Patient and Operational Factors Do Not Substantively Affect the Annual Departmental Quality of Anesthesiologists' Clinical Supervision and Nurse Anesthetists' Work Habits.

INTRODUCTION: Although safety climate, teamwork, and other non-technical skills in operating rooms probably influence clinical outcomes, direct associations have not been shown, at least partially due to sample size considerations. We report data from a retrospective cohort of anesthesia evaluations that can simplify the design of prospective observational studies in this area. Associations between non-technical skills in anesthesia, specifically anesthesiologists' quality of clinical supervision and nurse anesthetists' work habits, and patient and operational factors were examined. METHODS: Eight fiscal years of evaluations and surgical cases from one hospital were included. Clinical supervision by anesthesiologists was evaluated daily using a nine-item scale. Work habits of nurse anesthetists were evaluated daily using a six-item scale. The dependent variables for both groups of staff were binary, whether all items were given the maximum score or not. Associations were tested with patient and operational variables for the entire day. RESULTS: There were 40,718 evaluations of faculty anesthesiologists by trainees, 53,772 evaluations of nurse anesthetists by anesthesiologists, and 296,449 cases that raters and ratees started together. Cohen's d values were small (≤0.10) for all independent variables, suggesting a lack of any clinically meaningful association between patient and operational factors and evaluations given the maximum scores. For supervision quality, the day's count of orthopedic cases was a significant predictor of scores (P = 0.0011). However, the resulting absolute marginal change in the percentage of supervision scores equal to the maximum was only 0.8% (99% confidence interval: 0.2% to 1.4%), i.e., too small to be of clinical or managerial importance. Neurosurgical cases may have been a significant predictor of work habits (P = 0.0054). However, the resulting marginal change in the percentage of work habits scores equal to the maximum, an increase of 0.8% (99% confidence interval: 0.1% to 1.6%), which was again too small to be important. CONCLUSIONS: When evaluating the effect of assigning anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists with different clinical performance quality on clinical outcomes, supervision quality and work habits scores may be included as independent variables without concern that their effects are confounded by association with the patient or case characteristics. Clinical supervision and work habits are measures of non-technical skills. Hence, these findings suggest that non-technical performance can be judged by observing the typical small sample size of cases. Then, associations can be tested with administrative data for a far greater number of patients because there is unlikely to be a confounding association between patient and case characteristics and the clinicians' non-technical performance.

Association between an anesthesia department development program for junior faculty and long-term production of publications: A longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: An important mission of academic medical departments is to further the scholarship and education of its junior faculty. In 2013, Hindman et al. described the design and initial outcomes of a faculty development program for junior faculty at the University of Iowa Department of Anesthesia. In the current study, we reassessed whether the program increased the production of publications long-term. We included all department faculty, years before joining the department, and years after leaving the department, to control for the effects of simply being current faculty in the department, benefiting from its resources, and having had progressively more experience working. METHODS: The population studied was the faculty for any period between January 2006 and December 2022. The dependent variable was the count of publications in Scopus each year with the faculty member's Scopus identifier, 1996 through 2022. The two-year faculty development program included non-clinical time, two mentors, defined mentorship plan, didactic program, and financial support for clinical and/or laboratory studies. Statistical analyses were with logistic and Poisson random effect models for panel data, with standard errors estimated using jackknife resampling. RESULTS: Among the 128 distinct faculty in the department from 2006 through 2022, the 10% with the most publications per year accounted for 54% of the total annual publications. The two-year program was completed by 41% (53/128). Completion of the faculty development program was associated with a 17% absolute increase in the predicted marginal probability of one or more publications per year, from 25% to 41%. The 95% confidence interval for the 17% absolute increase was 9% to 24% (P < .0001). The predictive marginal effect of completing the program was 1.7 more publications per year per faculty (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 2.4, P < .0001). The estimate was also 1.7 more publications per year while limiting consideration to the 108 faculty who joined the department after 1996 and including as an independent variable the count of publications the year before joining the department. CONCLUSIONS: A faculty development program for junior faculty can reliably increase the production of publications in an anesthesiology department by at least one per year. However, there is considerable heterogeneity in publication production among faculty.

Narrative Review of Prolonged Times to Tracheal Extubation After General Anesthesia With Intubation and Extubation in the Operating Room.

This narrative review summarizes research about prolonged times to tracheal extubation after general anesthesia with both intubation and extubation occurring in the operating room or other anesthetizing location where the anesthetic was performed. The literature search was current through May 2023 and included prolonged extubations defined either as >15 minutes or at least 15 minutes. The studies showed that prolonged times to extubation can be measured accurately, are associated with reintubations and respiratory treatments, are rated poorly by anesthesiologists, are treated with flumazenil and naloxone, are associated with impaired operating room workflow, are associated with longer operating room times, are associated with tardiness of starts of to-follow cases and surgeons, and are associated with longer duration workdays. When observing prolonged extubations among all patients receiving general anesthesia, covariates accounting for most prolonged extubations are characteristics of the surgery, positioning, and anesthesia provider's familiarity with the surgeon. Anesthetic drugs and delivery systems routinely achieve substantial differences in the incidences of prolonged extubations. Occasional claims made that anesthesia drugs have unimportant differences in recovery times, based on medians and means of extubation times, are misleading, because benefits of different anesthetics are achieved principally by reducing the variability in extubation times, specifically by decreasing the incidence of extubation times sufficiently long to have economic impact (ie, the prolonged extubations). Collectively, the results show that when investigators in anesthesia pharmacology quantify the rate of patient recovery from general anesthesia, the incidence of prolonged times to tracheal extubation should be included as a study end point.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of relative risk of prolonged times to tracheal extubation with desflurane versus sevoflurane or isoflurane.

The objective of this systematic review was to estimate the relative risk of prolonged times to tracheal extubation with desflurane versus sevoflurane or isoflurane. Prolonged times are defined as ≥15 min from end of surgery (or anesthetic discontinuation) to extubation in the operating room. They are associated with reintubations, naloxone and flumazenil administration, longer times from procedure end to operating room exit, greater differences between actual and scheduled operating room times, longer times from operating room exit to next case start, longer durations of the workday, and more operating room personnel idle while waiting for extubation. Published randomized clinical trials of humans were included. Generalized pivotal methods were used to estimate the relative risk of prolonged extubation for each study from reported means and standard deviations of extubation times. The relative risks were combined using DerSimonian-Laird random effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustment. From 67 papers, there were 78 two-drug comparisons, including 5167 patients. Studies were of high quality (23/78) or moderate quality (55/78), the latter due to lack of blinding of observers to group assignment and/or patient attrition because patients were extubated after operating room exit. Desflurane resulted in a 65% relative reduction in the incidence of prolonged extubation compared with sevoflurane (95% confidence interval 49% to 76%, P < .0001) and in a 78% relative reduction compared with isoflurane (58% to 89%, P = .0001). There were no significant associations between studies' relative risks and quality, industry funding, or year of publication (all six meta-regressions P ≥ .35). In conclusion, when emergence from general anesthesia with different drugs are compared with sevoflurane or isoflurane, suitable benchmarks quantifying rapidity of emergence are reductions in the incidence of prolonged extubation achieved by desflurane, approximately 65% and 78%, respectively. These estimates give realistic context for interpretation of results of future studies that compare new anesthetic agents to current anesthetics.

Overall anesthesia department quality of clinical supervision of trainees over a year evaluated using mixed effects models.

BACKGROUND: Earlier studies of supervision in anesthesiology focused on how to evaluate the quality of individual anesthesiologist's clinical supervision of trainees. What is unknown is how to evaluate clinical supervision collectively, as provided by the department's faculty anesthesiologists. This information can be a metric that departments report annually or use to evaluate the effect of programs on the quality of clinical supervision over time. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used all 48,788 evaluations of the 115 faculty anesthesiologists using the De Oliveira Filho supervision scale completed by 202 residents and fellows over nine academic years at one department. RESULTS: The distributions of mean scores among raters had marked negative skewness and were inconsistent with normal distributions. Consequently, accurate confidence intervals were impracticably wide, and their interpretation suggested lack of validity. In contrast, the logits of the proportions of scores equaling the maximum possible value, calculated for each rater, followed distributions sufficiently close to normal for statistically reliable use in random effects modeling. Parameters and confidence intervals were estimated using the intercept only random effects models, and then inverses computed to convert results from the logit scale to proportions. That approach is analogous to random effect meta-analysis of proportional incidence (or prevalence). Departments that chose to use semi-annual or annual surveys of trainees regarding supervision quality, and report those raw counts, will have far lower estimates of supervision quality versus when calculated accurately using daily evaluations of individual anesthesiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Random effects meta-analysis of percentage incidences of maximum scores is a suitable statistical approach to analyze the daily supervision scores of individual anesthesiologists to evaluate the overall quality of clinical supervision provided to the trainees by the department over a year.

Surgeon-Specific Treatment Selection Bias and Heterogeneous Perioperative Practices in an Observational Spine Surgery Study. A Statistical Tutorial with Implications for Analysis of Observational Studies of Perioperative Interventions.

BACKGROUND: It is essential that treatment effects reported from retrospective observational studies are as reliable as possible. In a retrospective analysis of spine surgery patients, we obtained a spurious result: tranexamic acid (TXA) had no effect on intraoperative blood loss. This statistical tutorial explains how this result occurred and why statistical analyses of observational studies must consider the effects of individual surgeons. METHODS: We used an observational database of 580 elective adult spine surgery patients, supplemented with a review of perioperative medication records. We tested whether common statistical methods (multivariable regression or propensity score-based methods) could adjust for surgeons' selection bias in TXA administration. RESULTS: Because TXA administration (frequency, timing, and dose) and surgeon were linked (collinear), estimating and testing the independent effect of TXA on outcome using multivariable regression without including surgeon as a variable would provide biased (spurious) results. Likewise, because of surgeon/TXA linkage, assumptions of propensity score-based analysis were violated, statistical methods to improve comparability between groups failed, and spurious blood loss results were worsened. Others numerous differences among surgeons existed in intraoperative and postoperative practices and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In observational studies in which individual surgeons determine whether their patients receive the treatment of interest, consideration must be given to inclusion of surgeon as an independent variable in all analyses. Failure to include the surgeon in an analysis of observational data carries a substantial risk of obtaining spurious results, either creating a spurious treatment effect or failing to detect a true treatment effect.

Lack of Benefit of Adjusting Adaptively Daily Invitations for the Evaluation of the Quality of Anesthesiologists' Supervision and Nurse Anesthetists' Work Habits.

Introduction Whenever a department implements the evaluation of professionals, a reasonable operational goal is to request as few evaluations as possible. In anesthesiology, evaluations of anesthesiologists (by trainees) and nurse anesthetists (by anesthesiologists) with valid and psychometrically reliable scales have been made by requesting daily evaluations of the ratee's performance on the immediately preceding day. However, some trainees or nurse anesthetists are paired with the same anesthesiologist for multiple days of the same week. Multiple evaluations from the same rater during a given week may contribute little incremental information versus one evaluation from that rater for the week. We address whether daily evaluation requests could be adjusted adaptively to be made once per week, hopefully substantively reducing the number of evaluation requests. Methods Every day since 1 July 2013 at the studied department, anesthesia residents and fellows have been requested by email to evaluate anesthesiologists' quality of supervision provided during the preceding day using the De Oliveira Filho supervision scale. Every day since 29 March 2015, the anesthesiologists have been requested by email to evaluate the work habits of the nurse anesthetists during the preceding day. Both types of evaluations were made for interactions throughout the workday together, not for individual cases. The criterion for an electronic request to be sent is that the pair worked together for at least one hour that day. The current study was performed using evaluations of anesthesiologists' supervision and nurse anesthetists' work habits through 30 June 2023. Results If every evaluation request were completed by trainees on the same day it was requested, trainees would have received 13.5% fewer requests to evaluate anesthesiologists (9367/69,420), the maximum possible reduction. If anesthesiologists were to do the same for their evaluations of nurse anesthetists, the maximum possible reduction would be 7.1% fewer requests (4794/67,274). However, because most evaluations were completed after the day of the request (71%, 96,451/136,694), there would be fewer requests only if the evaluation were completed before or on the day of the next pairing. Consequently, in actual practice, there would have been only 2.4% fewer evaluation requests to trainees and 1.5% fewer to anesthesiologists, both decreases being significantly less than 5% (both adjusted P <0.0001). Among the trainees' evaluations of faculty anesthesiologists, there were 1.4% with very low scores, specifically, a mean score of less than three out of four (708/41,778). Using Bernoulli cumulative sum (CUSUM) among successive evaluations, 72 flags were raised over the 10 years. Among those, there were 36% with more than one rater giving an exceptionally low score during the same week (26/72). There were 97% (70/72) with at least one rater contributing more than one score to the recent cumulative sum. Conclusion Conceptually, evaluation requests could be skipped if a rater has already evaluated the ratee that week during an earlier day working together. Our results show that the opportunity for reductions in evaluation requests is significantly less than 5%. There may also be impaired monitoring for the detection of sudden major decreases in ratee performance. Thus, the simpler strategy of requesting evaluations daily after working together is warranted.

Intubation biomechanics: Computational modeling to identify methods to minimize cervical spine motion and spinal cord strain during laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation in an intact cervical spine.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To minimize the risk of cervical spinal cord injury in patients who have cervical spine pathology, minimizing cervical spine motion during laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation is commonly recommended. However, clinicians may better aim to reduce cervical spinal cord strain during airway management of their patients. The aim of this study was to predict laryngoscope force characteristics (location, magnitude, and direction) that would minimize cervical spine motions and cord strains. DESIGN: We utilized a computational model of the adult human cervical spine and spinal cord to predict intervertebral motions (rotation [flexion/extension] and translation [subluxation]) and cord strains (stretch and compression) during laryngoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Routine direct (Macintosh) laryngoscopy conditions were defined by a specific force application location (mid-C3 vertebral body), magnitude (48.8 N), and direction (70 degrees). Sixty laryngoscope force conditions were simulated using 4 force locations (cephalad and caudad of routine), 5 magnitudes (25-200% of routine), and 3 directions (50, 70, 90 degrees). MAIN RESULTS: Under all conditions, extension at Oc-C1 and C1-C2 were greater than in all other cervical segments. Decreasing force magnitude to values reported for indirect laryngoscopes (8-17 N) decreased cervical extension to ~50% of routine values. The cervical cord was most likely to experience potentially injurious compressive strain at C3, but force magnitudes ≤50% of routine (≤24.4 N) decreased strain in C3 and all other cord regions to non-injurious values. Changing laryngoscope force locations and directions had minor effects on motion and strain. CONCLUSIONS: The model predicts clinicians can most effectively minimize cervical spine motion and cord strain during laryngoscopy by decreasing laryngoscope force magnitude. Very low force magnitudes (<5 N, ~10% of routine) are necessary to decrease overall cervical extension to <50% of routine values. Force magnitudes ≤24.4 N (≤50% of routine) are predicted to help prevent potentially injurious compressive cord strain.

Relationship Between Glottic View and Intubation Force During Macintosh and Airtraq Laryngoscopy and Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Because intubation-mediated cervical spine and spinal cord injury are likely determined by intubation force magnitude, understanding the determinants of intubation force magnitude is clinically relevant. With direct (Macintosh) laryngoscopy, when glottic view is less favorable, anesthesiologists apply greater force. We hypothesized that, when compared with direct (Macintosh) laryngoscopy, intubation force with an optical indirect laryngoscope (Airtraq) would be less dependent on glottic visualization. METHODS: Using data obtained in a prior clinical study, we tested whether the slope of the intubation force versus glottic view relationship differed between intubations performed in 14 patients who were intubated twice, once with a Macintosh and once with an Airtraq videolaryngoscope. Slopes were compared using least-squares linear regression and robust regression. RESULTS: The slope of the intubation force (N) versus glottic view (%) relationship with the Macintosh (-0.679 [standard error {SE}, 0.147]) was significantly more negative than that of the Airtraq (-0.076 [SE, 0.246]). The least-squares regression difference in slopes was -0.603 (SE, 0.287); P = .046. The robust regression difference in slopes was -0.747 (SE, 0.187); P = .0005. Thus, when compared with the Macintosh, intubation force magnitude with Airtraq laryngoscopy was less dependent on glottic visualization. CONCLUSIONS: Previously, we reported that intubation force with the Airtraq was less in magnitude compared with the Macintosh. Our current study adds that intubation force also is less dependent on glottic view with Airtraq compared with the Macintosh.

Effect of Insufficient Interaction on the Evaluation of Anesthesiologists' Quality of Clinical Supervision by Anesthesiology Residents and Fellows.

Introduction In this study, we tested whether raters' (residents and fellows) decisions to evaluate (or not) critical care anesthesiologists were significantly associated with clinical interactions documented from electronic health record progress notes and whether that influenced the reliability of supervision scores. We used the de Oliveira Filho clinical supervision scale for the evaluation of faculty anesthesiologists. Email requests were sent to raters who worked one hour or longer with the anesthesiologist the preceding day in an operating room. In contrast, potential raters were requested to evaluate all critical care anesthesiologists scheduled in intensive care units during the preceding week. Methods Over 7.6 years, raters (N=172) received a total of 7764 requests to evaluate 21 critical care anesthesiologists. Each rater received a median/mode of three evaluation requests, one per anesthesiologist on service that week. In this retrospective cohort study, we related responses (2970 selections of "insufficient interaction" to evaluate the faculty, and 3127 completed supervision scores) to progress notes (N=25,469) electronically co-signed by the rater and anesthesiologist combination during that week. Results Raters with few jointly signed notes were more likely to select insufficient interaction for evaluation (P < 0.0001): 62% when no joint notes versus 1% with at least 20 joint notes during the week. Still, rater-anesthesiologist combinations with no co-authored notes accounted not only for most (78%) of the evaluation requests but also most (56%) of the completed evaluations (both P < 0.0001). Among rater and anesthesiologist combinations with each anesthesiologist receiving evaluations from multiple (at least nine) raters and each rater evaluating multiple anesthesiologists, most (72%) rater-anesthesiologist combinations were among raters who had no co-authored notes with the anesthesiologist (P < 0.0001). Conclusions Regular use of the supervision scale should be practiced with raters who were selected not only from their scheduled clinical site but also using electronic health record data verifying joint workload with the anesthesiologist.

Intubation Biomechanics: Clinical Implications of Computational Modeling of Intervertebral Motion and Spinal Cord Strain during Tracheal Intubation in an Intact Cervical Spine.

BACKGROUND: In a closed claims study, most patients experiencing cervical spinal cord injury had stable cervical spines. This raises two questions. First, in the presence of an intact (stable) cervical spine, are there tracheal intubation conditions in which cervical intervertebral motions exceed physiologically normal maximum values? Second, with an intact spine, are there tracheal intubation conditions in which potentially injurious cervical cord strains can occur? METHODS: This study utilized a computational model of the cervical spine and cord to predict intervertebral motions (rotation, translation) and cord strains (stretch, compression). Routine (Macintosh) intubation force conditions were defined by a specific application location (mid-C3 vertebral body), magnitude (48.8 N), and direction (70 degrees). A total of 48 intubation conditions were modeled: all combinations of 4 force locations (cephalad and caudad of routine), 4 magnitudes (50 to 200% of routine), and 3 directions (50, 70, and 90 degrees). Modeled maximum intervertebral motions were compared to motions reported in previous clinical studies of the range of voluntary cervical motion. Modeled peak cord strains were compared to potential strain injury thresholds. RESULTS: Modeled maximum intervertebral motions occurred with maximum force magnitude (97.6 N) and did not differ from physiologically normal maximum motion values. Peak tensile cord strains (stretch) did not exceed the potential injury threshold (0.14) in any of the 48 force conditions. Peak compressive strains exceeded the potential injury threshold (-0.20) in 3 of 48 conditions, all with maximum force magnitude applied in a nonroutine location. CONCLUSIONS: With an intact cervical spine, even with application of twice the routine value of force magnitude, intervertebral motions during intubation did not exceed physiologically normal maximum values. However, under nonroutine high-force conditions, compressive strains exceeded potentially injurious values. In patients whose cords have less than normal tolerance to acute strain, compressive strains occurring with routine intubation forces may reach potentially injurious values.

Association between leniency of anesthesiologists when evaluating certified registered nurse anesthetists and when evaluating didactic lectures.

Daily evaluations of certified registered nurse anesthetists' (CRNAs') work habits by anesthesiologists should be adjusted for rater leniency. The current study tested the hypothesis that there is a pairwise association by rater between leniencies of evaluations of CRNAs' daily work habits and of didactic lectures. The historical cohorts were anesthesiologists' evaluations over 53 months of CRNAs' daily work habits and 65 months of didactic lectures by visiting professors and faculty. The binary endpoints were the Likert scale scores for all 6 and 10 items, respectively, equaling the maximums of 5 for all items, or not. Mixed effects logistic regression estimated the odds of each ratee performing above or below average adjusted for rater leniency. Bivariate errors in variables least squares linear regression estimated the association between the leniency of the anesthesiologists' evaluations of work habits and didactic lectures. There were 29/107 (27%) raters who were more severe in their evaluations of CRNAs' work habits than other anesthesiologists (two-sided P < 0.01); 34/107 (32%) raters were more lenient. When evaluating lectures, 3/81 (4%) raters were more severe and 8/81 (10%) more lenient. Among the 67 anesthesiologists rating both, leniency (or severity) for work habits was not associated with that for lectures (P = 0.90, unitless slope between logits 0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.30). Rater leniency is of large magnitude when making daily clinical evaluations, even when using a valid and psychometrically reliable instrument. Rater leniency was context dependent, not solely a reflection of raters' personality or rating style.

Sex-Specific Intubation Biomechanics: Intubation Forces Are Greater in Male Than in Female Patients, Independent of Body Weight.

Background Studies of head, neck, and cervical spine morphology and tissue material properties indicate that cervical spine biomechanics differ between adult males and females. These differences result in sex-specific cervical spine kinematics and injury patterns in response to standardized loading conditions. Because direct laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation require the application of a load to the cervical spine, intubation biomechanics should be sex-specific. The aim of this study was to determine if intubation forces during direct laryngoscopy differ between male and female patients and, if so, is the difference independent of body weight. Methods We pooled original data from three previously published adult clinical intubation studies that used methodologically reliable intubation force measurements (measured total laryngoscope force applied to the tongue, and force values were insensitive to or accounted for other laryngoscope blade forces). All patients had undergone direct laryngoscopy and orotracheal intubation with a Macintosh 3 blade under general anesthesia. Patient data included sex, age, height, weight, and maximum intubation force. Least squares multivariable linear regression was performed between the dependent variable (maximum intubation force) and two independent variables (patient sex and patient weight). A third term was added for the interaction between patient sex and weight. Results Among all patients (males n=42, females n=59), the median intubation force was 42.2 N (25th to 75th percentiles: 31.5 to 57.4 N). While controlling for patient body weight, intubation force differed between the sexes; P=0.011, with greater intubation force in male patients. While controlling for patient sex, there was a positive association between patient body weight and intubation force; P=0.009. In addition, there was a significant interaction between patient sex and weight; P=0.002, with intubation force in male patients having greater dependence on body weight. The difference in intubation force between male and female patients who had the same body weight exceeded 5 N when body weight exceeded 75 kg, and intubation force differences between male and female patients increased as patient body weight increased. Additional analyses using robust regression and using body mass index instead of weight provided comparable results. Conclusion In adult patients, the biomechanics of direct laryngoscopy and intubation are sex-specific. Our findings support the need to control for patient sex and weight in future clinical and laboratory studies of the human cervical spine and head and neck biomechanics.

Reliability and Validity of Performance Evaluations of Pain Medicine Clinical Faculty by Residents and Fellows Using a Supervision Scale.

BACKGROUND: Annual and/or semiannual evaluations of pain medicine clinical faculty are mandatory for multiple organizations in the United States. We evaluated the validity and psychometric reliability of a modified version of de Oliveira Filho et al clinical supervision scale for this purpose. METHODS: Six years of weekly evaluations of pain medicine clinical faculty by resident physicians and pain medicine fellows were studied. A 1-4 rating (4 = "Always") was assigned to each of 9 items (eg, "The faculty discussed with me the management of patients before starting a procedure or new therapy and accepted my suggestions, when appropriate"). RESULTS: Cronbach α of the 9 items equaled .975 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.974-0.976). A G coefficient of 0.90 would be expected with 18 raters; the N = 12 six-month periods had mean 18.8 ± 5.9 (standard deviation [SD]) unique raters in each period (median = 20).Concurrent validity was shown by Kendall τb = 0.45 (P < .0001) pairwise by combination of ratee and rater between the average supervision score and the average score on a 21-item evaluation completed by fellows in pain medicine. Concurrent validity also was shown by τb = 0.36 (P = .0002) pairwise by combination of ratee and rater between the average pain medicine supervision score and the average operating room supervision score completed by anesthesiology residents.Average supervision scores differed markedly among the 113 raters (η = 0.485; CI, 0.447-0.490). Pairings of ratee and rater were nonrandom (Cramér V = 0.349; CI, 0.252-0.446).Mixed effects logistic regression was performed with rater leniency as covariates and the dependent variable being an average score equaling the maximum 4 vs <4. There were 3 of 13 ratees with significantly more averages <4 than the other ratees, based on P < .01 criterion; that is, their supervision was reliably rated as below average. There were 3 of 13 different ratees who provided supervision reliably rated as above average.Raters did not report higher supervision scores when they had the opportunity to perform more interventional pain procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluations of pain medicine clinical faculty are required. As found when used for evaluating operating room anesthesiologists, a supervision scale has excellent internal consistency, achievable reliability using 1-year periods of data, concurrent validity with other ratings, and the ability to differentiate among ratees. However, to be reliable, routinely collected supervision scores must be adjusted for rater leniency.

Reliability of ranking anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists using leniency-adjusted clinical supervision and work habits scores.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of faculty anesthesiologists' clinical supervision is psychometrically reliable. Supervision scores often are used for ongoing professional practice and teaching evaluations. We evaluated whether anesthesiologists' clinical supervision rank could be determined reliably using 6- vs. 12-month data collection intervals and, for each, determined specificity (quartiles vs. halves). To serve as a comparator/control group, we analyzed anesthesiologists' evaluations of the work habits of nurse anesthetists. DESIGN: Residents evaluated 73 anesthesiologists and anesthesiologists evaluated 72 nurse anesthetists with whom they worked in operating rooms for ≥60 min, daily. Scores were adjusted for rater leniency. The reliability of ranking in halves and quartiles was determined and comparisons made. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical supervision and work habit scores, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: Using 1 year of data, 5% of anesthesiologists had scores that were reliably in the lowest quartile and 21% had scores that were reliably in the lower half. No (0%) anesthesiologists were reliably in the highest quartile and 19% were reliably in the upper half. Corresponding percentages for nurse anesthetists' work habits scores were 3%, 10%, 0%, and 1%. The primary factor limiting the reliability of ranking in quartiles was the number of operating room days worked. Ranks based on raw (unadjusted) scores falsely misclassified 60% of anesthesiologists and 88% of nurse anesthetists. The percentages of anesthesiologists who could be ranked reliably was less when using a shorter evaluation period (6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Using mixed effects regression to control for rater leniency, anesthesiologists' ranks based on supervision scores can be determined reliably for halves and quartiles, but fewer than half the anesthesiologists will be reliably ranked. The same ranking principles can be applied for evaluation of nurse anesthetists' work habits. Even when very high G-scores of 0.90 are obtained, ranking individuals into smaller groups (e.g., deciles) or using raw (observed) ranks is unreliable.

Nurse anesthetists' preferences for anesthesiologists' participation in patient care at a large teaching hospital.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) can evaluate anesthesiologists with whom they work clinically using a psychometrically reliable and valid scale. Use of such a scale to evaluate performance depends on knowing thresholds for minimum and ideal anesthesiologist performance. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: One large teaching hospital. MEASUREMENTS: 379 CRNA evaluations of anesthesiologists' performance, and associated thresholds for minimum and ideal scores, performed over 15 weeks. MAIN RESULTS: The anesthesiologists' performance score was less than the CRNA's minimum score for the evaluation (i.e., too little anesthesiologist participation in patient care) for 25% (95) of the CRNA evaluations. The score was greater than the CRNA's ideal score for the evaluation (i.e., excessive participation in patient care) for 28% (106) of evaluations. Anesthesiologists' performance was assessed as not meeting expectations 53% of the time. Even if every anesthesiologist performed consistently at the same level, ≥50% of CRNAs would have been dissatisfied (187), not significantly different from observed (P = 0.34). Consistent results were found when the unit of analysis was individual CRNA. Among the 22 CRNAs who provided ≥10 evaluations, the median level of anesthesiologist performance was either less than the individual CRNA's mean minimum acceptable performance (8/22) or greater than their mean ideal performance (9/22), with overall dissatisfaction, 77%. Among the CRNA-anesthesiologist pairs working together, most did so less than once per month (76%, 1242/1635). CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study at a large teaching hospital, broad heterogeneity among CRNAs in their expectations for anesthesiologist collaborative practice was found. Anesthesiologists adjusting their behavior based on individual CRNA preferences was impractical because specific CRNA-anesthesiologist pairs work together infrequently. Future studies should examine consistency among organizations and whether changes in expectations, and perhaps less dissatisfaction, can be achieved by communication of results for CRNA preferences for anesthesiologists' participation in patient care and discussing shared expectations among the CRNAs and anesthesiologists.

Anesthetic Management of Emergency Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke, Part 1: Patient Characteristics, Determinants of Effectiveness, and Effect of Blood Pressure on Outcome.

In the United States, stroke ranks fifth among all causes of death and is the leading cause of serious long-term disability. The 2018 American Heart Association stroke care guidelines consider endovascular thrombectomy to be the standard of care for patients who have acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation when arterial puncture can be made within 6 hours of symptom onset or within 6-24 hours of symptom onset when specific eligibility criteria are satisfied. The aim of this 2-part review is to provide practical perspective on the clinical literature regarding anesthesia care of patients treated with endovascular thrombectomy. Part 1 (this article) reviews the development of endovascular thrombectomy and the determinants of endovascular thrombectomy effectiveness irrespective of method of anesthesia. The first aim of part 1 is to explain why rapid workflow and maintenance of blood pressure are necessary to help support the ischemic brain until, as a result of endovascular thrombectomy, reperfusion is accomplished. The second aim of part 1, understanding the nonanesthesia factors determining endovascular thrombectomy effectiveness, is necessary to identify numerous biases present in observational reports regarding anesthesia for endovascular thrombectomy. With this background, in part 2 (the companion to this article), the observational literature is briefly summarized, largely to identify its weaknesses, but also to develop hypotheses derived from it that have been recently tested in 3 randomized clinical trials of sedation versus general anesthesia for endovascular thrombectomy. In part 2, these 3 trials are reviewed both from a functional outcomes perspective (meta-analysis) and a methodological perspective, providing specifics regarding anesthesia and hemodynamic management. Part 2 concludes with a pragmatic approach to anesthesia decision making (sedation versus general anesthesia) and acute phase anesthesia management of patients treated with endovascular thrombectomy.