" to 3="prescribed the right amount" to 5="prescribed far less" opioid than needed). 82 participants underwent isolated MUS placement and met inclusion criteria; 40 were randomized to the standard arm and 42 to the restricted group. Within this manuscript, we detail the data obtained from this randomized clinical trial and the methods utilized.

Antiemetic Administration and Its Association with Race: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists' contribution to perioperative healthcare disparities remains unclear because patient and surgeon preferences can influence care choices. Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a patient- centered outcome measure and a main driver of unplanned admissions. Antiemetic administration is under the sole domain of anesthesiologists. In a U.S. sample, Medicaid insured versus commercially insured patients and those with lower versus higher median income had reduced antiemetic administration, but not all risk factors were controlled for. This study examined whether a patient's race is associated with perioperative antiemetic administration and hypothesized that Black versus White race is associated with reduced receipt of antiemetics. METHODS: An analysis was performed of 2004 to 2018 Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data. The primary outcome of interest was administration of either ondansetron or dexamethasone; secondary outcomes were administration of each drug individually or both drugs together. The confounder-adjusted analysis included relevant patient demographics (Apfel postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors: sex, smoking history, postoperative nausea and vomiting or motion sickness history, and postoperative opioid use; as well as age) and included institutions as random effects. RESULTS: The Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data contained 5.1 million anesthetic cases from 39 institutions located in the United States and The Netherlands. Multivariable regression demonstrates that Black patients were less likely to receive antiemetic administration with either ondansetron or dexamethasone than White patients (290,208 of 496,456 [58.5%] vs. 2.24 million of 3.49 million [64.1%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.82; P < 0.001). Black as compared to White patients were less likely to receive any dexamethasone (140,642 of 496,456 [28.3%] vs. 1.29 million of 3.49 million [37.0%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.78; P < 0.001), any ondansetron (262,086 of 496,456 [52.8%] vs. 1.96 million of 3.49 million [56.1%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.85; P < 0.001), and dexamethasone and ondansetron together (112,520 of 496,456 [22.7%] vs. 1.0 million of 3.49 million [28.9%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.79; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a perioperative registry data set, Black versus White patient race was associated with less antiemetic administration, after controlling for all accepted postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors.

Social determinants of health: modeling and targeting patient propensity to attend pain clinic appointments.

Aim: We sought to investigate the impact of social determinants of health on pain clinic attendance. Materials & methods: Retrospective data were collected from the Pain Center at Montefiore Medical Center from 2016 to 2020 and analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Results: African-Americans were less likely to attend appointments compared with White patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.70-0.77; p < 0.001). Males had decreased attendance compared with females (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.87-0.92; p < 0.001). Compared with commercial, those with Medicaid (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.66-0.72; p < 0.001) and Medicare (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.73-0.80; p < 0.001) insurance had decreased attendance. Conclusion: Significant disparities exist in pain clinic attendance based upon social determinants of health including race, gender and insurance type.

We aimed to investigate social determinants of health, such as race and type of insurance, and their role in patients' attendance of pain clinic appointments. Data were collected over several years and statistical analysis was performed on over 145,000 patient encounters. It was found that patients with Medicaid and Medicare were less likely to attend appointments compared with patients with commercial insurance. Black or African­American patients were also less likely to attend compared with White patients. Spanish speaking patients were more likely to attend compared with English speaking patients, showing that previous interventions aimed at reducing the language barrier for Spanish speaking patients continue to be successful after many years. Overall, significant disparities exist in pain clinic attendance based upon social determinants of health. Further research is needed to investigate reasons and potential areas of interventions. Patients insured with Medicare and Medicaid may also have greater transportation issues, a potential focus for further studies and targeted interventions.

Health equity research in obstetric anesthesia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Health equity is an important priority for obstetric anesthesia, but describing disparities in perinatal care process and health outcome is insufficient to achieve this goal. Conceptualizing and framing disparity is a prerequisite to pose meaningful research questions. We emphasize the need to hypothesize and test which mechanisms and drivers are instrumental for disparities in perinatal processes and outcomes, in order to target, test and refine effective countermeasures. RECENT FINDINGS: With an emphasis on methodology and measurement, we sketch how health systems and disparity research may advance maternal health equity by narrating, conceptualizing, and investigating social determinants of health as key drivers of perinatal disparity, by identifying the granular mechanism of this disparity, by making the economic case to address them, and by testing specific interventions to advance obstetric health equity. SUMMARY: Measuring social determinants of health and meaningful perinatal processes and outcomes precisely and accurately at the individual, family, community/neighborhood level is a prerequisite for healthcare disparity research. A focus on elucidating the precise mechanism driving disparity in processes of obstetric care would inform a more rational effort to promote health equity. Implementation scientists should rigorously investigate in prospective trials, which countermeasures are most efficient and effective in mitigating perinatal outcome disparities.

A randomized trial of standard vs restricted opioid prescribing following midurethral sling.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative opioid prescribing has historically lacked information crucial to balancing the pain control needs of the individual patient with our professional responsibility to judiciously prescribe these high-risk medications. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate pain control, satisfaction with pain control, and opioid use among patients undergoing isolated midurethral sling randomized to 1 of 2 different opioid-prescribing regimens. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who underwent isolated midurethral sling placement from June 1, 2020, to November 22, 2021, were offered enrollment into this prospective, randomized, open-label, noninferiority clinical trial. Participants were randomized to receive either a standard prescription of ten 5-mg oxycodone tablets provided preoperatively (standard) or an opioid prescription provided only during patient request postoperatively (restricted). Preoperatively, all participants completed baseline demographic and pain surveys, including the 9-Question Central Sensitization Index, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and Likert pain score (scale 0-10). The participants completed daily surveys for 1 week after surgery to determine the average daily pain score, number of opioids used, other forms of pain management, satisfaction with pain control, perception of the number of opioids prescribed, and need to return to care for pain management. The online Prescription Drug Monitoring Program was used to determine opioid filling in the postoperative period. The primary outcome was average postoperative day 1 pain score, and an a priori determined margin of noninferiority was set at 2 points. RESULTS: Overall, 82 patients underwent isolated midurethral sling placement and met the inclusion criteria: 40 were randomized to the standard arm, and 42 were randomized to the restricted group. Concerning the primary outcome of average postoperative day 1 pain score, the restricted arm (mean pain score, 3.9±2.4) was noninferior to the standard arm (mean pain score, 3.7±2.7; difference in means, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, -∞ to 1.34). Of note, 23 participants (57.5%) in the standard arm vs 8 participants (19.0%) in the restricted arm filled an opioid prescription (P<.001). Moreover, 18 of 82 participants (22.0%) used opioids during the 7-day postoperative period, with 10 (25.0%) in the standard arm and 8 (19.0%) in the restricted arm using opioids (P=.52). Of participants using opioids, the average number of tablets used was 3.4±2.3, and only 3 participants used ≥5 tablets. On a scale of 1="prescribed far more opioids than needed" to 5="prescribed far less opioids than needed," the means were 1.9±1.0 in the standard arm and 2.7±1.0 in the restricted arm (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Restricted opioid prescription was noninferior to standard opioid prescription in the setting of pain control and satisfaction with pain control after isolated midurethral placement. Participants in the restricted arm filled fewer opioid prescriptions than participants in the standard arm. On average, only 3.4 tablets were used by those that filled prescriptions in both groups. Restrictive opioid-prescribing practices may reduce unused opioids in the community while achieving similar pain control.

Factors Influencing Geriatric Orthopaedic Trauma Mortality.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to: (1) evaluate the independent risk factors related to survival and mortality and (2) predict survival in geriatric orthopaedic trauma patients admitted to our institution's ICU as a Level 1 or 2 trauma activation. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients age >60, over a 10 year period, who were involved in a multi-trauma with orthopaedic injuries. Variables evaluated include: sex, age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), mechanism of injury, number and type of orthopaedic injury, anticoagulant use, comorbidities, length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU), type of ICU, ventilator use, vasopressors use, incidence of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), number of surgeries, and 1-month and 6-month mortality. A Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used to predict and assess survival probability. RESULTS: 174 patients were included, with an average mortality of 47.7%. Deceased patients had a significantly greater age, ISS, vasopressor usage, ICU stay, incidence of MODF, incidence of genitourinary disease, anticoagulant usage, ventilator usage, number of orthopaedic surgeries, and orthopaedic injuries. The relative risk for mortality within the first month was significantly associated with increased age, ISS, high-energy trauma, length of ICU stay, MODS, psychiatric disease, and anticoagulant use. Patients with an ISS ≤30 were significantly more likely to survive than patients with an ISS of >30. Greater age, ISS, length of ICU stay, incidence of MODS, anticoagulant, and ventilator use were significantly predictive of lower survival rates. Mechanism of injury, number of orthopaedic surgeries and orthopaedic injuries, and type of orthopaedic injury were not found to be predictive of survival. CONCLUSIONS: An ISS >30 at admission is strongly predictive of a lower probability of survival. Genitourinary disease was associated with increased mortality. Low age, ISS, length of stay in ICU, incidence of MODS, anticoagulant use, and ventilator use, are significantly predictive of survival. Number of orthopaedic surgeries, orthopaedic injuries, and type of orthopaedic injury were not found to be predictive of survival. These indications help us to better understand factors predictive of death among geriatric orthopaedic trauma patients, and improve the way we can diagnose and care for them.

ECMO for Metabolic Crisis in a Patient with Mitochondrial Disease.

Patients with mitochondrial disease exhibit disrupted pyruvate oxidation, resulting in intraoperative and perioperative physiologic derangements. Increased enzymatic conversion of pyruvate via lactate dehydrogenase during periods of fasting or stress can lead to metabolic decompensation, with rapid development of fatal lactic acidosis. We describe the intraoperative management and postoperative critical care of a patient with mitochondrial disease who presented for repair of esophageal perforation following repair of a paraesophageal hernia. His surgery was complicated by the development of metabolic crisis and severe lactic acidosis which became resistant to conventional therapy before ultimately resolving with the initiation of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

An Electronic Medical Record-Derived Individualized Performance Metric to Measure Risk-Adjusted Adherence with Perioperative Prophylactic Bundles for Health Care Disparity Research and Implementation Science.

BACKGROUND: Health care disparity persists despite vigorous countermeasures. Clinician performance is paramount for equitable care processes and outcomes. However, precise and valid individual performance measures remain elusive. OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop a generalizable, rigorous, risk-adjusted metric for individual clinician performance (MIP) derived directly from the electronic medical record (EMR) to provide visual, personalized feedback. METHODS: We conceptualized MIP as risk responsiveness, i.e., administering an increasing number of interventions contingent on patient risk. We embedded MIP in a hierarchical statistical model, reflecting contemporary nested health care delivery. We tested MIP by investigating the adherence with prophylactic bundles to reduce the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), retrieving PONV risk factors and prophylactic antiemetic interventions from the EMR. We explored the impact of social determinants of health on MIP. RESULTS: We extracted data from the EMR on 25,980 elective anesthesia cases performed at Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between June 3, 2018 and March 31, 2019. Limiting the data by anesthesia Current Procedural Terminology code and to complete cases with PONV risk and antiemetic interventions, we evaluated the performance of 83 anesthesia clinicians on 2,211 anesthesia cases. Our metric demonstrated considerable variance between clinicians in the adherence to risk-adjusted utilization of antiemetic interventions. Risk seemed to drive utilization only in few clinicians. We demonstrated the impact of social determinants of health on MIP, illustrating its utility for health science and disparity research. CONCLUSION: The strength of our novel measure of individual clinician performance is its generalizability, as well as its intuitive graphical representation of risk-adjusted individual performance. However, accuracy, precision and validity, stability over time, sensitivity to system perturbations, and acceptance among clinicians remain to be evaluated.

Medicaid insurance status predicts postoperative mortality after total knee arthroplasty in state inpatient databases.

Aim: Medicaid versus private primary insurance status may predict in-hospital mortality and morbidity after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Materials & methods: Regression models were used to test our hypothesis in patients in the State Inpatient Database (SID) from five states who underwent primary TKA from January 2007 to December 2014. Results: Medicaid patients had greater odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.01-2.95), greater odds of any postoperative complications (OR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.18-1.33), experience longer lengths of stay (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.08-1.10) and higher total charges (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.02-1.04). Conclusion: Medicaid insurance status is associated with higher in-hospital mortality and morbidity in patients after TKA compared with private insurance.

Local anesthetics and regional anesthesia versus conventional analgesia for preventing persistent postoperative pain in adults and children: A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis update.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia may mitigate the risk of persistent postoperative pain (PPP). This Cochrane review, published originally in 2012, was updated in 2017. METHODS: We updated our search of Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL to December 2017. Only RCTs investigating local anesthetics (by any route) or regional anesthesia versus any combination of systemic (opioid or non-opioid) analgesia in adults or children, reporting any pain outcomes beyond three months were included. Data were extracted independently by at least two authors, who also appraised methodological quality with Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment and pooled data in surgical subgroups. We pooled studies across different follow-up intervals. As summary statistic, we reported the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals and calculated the number needed to benefit (NNTB). We considered classical, Bayesian alternatives to our evidence synthesis. We explored heterogeneity and methodological bias. RESULTS: 40 new and seven ongoing studies, identified in this update, brought the total included RCTs to 63. We were only able to synthesize data from 39 studies enrolling 3027 participants in a balanced design. Evidence synthesis favored regional anesthesia for thoracotomy (OR 0.52 [0.32 to 0.84], moderate-quality evidence), breast cancer surgery (OR 0.43 [0.28 to 0.68], low-quality evidence), and cesarean section (OR 0.46, [0.28 to 0.78], moderate-quality evidence). Evidence synthesis favored continuous infusion of local anesthetic after breast cancer surgery (OR 0.24 [0.08 to 0.69], moderate-quality evidence), but was inconclusive after iliac crest bone graft harvesting (OR 0.20, [0.04 to 1.09], low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Regional anesthesia reduces the risk of PPP. Small study size, performance, null, and attrition bias considerably weakened our conclusions. We cannot extrapolate to other interventions or to children.

Local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for preventing persistent postoperative pain in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent postoperative pain (PPP), a frequent and debilitating condition. This review was originally published in 2012 and updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To compare local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months in adults and children undergoing elective surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to December 2016 without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. We limited results to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We updated this search in December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We conducted a handsearch in reference lists of included studies, review articles and conference abstracts. We searched the PROSPERO systematic review registry for related systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing local or regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia with a pain outcome beyond three months after elective, non-orthopaedic surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We presented outcomes as pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We analysed studies separately by surgical intervention, but pooled outcomes reported at different follow-up intervals. We compared our results to Bayesian and classical (frequentist) models. We investigated heterogeneity. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, we identified 40 new RCTs and seven ongoing studies. In total, we included 63 RCTs in the review, but we were only able to synthesize data on regional anaesthesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months after surgery from 39 studies, enrolling a total of 3027 participants in our inclusive analysis.Evidence synthesis of seven RCTs favoured epidural anaesthesia for thoracotomy, suggesting the odds of having PPP three to 18 months following an epidural for thoracotomy were 0.52 compared to not having an epidural (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.84, 499 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Simlarly, evidence synthesis of 18 RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia for the prevention of persistent pain three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.68, 1297 participants, low-quality evidence). Pooling data at three to 8 months after surgery from four RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia after caesarean section with an OR of 0.46, (95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; 551 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence synthesis of three RCTs investigating continuous infusion with local anaesthetic for the prevention of PPP three to 55 months after iliac crest bone graft harvesting (ICBG) was inconclusive (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.09; 123 participants, low-quality evidence). However, evidence synthesis of two RCTs also favoured the infusion of intravenous local anaesthetics for the prevention of PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, 97 participants, moderate-quality evidence).We did not synthesize evidence for the surgical subgroups of limb amputation, hernia repair, cardiac surgery and laparotomy. We could not pool evidence for adverse effects because the included studies did not examine them systematically, and reported them sparsely. Clinical heterogeneity, attrition and sparse outcome data hampered evidence synthesis. High risk of bias from missing data and lack of blinding across a number of included studies reduced our confidence in the findings. Thus results must be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is moderate-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP after three to 18 months after thoracotomy and three to 12 months after caesarean section. There is low-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery. There is moderate evidence that intravenous infusion of local anaesthetics may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery.Our conclusions are considerably weakened by the small size and number of studies, by performance bias, null bias, attrition and missing data. Larger, high-quality studies, including children, are needed. We caution that except for breast surgery, our evidence synthesis is based on only a few small studies. On a cautionary note, we cannot extend our conclusions to other surgical interventions or regional anaesthesia techniques, for example we cannot conclude that paravertebral block reduces the risk of PPP after thoracotomy. There are seven ongoing studies and 12 studies awaiting classification that may change the conclusions of the current review once they are published and incorporated.

Local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for preventing persistent postoperative pain in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent postoperative pain (PPP), a frequent and debilitating condition. This review was originally published in 2012 and updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To compare local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months in adults and children undergoing elective surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to December 2016 without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. We limited results to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We updated this search in December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We conducted a handsearch in reference lists of included studies, review articles and conference abstracts. We searched the PROSPERO systematic review registry for related systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing local or regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia with a pain outcome beyond three months after elective, non-orthopaedic surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We presented outcomes as pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We analysed studies separately by surgical intervention, but pooled outcomes reported at different follow-up intervals. We compared our results to Bayesian and classical (frequentist) models. We investigated heterogeneity. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, we identified 40 new RCTs and seven ongoing studies. In total, we included 63 RCTs in the review, but we were only able to synthesize data on regional anaesthesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months after surgery from 41 studies, enrolling a total of 3143 participants in our inclusive analysis.Evidence synthesis of seven RCTs favoured epidural anaesthesia for thoracotomy, suggesting the odds of having PPP three to 18 months following an epidural for thoracotomy were 0.52 compared to not having an epidural (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.84, 499 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Simlarly, evidence synthesis of 18 RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia for the prevention of persistent pain three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.68, 1297 participants, low-quality evidence). Pooling data at three to 8 months after surgery from four RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia after caesarean section with an OR of 0.46, (95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; 551 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence synthesis of three RCTs investigating continuous infusion with local anaesthetic for the prevention of PPP three to 55 months after iliac crest bone graft harvesting (ICBG) was inconclusive (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.09; 123 participants, low-quality evidence). However, evidence synthesis of two RCTs also favoured the infusion of intravenous local anaesthetics for the prevention of PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, 97 participants, moderate-quality evidence).We did not synthesize evidence for the surgical subgroups of limb amputation, hernia repair, cardiac surgery and laparotomy. We could not pool evidence for adverse effects because the included studies did not examine them systematically, and reported them sparsely. Clinical heterogeneity, attrition and sparse outcome data hampered evidence synthesis. High risk of bias from missing data and lack of blinding across a number of included studies reduced our confidence in the findings. Thus results must be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is moderate-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP after three to 18 months after thoracotomy and three to 12 months after caesarean section. There is low-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery. There is moderate evidence that intravenous infusion of local anaesthetics may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery.Our conclusions are considerably weakened by the small size and number of studies, by performance bias, null bias, attrition and missing data. Larger, high-quality studies, including children, are needed. We caution that except for breast surgery, our evidence synthesis is based on only a few small studies. On a cautionary note, we cannot extend our conclusions to other surgical interventions or regional anaesthesia techniques, for example we cannot conclude that paravertebral block reduces the risk of PPP after thoracotomy. There are seven ongoing studies and 12 studies awaiting classification that may change the conclusions of the current review once they are published and incorporated.

Contextualizing and individualizing truth-telling about pain in a tough and unjust world.

We consider recent research findings regarding patients' individual pain perception and phenotype, embodied in the altered neural network vulnerability, the result of connatal setup and acquired exposure, to question Dr. Gligorov's inferences. We contextualize Dr. Gligorov's discourse with concrete clinical cases embedded in obstetric anesthesia scenarios, where physicians may knowingly administer placebo pain medication and where truth-telling about pain has important immediate and long-term clinical consequences, in particular during subsequent repeated clinical encounters. Furthermore, truth-telling about pain implies acknowledging the social and economic context in which pain is treated, or more often not treated. In particular minorities and indigent populations are routinely undertreated for pain due to structural or individual bias driving cruel healthcare disparities. Finally, we argue that the patients' viewpoint is lacking in this debate at present but all stakeholders' perspective are important in the discussion of truth-telling about pain.

Antiemetic Prophylaxis as a Marker of Health Care Disparities in the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry.

BACKGROUND: US health care disparities persist despite repeated countermeasures. Research identified race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status as factors, mediated through individual provider and/or systemic biases; little research exists in anesthesiology. We investigated antiemetic prophylaxis as a surrogate marker for anesthesia quality by individual providers because antiemetics are universally available, indicated contingent on patient characteristics (gender, age, etc), but independent of comorbidities and not yet impacted by regulatory or financial constraints. We hypothesized that socioeconomic indicators (measured as insurance status or median income in the patients' home zip code area) are associated with the utilization of antiemetic prophylaxis (as a marker of anesthesia quality). METHODS: We tested our hypothesis in several subsets of electronic anesthesia records from the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry (NACOR), fitting frequentist and novel Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models. RESULTS: NACOR contained 12 million cases in 2013. Six institutions reported on antiemetic prophylaxis for 441,645 anesthesia cases. Only 173,133 cases included details on insurance information. Even fewer (n = 92,683) contained complete data on procedure codes and provider identifiers. Bivariate analysis, multivariable logistic regression, and our Bayesian hierarchical model all showed a large and statistically significant association between socioeconomic markers and antiemetic prophylaxis (ondansetron and dexamethasone). For Medicaid versus commercially insured patients, the odds ratio of receiving the antiemetic ondansetron is 0.85 in our Bayesian hierarchical mixed regression model, with a 95% Bayesian credible interval of 0.81-0.89 with similar inferences in classical (frequentist) regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses of NACOR anesthesia records raise concerns that patients with lower socioeconomic status may receive inferior anesthesia care provided by individual anesthesiologists, as indicated by less antiemetics administered. Effects persisted after we controlled for important patient characteristics and for procedure and provider influences. Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. Our results challenge the notion that anesthesia providers do not contribute to health care disparities.

Medicaid insurance as primary payer predicts increased mortality after total hip replacement in the state inpatient databases of California, Florida and New York.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To confirm the relationship between primary payer status as a predictor of increased perioperative risks and post-operative outcomes after total hip replacements. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Administrative database study using 2007-2011 data from California, Florida, and New York from the State Inpatient Databases (SID), Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. PATIENTS: 295,572 patients age≥18years old who underwent total hip replacement with non-missing insurance data were collected, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnoses and procedures code (ICD-9-CM code 81.51). INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent total hip replacement. MEASUREMENTS: Patients were cohorted by insurance type as either Medicare, Medicaid, Uninsured, Other, and Private Insurance. Demographic characteristics and comorbidities were compared. Unadjusted rates of in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, LOS, 30-day, and 90-day readmission status were compared. Adjusted odds ratios were calculated for our outcomes using multivariate linear and logistic regression models fitted to our data. MAIN RESULTS: Medicaid patients incurred a 125% increase in the odds of in-hospital mortality compared to those with Private Insurance (OR 2.25, 99% CI 1.01-5.01). Medicaid payer status was associated with the highest statistically significant adjusted odds of mortality, any complication (OR, 1.26), cardiovascular complications (OR, 1.37), and infectious complications (OR, 1.66) when compared with Private Insurance. Medicaid patients had the highest statistically significant adjusted odds of 30-day (OR, 1.63) and 90-day readmission (OR, 1.58) and the longest adjusted LOS. CONCLUSIONS: We found higher unadjusted rates and risk adjusted odds ratios of postoperative mortality, morbidity, LOS, and readmissions for patients with Medicaid insurance as compared to patients with Private Insurance. Our study shows that primary payer status serves as a predictor of perioperative risks and that primary payer status should be viewed as a peri-operative risk factor.

A pragmatic trial to improve adherence with scheduled appointments in an inner-city pain clinic by human phone calls in the patient's preferred language.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We investigated if human reminder phone calls in the patient's preferred language increase adherence with scheduled appointments in an inner-city chronic pain clinic. We hypothesized that language and cultural incongruence is the underlying mechanism to explain poor attendance at clinic appointments in underserved Hispanic populations. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomized controlled clinical trial SETTING: Innercity academic chronic pain clinic with a diverse, predominantly African-American and Hispanic population PATIENTS: All (n=963) adult patients with a scheduled first appointment between October 2014 and October 2015 at the Montefiore Pain Center in the Bronx, New York were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive a human reminder call in their preferred language before their appointment, or no contact. MEASUREMENTS: We recorded patients' demographic characteristics and as primary outcome attendance as scheduled, failure to attend and/or cancellation calls. We fit Bayesian and classical multinomial logistic regression models to test if the intervention improved adherence with scheduled appointments. MAIN RESULTS: Among the 953 predominantly African American and Hispanic/Latino patients, 475 patients were randomly selected to receive a language-congruent, human reminder call, while 478 were assigned to receive no prior contact, (after we excluded 10 patients, scheduled for repeat appointments). In the experimental group, 275 patients adhered to their scheduled appointment, while 84 cancelled and 116 failed to attend. In the control group, 249 patients adhered to their scheduled appointment, 31 cancelled and 198 failed to attend. Human phone reminders in the preferred language increased adherence (RR 1.89, CI95% [1.42, 1.42], (p<0.01). The intervention seemed particularly effective in Hispanic patients, supporting our hypothesis of cultural congruence as possible underlying mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: Human reminder phone calls prior in the patient's preferred language increased adherence with scheduled appointments. The intervention facilitated access to much needed care in an ethnically diverse, resource poor population, presumably by overcoming language barriers.