RESUMEN
Background Reimbursement for anesthetic services in the United States utilizes a formula that incorporates procedural and patient factors with total anesthesia time. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the period of billable time starts when the anesthesia practitioner assumes care of the patient and may include transport to the operating room from the preoperative holding area. In this report on a quality improvement effort, we implemented a departmental education initiative aimed at improving the accuracy of anesthesia start-time documentation. Methods Utilizing de-identified, internal data on surgical procedures at Yale New Haven Hospital (YNHH), New Haven, United States, the difference between documented anesthesia start and patient in-room time was determined for all cases. Those with a difference between 0-1 minute were assumed "likely underbilled," and the total revenue lost for these cases was estimated using a weighted average of institutional reimbursement per unit of time. A monthly, department-wide educational email was then introduced to inform practitioners about the guidelines around start-time documentation, and the percentage of "likely underbilled" cases and lost revenue estimates trended over a one-year period. Results Baseline data in December 2020 showed that of the 6,877 total surgical cases requiring anesthesia at YNHH, 55.1% (N=3,790) had an anesthesia start to in-room time of 0-1 minute, which were considered "likely underbilled." The average start-to-in-room time for properly recorded cases (44.9%, N=3,087) was 4.42 minutes. The baseline revenue lost in December 2020 for underbilled cases was estimated at $52,302. Over the one-year quality improvement initiative, the proportion of underbilled cases showed a downward trend, decreasing to 29.2% of total cases by November 2021. The estimate of revenue lost due to underbilling also showed a downward trend, decreasing to $29,300 in November 2021. Conclusion This quality improvement study demonstrated that a relatively simple, department-wide educational email sent monthly correlated with an improvement in anesthesia start-time documentation accuracy and a reduction in estimated revenue lost to underbilling over a one-year period.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pharmaceuticals account for 19-32% of healthcare greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Paracetamol is a common perioperative analgesic agent. We estimated GHG emissions associated with i.v. and oral formulations of paracetamol used in the perioperative period. METHODS: Life-cycle assessment of GHG emissions (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents CO2e) of i.v. and oral paracetamol preparations was performed. Perioperative paracetamol prescribing practices and costs for 26 hospitals in USA, UK, and Australia were retrospectively audited. For those surgical patients for whom oral formulations were indicated, CO2e and costs of actual prescribing practices for i.v. or oral doses were compared with optimal oral prescribing. RESULTS: The carbon footprint for a 1 g dose was 38 g CO2e (oral tablet), 151 g CO2e (oral liquid), and 310-628 g CO2e (i.v. dependent on type of packaging and administration supplies). Of the eligible USA patients, 37% received paracetamol (67% was i.v.). Of the eligible UK patients, 85% received paracetamol (80% was i.v.). Of the eligible Australian patients, 66% received paracetamol (70% was i.v.). If the emissions mitigation opportunity from substituting oral tablets for i.v. paracetamol is extrapolated to USA, UK, and Australia elective surgical encounters in 2019, â¼5.7 kt CO2e could have been avoided and would save 98.3% of financial costs. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous paracetamol has 12-fold greater life-cycle carbon emissions than the oral tablet form. Glass vials have higher greenhouse gas emissions than plastic vials. Intravenous administration should be reserved for cases in which oral formulations are not feasible.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that intravenous methadone intraoperatively can reduce opioid usage postoperatively. OBJECTIVE: This study's purpose was to evaluate the effect of intravenous methadone on postoperative opioid use. METHODS: A prospective, single-center observational study was conducted to evaluate patients who received intravenous methadone intraoperatively. A control group was identified by matching procedure, gender, and age in a 1:3 ratio of methadone to control. Exclusion criteria included patients less than 18 years old or on methadone maintenance therapy. The primary outcome was morphine milligram equivalents (MME) administered 24h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included MME administered 48h and 72h postoperatively, discharge prescription MME, daily mean postoperative pain scores, and length of hospital stay. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing opioid-naïve patients. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients were included in the analysis. At 24h, postoperative MME was increased in the methadone group (142.6 vs 84.5; P = 0.0026). Postoperative MME was also increased in the methadone group at 48h and 72h. Daily pain scores were similar between both groups at all time intervals. Discharge prescription MME was reduced in the methadone group compared with controls, but not statistically significant. A subgroup analysis of opioid-naïve patients showed a significant reduction in MME at 48h (P = 0.0240) and daily pain scores at 24h (P = 0.0366) in the methadone group. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Intravenous methadone intraoperatively did not show a significant reduction in postoperative opioid use and discharge prescription MMEs when comparing all patients; however, benefit was seen when examining opioid-naïve patients.
