Depth of anesthesia monitoring: an argument for its use for patient safety.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There have been significant advancements in depth of anesthesia (DoA) technology. The Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation recently published recommendations to use a DoA monitor in specific patient populations receiving general anesthesia. However, the universal use of DoA monitoring is not yet accepted. This review explores the current state of DoA monitors and their potential impact on patient safety. RECENT FINDINGS: We reviewed the current evidence for using a DoA monitor and its potential role in preventing awareness and preserving brain health by decreasing the incidence of postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction or decline (POCD). We also explored the evidence for use of DoA monitors in improving postoperative clinical indicators such as organ dysfunction, mortality and length of stay. We discuss the use of DoA monitoring in the pediatric population, as well as highlight the current limitations of DoA monitoring and the path forward. SUMMARY: There is evidence that DoA monitoring may decrease the incidence of awareness, postoperative delirium, POCD and improve several postoperative outcomes. In children, DoA monitoring may decrease the incidence of awareness and emergence delirium, but long-term effects are unknown. While there are key limitations to DoA monitoring technology, we argue that DoA monitoring shows great promise in improving patient safety in most, if not all anesthetic populations.

Beyond adverse events in anesthesiology: 'unanticipated events' and strategies for improved reporting.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patient safety in anesthesiology has advanced significantly over the past several decades. The current process of improving care is often based on studying adverse events (AEs) and near misses. However, there is a wealth of information not captured by focusing solely on these events, potentially resulting in missed opportunities for care improvements. RECENT FINDINGS: We review terms such as AEs and nonroutine events (NREs), and introduce the concept of unanticipated events (UEs), defined as events that deviate from intended care that may/may not have been caused by error, may/may not be preventable, and may/may not have caused injury to a patient. UEs incorporate AEs in addition to many other anesthetic events not routinely tracked, allowing for trend analysis over time and the identification of additional opportunities for quality improvement. We review both automated and self-reporting tools that currently exist to capture this often-neglected wealth of data. Finally, we discuss the responsibility of quality/safety leaders for data monitoring. SUMMARY: Consistent reporting and monitoring for trends related to UEs could allow departments to identify risks and mitigate harm before it occurs. We review various proposed methods to expand data collection, and recommend anesthesia practices pursue UE tracking through department-specific reporting interfaces.

Representativeness of U.S. News & World Report Outcome and Volume Measures for Otolaryngology.

Although outcomes account for 45% of the total ranking score in otolaryngology in the 2023-2024 U.S. News Best Hospitals rankings, little attention has been paid to the representativeness of their outcomes or volume analyses. Through retrospective review of finance data from an academic otolaryngology department, we found the overall 2023-2024 USNWR volume estimate accounted for only 10.0% (n = 2, usw 024/20,334) of all adult admissions and outpatient procedures and did not adequately represent the overall case mix or caseload.

Reframing the Morbidity and Mortality Conference: The Impact of a Just Culture.

ABSTRACT: Morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences are prevalent in all fields of medicine. Historically, they arose out a desire to improve medical care. Nevertheless, the goals of M&M conferences are often poorly defined, at odds with one another, and do not support a just culture. We differentiate among the various possible goals of an M&M and review the literature for strategies that have been shown to achieve these goals. Based on the literature, we outline an ideal M&M structure within the context of just culture: The process starts with robust adverse event and near miss reporting, followed by careful case selection, excluding cases solely attributable to individual error. Prior to the M&M, the case should be openly discussed with involved members and should be reviewed using a selected framework. The goal of the M&M should be selected and clearly defined, and the presentation format and rules of conduct should all conform to the selected presentation goal. The audience should ideally be multidisciplinary and multispecialty. The M&M should conclude with concrete tasks and assigned follow-up. The entire process should be conducted in a peer review protected format within an environment promoting psychological safety. We conclude with future directions for M&Ms.

Trends in Response Rate to US News & World Report Best Hospitals Reputation Survey, 2015 to 2023.

Reputation score has been shown to be the strongest predictor of ranking in the US News & World Reports (USNWR) Best Hospitals report. However, the extent to which physicians participate in the underlying USNWR reputation survey is not well-characterized. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of USNWR public methodology reports from 2015 to 2023 to characterize trends in physician response rates by specialty, region, and Doximity membership. Overall response rates declined between 2015 (24.0%) and 2023 (8.9%). In 2023, rates ranged from 4.7% (psychiatry) to 13.9% (otolaryngology). Otolaryngology had the highest response rate among all specialties between 2017 and 2023. Within otolaryngology, both response rates (25.0% to 13.9%) and count (2106 to 1724 physicians) declined between 2015 and 2023. Among Doximity members, response rates were consistently higher for otolaryngologists in the Northeast and Midwest compared to other regions. Though hospital rankings often influence where patients seek care, our findings suggest USNWR reputation scores may not be reliable or representative.

Patient and Visit Characteristics Associated With Otolaryngology Telemedicine Care.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians are increasingly adopting telemedicine in an effort to expand patient access and efficiently deliver care. The degree of health disparities among patients receiving otolaryngologic telemedical care is unclear. AIMS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study to explore disparities in telemedicine delivery. METHODS: We evaluated otolaryngology clinical visits from January 2019 to November 2022. We obtained patient demographics and visit characteristics (e.g., subspecialty, telemedicine vs in-person). Our primary outcome was demographic characteristics of otolaryngology patients who received telemedicine vs in-person care during the study timeframe. RESULTS: A total of 231,384 otolaryngology clinical visits were reviewed, of which 26,895 (11.6%) were telemedicine visits. Rhinology (36.5%) and facial plastics (28.4%) subspecialties performed the most telemedicine visits. On multivariate analysis, individuals who identified as Asian, non-English speaking, and with Medicare insurance were statistically significantly less likely to use telemedicine than in-person services. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that expanding telemedicine care may not improve access for all populations, and socioeconomic factors are important considerations to ensure patients are receiving equally accessible care. Futures studies are warranted to understand how these disparities may impact health outcomes and patient satisfaction with care.

Emergency manual peri-crisis use six years following implementation: Sustainment of an intervention for rare crises.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Use of cognitive aids during emergencies increases key actions and decreases omissions, both known to save lives. With little known about emergency manual (EM) clinical use, we aimed to help answer "Will EMs be used peri-crisis at a meaningful frequency?" and to explore clinical sustainment. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Operating Rooms. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing anesthesia at a major academic medical center during the study periods; ∼75,000 cases. INTERVENTION & MEASUREMENTS: To understand the initial and sustainment phases of EM implementation, we placed a question regarding EM use at the end of every anesthetic case to prospectively measure EM use at: implementation, one-year later, and six years post-implementation. MAIN RESULTS: For more than twenty-four thousand cases in each approximately 6-month study period, EMs were used peri-crisis (before, during or after a perioperative crisis) in 145 cases initially (0.55%; SE 0.045%), 42 cases one-year later (0.17%; SE 0.026%), and 57 cases (0.21%; SE 0.028%) six years post-implementation. Peri-crisis EM uses dropped 0.38% (97.5% CI: 0.26%, 0.49%) from initial to one-year post-implementation. After that, peri-crisis EM uses did not differ significantly from one-year to six years post-implementation, showing sustainment [increased 0.04% (97.5% CI: -0.05%, 0.12%)]. Among cases with cardiac arrest or CPR, as a subset proxy for relevant crises, EMs were used in 7/13 such cases initially (54%, SE 13.6%), 8/20 one-year later (40%; SE 10.9%) and 7/13 six years later (54%; SE 13.6%). CONCLUSIONS: After an initial expected drop, EM peri-crisis use six years post-implementation was: sustained without intensive additional efforts, averaged ∼10 times per month at a single institution, and was reported in more than half of cases with cardiac arrest or CPR. Peri-crisis use of EMs is appropriately rare, though for relevant crises can have substantial positive impacts as described in prior literature. The sustained use of EMs may be related to increasing cultural acceptance of EMs, as reflected in survey result trends and broader cognitive aid literature.

Using Machine Learning to Predict Operating Room Case Duration: A Case Study in Otolaryngology.

OBJECTIVE: Optimizing operating room (OR) efficiency depends on accurate case duration estimates. Machine learning (ML) methods have been used to predict OR case durations in other subspecialties. We hypothesize that ML methods improve projected case lengths over existing non-ML techniques for otolaryngology-head and neck surgery cases. METHODS: Deidentified patient information from otolaryngology surgical cases at 1 academic institution were reviewed from 2016 to 2020. Variables collected included patient, surgeon, procedure, and facility data known preoperatively so as to capture all realistic contributors. Available case data were divided into a training and testing data set. Several ML algorithms were evaluated based on best performance of predicted case duration when compared to actual case duration. Performance of all models was compared by the average root mean squared error and mean absolute error (MAE). RESULTS: In total, 50,888 otolaryngology surgical cases were evaluated with an average case duration of 98.3 ± 86.9 minutes. Most cases were general otolaryngology (n = 16,620). Case features closely associated with OR duration included procedure performed, surgeon, subspecialty of case, and postoperative destination of the patient. The best-performing ML models were CatBoost and XGBoost, which reduced operative time MAE by 9.6 minutes and 8.5 minutes compared to current methods, respectively. DISCUSSION: The incorporation of other easily identifiable features beyond procedure performed and surgeon meaningfully improved our operative duration prediction accuracy. CatBoost provided the best-performing ML model. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: ML algorithms to predict OR case time duration in otolaryngology can improve case duration accuracy and result in financial benefit.

Clinical Uses and Impacts of Emergency Manuals During Perioperative Crises.

BACKGROUND: Performing key actions efficiently during crises can determine clinical outcomes, yet even expert clinicians omit key actions. Simulation-based studies of crises show that correct performance of key actions dramatically increases when emergency manuals (EMs) are used. Despite widespread dissemination of EMs, there is a need to understand in clinical contexts, when, how, and how often EMs are used and not used, along with perceived impacts. METHODS: We conducted interviews with the anesthesia professionals involved in perioperative crises, identified with criterion-based sampling, occurring between October 2014 and May 2016 at 2 large academic medical centers with a history of EM training and implementation. Our convergent, mixed-methods study of the interview data extracted quantitative counts and qualitative themes of EM use and nonuse during clinical crises. RESULTS: Interviews with 53 anesthesia professionals yielded 80 descriptions of applicable clinical crises, with varying durations and event types. Of 69 unique patients whose cases involved crises, the EM was used during 37 (54%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 41-66). Impacts on clinician team members included decreased stress for individual anesthesia professionals (95%), enabled teamwork (73%), and calmed atmosphere (46%). Impacts on delivery of patient care included specific action improvements, including catching errors of omission, for example, turning off anesthetic during cardiac arrest, only after EM use (59%); process improvements, for example, double-checking all actions were completed (41%); and impediments (0%). In 8% of crises, EM use was associated with potential distractions, although none were perceived to harm delivery of patient care. For 32 EM nonuses (46%; 95% CI, 34-59), participants self-identified errors of omission or delays in key actions (56%), all key actions performed (13%), and crisis too brief for EM to be used (31%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that EMs in operating rooms are being used during many applicable crises and that clinicians perceive EM use to add value. The reported negative effects were minimal and potentially offset by positive effects.

Anesthesia Workspace Cleanliness and Safety: Implementation of a Novel Syringe Bracket Using 3D Printing Techniques.

PURPOSE: Wide variability persists in the preparation and storage of common anesthetic medications despite the recognition of anesthesia workspace standardization as a national quality improvement priority. Syringe contamination and medication swaps continue to pose significant hazards to patient safety. METHODS: We assessed differences in practice related to the availability of commonly prepared anesthetic medications. Using baseline provider surveys (n = 87) and anesthesia workspace audits (n = 80), we designed a custom syringe organization device using 3D printing techniques to serve as a cognitive aid and organizational tool. We iteratively tested and then deployed this device in all 60 operating rooms at a single institution, and then, repeated postintervention surveys (n = 79) and workspace audits (n = 75) one year after introduction. RESULTS: Implementation was associated with significant improvements in provider-reported medication availability during coverage and handoff situations (43.7% versus 76.2% reporting 95% confidence preintervention versus postintervention, p < 0.001). This was substantiated by audits of the anesthesia workspace which demonstrated reduced variability in the location (p < 0.001) and availability (p < 0.001) of key medications. Provider confidence in the cleanliness of syringes was also improved (p=0.01). A high degree of acceptance and compliance with the intervention was reported, with 80.4% of syringes observed to be stored in the device one year after implementation and approximately 95% of respondents reporting positive measures of usability and convenience. CONCLUSION: Use of a simple organizational device for syringes in the anesthesia workspace has numerous safety benefits. 3D printing offers improvements in adaptability and affordability compared with prior approaches.

Bringing Perioperative Emergency Manuals to Your Institution: A "How To" from Concept to Implementation in 10 Steps.

BACKGROUND: Emergency manuals (EMs) are context-relevant sets of crisis checklists or cognitive aids designed to enable professional teams to deliver optimal care during critical events. Evidence from simulation and other high-risk industries have proven that use of these types of checklists can significantly improve event management and decrease omissions of key steps. However, simply printing and placing tools in operating rooms (ORs) is unlikely to be effective. How interventions are implemented influences whether clinicians actually change practice and whether patient care is affected. This article provides an in-depth description of a rigorous implementation plan with three goals: (1) place EMs in every anesthetizing location, (2) create interprofessional engagement, and (3) demonstrate that a majority of anesthesia clinicians would use the new tool in some way within the first year. METHODS: The implementation of EMs included 10 steps across four distinct phases. EM use was measured using an electronic quality assurance tool, with data collected after each case about whether and how the EM was used. RESULTS: During the six months following implementation, 67.0% of clinicians had used the manual, with 24.1% using it for clinical care and 9.2% using it during a critical event. CONCLUSION: This article presents a framework and detailed description of the steps a large academic institution followed in successfully implementing EMs. In conjunction with other available resources, those interested in introducing OR EMs at large, complex institutions may benefit from the experience shared in anticipating challenges and overcoming barriers to adoption.

Use of an Emergency Manual During an Intraoperative Cardiac Arrest by an Interprofessional Team: A Positive-Exemplar Case Study of a New Patient Safety Tool.

BACKGROUND: An emergency manual (EM) is a set of evidence-based crisis checklists, or cognitive aids, that can improve team performance. EMs are used in other safety-critical industries, and health care simulation studies have shown their efficacy, but use in clinical settings is nascent. A case study was conducted on the use of an EM during one intraoperative crisis, which entailed the assessment of the impact of the EM's use on teamwork and patient care and the identification of lessons for effectively using EMs during future clinical crises. METHODS: In a case study of a single crisis, an EM was used during a cardiac arrest at a tertiary care hospital that had systematically implemented perioperative EMs. Semistructured interviews were conducted with all six clinicians present, interview transcripts were iteratively coded, and thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: All clinician participants stated that EM use enabled effective team functioning via reducing stress of individual clinicians, fostering a calm work environment, and improving teamwork and communication. These impacts in turn improved the delivery of patient care during a clinical crisis and influenced participants' intended EM use during future appropriate crises. CONCLUSION: In this positive-exemplar case study, an EM was used to improve delivery of evidence-based patient care through effective clinical team functioning. EM use must complement rather than replace good clinician education, judgment, and teamwork. More broadly, understanding why and how things go well via analyzing positive-exemplar case studies, as a converse of root cause analyses for negative events, can be used to identify effective applications of safety innovations.

Handovers in Perioperative Care.

Handovers around the time of surgery are common, yet complex and error prone. Interventions aimed at improving handovers have shown increased provider satisfaction and teamwork, improved efficiency, and improved communication and have been shown to reduce errors and improve clinical outcomes in some studies. Common recommendations in the literature include a standardized institutional process that allows flexibility among different units and settings, the completion of urgent tasks before information transfer, the presence of all members of the team for the duration of the handover, a structured conversation that uses a cognitive aid, and education in team skills and communication.

Measuring and Improving the Quality of Preprocedural Assessments.

BACKGROUND: Preprocedural assessments are used by anesthesia providers to optimize perioperative care for patients undergoing invasive procedures. When these assessments are performed in advance by providers who are not caring for the patient during the procedure, there is an additional layer of complexity in ensuring that the workup meets the needs of the primary anesthesia care team. In this study, anesthesia providers were asked to rate the quality of preprocedural assessments prepared by other providers to evaluate anesthesia care team satisfaction. METHODS: Quality ratings for preprocedural assessments were collected from anesthesia providers on the day of surgery using an electronic quality assurance tool from January 9, 2014 to October 21, 2014. Users could rate assessments as "exemplary," "satisfactory," or "unsatisfactory." Free text comments could be entered for any of the quality ratings chosen. A reviewer trained in clinical anesthesia categorized all comments as "positive," "constructive," or "neutral" and conducted in-depth chart reviews triggered by 67 "constructive" comments submitted during the first 3 months of data collection to further subcategorize perceived deficiencies in the preprocedural assessments. In May 2014, providers were asked to participate in a midpoint survey and provide general feedback about the preprocedural process and evaluations. RESULTS: 37,611 procedures requiring anesthesia were analyzed. Of the 17,522 (46.6%) cases with a rated preprocedural assessment, anesthesia providers rated 3828 (21.8%) as "exemplary," 13,454 (76.8%) as "satisfactory," and 240 (1.4%) as "unsatisfactory." The monthly proportion of "unsatisfactory" ratings ranged from 3.1% to 0% over the study period, whereas the midpoint survey showed that anesthesia providers estimated that the number of unsatisfactory evaluations was 11.5%. Preprocedural evaluations performed on inpatients received significantly better ratings than evaluations performed on outpatients by the preadmission testing clinic or phone program (P < .0001). The most common reason given for "unsatisfactory" ratings was a perception of "missing information" (49.2%). Chart reviews revealed that inadequate documentation was in reality the most common deficiency in preprocedural evaluations (35 of 67 reviews, 52.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The overwhelming majority of preprocedural assessments performed at our institution were considered satisfactory or exemplary by day-of-surgery anesthesia providers. This was demonstrated by both the case-by-case ratings and midpoint survey. However, the perceived frequency of "unsatisfactory" evaluations was worse when providers were asked to reflect on the quality of preprocedural evaluations generally versus rate them individually. Analysis of comments left by providers allowed us to identify specific and actionable areas for improvement. This method can be used by other institutions to identify systemic deficiencies in the preprocedural evaluation process.