The impact of a medically directed student registered nurse anesthesia staffing model on Postprocedural patient outcomes.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In 2018, the American Society of Anesthesiologists stated that student registered nurse anesthetists (SRNAs) "are not yet fully qualified anesthesia personnel." It remains unclear, however, whether postprocedural outcomes are affected by SRNAs providing anesthesia care under the medical direction of anesthesiologists, as compared with medically directed anesthesiology fellows or residents, or certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs). We therefore aimed to examine whether medically directed SRNAs serving as in-room anesthesia providers impact surgical outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective, matched-cohort analysis. SETTING: Adult patients (≥18 years old) undergoing inpatient surgery between 2000 and 2017 at a tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS: 15,365 patients exclusively cared for by medically directed SRNAs were matched to 15,365 cared for by medically directed CRNAs, anesthesiology residents, and/or fellows. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: The primary composite outcome was postoperative occurrence of in-hospital mortality and six categories of major morbidities (infectious, bleeding, serious cardiac, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and urinary complications). In-hospital mortality was analyzed as the secondary outcome. MAIN RESULTS: In all, 30,730 cases were matched using propensity score matching to control for potential confounding. The primary outcome was identified in 2295 (7.5%) cases (7.5% with exclusive medically directed SRNAs vs 7.4% with medically directed CRNAs, residents and/or fellows; relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.11). Thus, our effort to determine noninferiority (10% difference in relative risk) with other providers was inconclusive (P = .07). However, the medically directed SRNA group (0.8% [118]) was found to be noninferior (P < .001) to the matched group (1.0% [156]) on in-hospital mortality (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Among 30,730 patients undergoing inpatient surgery at a single hospital, findings were inconclusive regarding whether exclusive medically directed SRNAs as in-room providers were noninferior to other providers. The use of medically directed SRNAs under this staffing model should be subject to further review. Clinical Trial and Registry URL: Not applicable.

Automated feedback modestly improves perioperative treatment adherence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Extensive evidence demonstrates that medical record modernization and a vast amount of available data have not overcome the gap between recommended and delivered care. This study aimed to evaluate the use of clinical decision support (CDS) in conjunction with feedback (post-hoc reporting) to improve PONV medication administration compliance and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) outcomes. DESIGN: Single center, prospective observational study between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2017. SETTING: Perioperative care at a university-affiliated tertiary care center. PATIENTS: 57,401 adult patients who received general anesthesia in a non-emergency setting. INTERVENTION: A multi-phased intervention that consisted of post-hoc reporting for individual providers by email about PONV occurrences in their patients, followed by directive CDS through preoperative daily case emails that provided therapeutic PONV prophylaxis recommendations based on patients' PONV risk scores. MEASUREMENT: Compliance with PONV medication recommendations, as well as hospital rates of PONV were measured. MAIN RESULT: Over the study period, there was a 5.5% (95% CI, 4.2% to 6.4%; p < 0.001) improvement in the compliance of PONV medication administration along with an 8.7% (95% CI, 7.1% to 10.2%, p < 0.001) reduction in PONV rescue medication administration in the PACU. However, there was no statistically or clinically significant reduction in the prevalence of PONV in the PACU. The prevalence of PONV rescue medication administration decreased during the Intervention Rollout Period (odds ratio 0.95 [per month]; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.99; p = 0.017), and during the Feedback with CDS Recommendation Period (odds ratio, 0.96 [per month]; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.99; p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: PONV medication administration compliance modestly improves with CDS in conjunction with post-hoc reporting; however, no improvement in PACU rates of PONV occurred.

Association of Time to Surgery After COVID-19 Infection With Risk of Postoperative Cardiovascular Morbidity.

Importance: The time interval between COVID-19 infection and surgery is a potentially modifiable but understudied risk factor for postoperative complications. Objective: To examine the association between time to surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis and the risk of a composite of major postoperative cardiovascular morbidity events within 30 days of surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted among 3997 adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with a previous diagnosis of COVID-19, as documented by a positive polymerase chain reaction test result, who were undergoing surgery from January 1, 2020, to December 6, 2021. Data were obtained through Structured Query Language access of an existing perioperative data warehouse. Statistical analysis was performed March 29, 2022. Exposure: The time interval between COVID-19 diagnosis and surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the composite occurrence of major cardiovascular comorbidity, defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial injury, acute kidney injury, and death within 30 days after surgery, using multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 3997 patients (2223 [55.6%]; median age, 51.3 years [IQR, 35.1-64.4 years]; 667 [16.7%] African American or Black; 2990 [74.8%] White; and 340 [8.5%] other race) were included in the study. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to surgery was 98 days (IQR, 30-225 days). Major postoperative adverse cardiovascular events were identified in 485 patients (12.1%). Increased time from COVID-19 diagnosis to surgery was associated with a decreased rate of the composite outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99 [per 10 days]; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00; P = .006). This trend persisted for the 1552 patients who had received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.98 [per 10 days]; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that increased time from COVID-19 diagnosis to surgery was associated with a decreased odds of experiencing major postoperative cardiovascular morbidity. This information should be used to better inform risk-benefit discussions concerning optimal surgical timing and perioperative outcomes for patients with a history of COVID-19 infection.

Understanding the Accuracy of Clinician Provided Estimated Discharge Dates.

Discharge planning is a vital tool in managing hospital capacity, which is essential for maintaining hospital throughput for surgical postoperative admissions. Early discharge planning has been effective in reducing length of stay and hospital readmissions. Between 2014 and 2017, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) implemented a tool in the electronic health record (EHR) requiring providers to input the patient's estimated discharge date on each hospital day. We hypothesized discharge estimates would be more accurate, on average, for surgical patients compared to non-surgical patients because treatment plans are known in advance of surgical admissions. We also analyzed the data to identify factors associated with more accurate discharge estimates. In this retrospective observational study, via an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) approach, we identified factors associated with more accurate discharge estimates for admitted adult patients at VUMC. The primary outcome was the difference between estimated and actual discharge date, and the primary exposure of interest was whether the patient underwent surgery while admitted to the hospital. A total of 304,802 date of discharge estimate entries from 68,587 inpatient encounters met inclusion criteria. After controlling for measured confounding, we found the discharge estimates were more precise as the difference between estimated and actual discharge date narrowed; for each additional day closer to discharge, prediction accuracy improved by .67 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.67; p < 0.001), on average. No difference was observed on the primary outcome in patients undergoing surgery compared with non-surgical treatment (0.02 days; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.03; p = 0.111). Faculty members were found to perform best among all clinicians in predicting estimated discharge date with a 0.24-day better accuracy (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.27; p < 0.001), on average, than other staff. Weekend and holiday, specific clinical teams, staff types, and discharge dispositions were associated with the variability in estimated versus actual discharge date (p < 0.001). Given the widespread variation in current efforts to improve discharge planning and the recommended approach of assigning a discharge date early in the hospital stay, understanding provider estimated discharge dates is an important tool in hospital capacity management. While we did not determine a difference in discharge estimates among surgical and non-surgical patients, we found estimates were more accurate as discharge came nearer and identified notable trends in provider inputs and patient factors. Assessing factors that impact variability in discharge accuracy can allow hospitals to design targeted interventions to improve discharge planning and reduce unnecessary hospital days.

The effect of adding goal-directed hemodynamic management for elective patients in an established enhanced recovery program for colorectal surgery: results of quasi-experimental pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature has demonstrated that hemodynamic instability in the intraoperative period places patients at risk of poor outcomes. Furthermore, recent studies have reported that stroke volume optimization and protocolized hemodynamic management may improve perioperative outcomes, especially surgical site infection (SSI), in certain high-risk populations. However, the optimal strategy for intraoperative management of all elective patients within an enhanced recovery program remains to be elucidated. METHODS: We performed a pre-post quasi-experimental study to assess the effect of adding goal-directed hemodynamic therapy to an enhanced recovery program (ERP) for colorectal surgery on SSI and other outcomes. Three groups were compared: "Pre-ERP," defined as historical control (before enhanced recovery program); "ERP," defined as enhanced recovery program using zero fluid balance; and "ERP+GDHT," defined as enhanced recovery program plus goal-directed hemodynamic therapy. Outcomes were obtained through our National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participation. RESULTS: A total of 623 patients were included in the final analysis (Pre-ERP = 246, ERP = 140, and ERP + GDHT = 237). Demographics and baseline clinical characteristics were balanced between groups. We did not observe statistically significant differences in SSI or composite complication rates in unadjusted or adjusted analysis. There was no evidence of association between study group and 30-day readmission. American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥ 3 and open surgical approach were significantly associated with increased risk of SSI, composite complication, and 30-day readmission (p < 0.05 for all) in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that addition of goal-directed hemodynamic therapy for all patients in an enhanced recovery program for colorectal surgery affects the risk of SSI, composite complications, or 30-day readmission. Further research is needed to investigate whether there is benefit of goal-directed hemodynamic therapy for select high-risk populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03189550. Registered 16 June 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT03189550&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.

Transition from Private to Academic Anesthesia Provision Changes Process and Patient Centered Outcomes in an Ambulatory Surgery Center.

A recurring concern in the discussion of performance of anesthesia practices is that academic practitioners are slower, less efficient, or produce poorer operational outcomes than their private practice counterparts. A simple overnight 'swap' of a private anesthesia practice with an academic anesthesia practice took place in an outpatient surgery center where the case volume, case mix, surgeons, and staff remained the same. Operational and quality measures were analyzed for comparison between the practices over the span of two years. All patients who had a procedure at the outpatient surgery center in the year prior to the takeover and the year after were studied. Post-anesthesia care unit times, hospital transfer data, pain scores at discharge, opioids dispensed, and anesthesia control times were compared over two years. Charts were manually abstracted by non-clinical administrative staff who were unaware of the study hypothesis. Procedure data and clinical outcomes were compared between the two years using standard statistical techniques. After exchange to the academic group, the median (mean) pain score at post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge was reduced from 2 (2.0) to 0 (1.7) (Wilcoxon rank sum test p < 0.001), and the odds of having moderate or severe pain was reduced by 32% (95% CI, 25, 39, p < 0.001) after adjusting for surgery type. The year-on-year average recovery room time was reduced by 13.9 min (95% CI, 12.5, 15.4, p < 0.001) after adjusting for surgery type. There was a significant reduction in hospital transfer rate after changing groups (0.45% vs. 0.07%, Pearson chi square test p = 0.005). Hospital transfer rates, dispensed opioids in PACU, pain scores at discharge, and PACU times were all improved after the conversion from a private practice to an academic one, without a compromise in efficiency or throughput.

Patient satisfaction survey scores are not an appropriate metric to differentiate performance among anesthesiologists.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: With the focus of patient-centered care in healthcare organizations, patient satisfaction plays an increasingly important role in healthcare quality measurement. We sought to determine whether an automated patient satisfaction survey could be effectively used to identify outlying anesthesiologists. DESIGN: Retrospective Observational Study. SETTING: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC). MEASUREMENTS: Patient satisfaction data were obtained between October 24, 2016 and November 1, 2017. A multivariable ordered probit regression was conducted to evaluate the relationship between the mean scores of responses to Likert-scale questions on SurveyVitals' Anesthesia Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire 2. Fixed effects included demographics, clinical variables, providers and surgeons. Hypothesis tests to compare each individual anesthesiologist with the median-performing anesthesiologist were conducted. MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 10,528 surveys, with a 49.5% overall response rate. Younger patient (odds ratio (OR) 1.011 [per year of age]; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.008 to 1.014; p < 0.001), regional anesthesia (versus general anesthesia) (OR 1.695; 95% CI 1.186 to 2.422; p = 0.004) and daytime surgery (versus nighttime surgery) (OR 1.795; 95% CI 1.091 to 2.959; p = 0.035) were associated with higher satisfaction scores. Compared with the median-ranked anesthesiologist, we found the adjusted odds ratio for an increase in satisfaction score ranged from 0.346 (95% CI 0.158 to 0.762) to 1.649 (95% CI 0.687 to 3.956) for the lowest and highest scoring providers, respectively. Only 10.10% of anesthesiologists at our institution had an odds ratio for satisfaction with a 95% CI not inclusive of 1. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction is impacted by multiple factors. There was very little information in patient satisfaction scores to discriminate the providers, after adjusting for confounding. While patient satisfaction scores may facilitate identification of extreme outliers among anesthesiologists, there is no evidence that this metric is useful for the routine evaluation of individual provider performance.

Prospective Investigation of the Operating Room Time-Out Process.

BACKGROUND: Although the surgical pause or time-out is a required part of most hospitals' standard operating procedures, little is known about the quality of execution of the time-out in routine clinical practice. An interactive electronic time-out was implemented to increase surgical team compliance with the time-out procedure and to improve communication among team members in the operating room. We sought to identify nonroutine events that occur during the time-out procedure in the operating room, including distractions and interruptions, deviations from protocol, and the problem-solving strategies used by operating room team members to mitigate them. METHODS: Direct observations of surgical time-outs were performed on 166 nonemergent surgeries in 2016. For each time-out, the observers recorded compliance with each step, any nonroutine events that may have occurred, and whether any operating room team members were distracted. RESULTS: The time-out procedure was performed before the first incision in 100% of cases. An announcement was made to indicate the start of the time-out procedure in 163 of 166 observed surgeries. Most observed time-outs were completed in <1 minute. Most time-outs were completed without interruption (92.8%). The most common reason for an interruption was to verify patient information. Ten time-out procedures were stopped due to a safety concern. At least 1 member of the operating room team was actively distracted in 10.2% of the time-out procedures observed. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with preincision time-outs is high at our institution, and nonroutine events are a rare occurrence. It is common for ≥1 member of the operating room team to be actively distracted during time-out procedures, even though most time-outs are completed in under 1 minute. Despite distractions, there were no wrong-site or wrong-person surgeries reported at our hospital during the study period. We conclude that the simple act of performing a preprocedure checklist may be completed quickly, but that distractions are common.

CYP2D6 Genotype-guided Metoprolol Therapy in Cardiac Surgery Patients: Rationale and Design of the Pharmacogenetic-guided Metoprolol Management for Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation in Cardiac Surgery (PREEMPTIVE) Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: The Preemptive Pharmacogenetic-guided Metoprolol Management for Atrial Fibrillation in Cardiac Surgery (PREEMPTIVE) pilot trial aims to use existing institutional resources to develop a process for integrating CYP2D6 pharmacogenetic test results into the patient electronic health record, to develop an evidence-based clinical decision support tool to facilitate CYP2D6 genotype-guided metoprolol administration in the cardiac surgery setting, and to determine the impact of implementing this CYP2D6 genotype-guided integrated approach on the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF), provider, and cost outcomes. DESIGN: One-arm Bayesian adaptive design clinical trial. SETTING: Single center, university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The authors will screen (including CYP2D6 genotype) up to 600 (264 ± 144 expected under the adaptive design) cardiac surgery patients, and enroll up to 200 (88 ± 48 expected) poor, intermediate, and ultrarapid CYP2D6 metabolizers over a period of 2 years at a tertiary academic center. INTERVENTIONS: All consented and enrolled patients will receive the intervention of CYP2D6 genotype-guided metoprolol management based on CYP2D6 phenotype classified as a poor, intermediate, extensive (normal), or ultrarapid metabolizer. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome will be the incidence of postoperative AF. Secondary outcomes relating to rates of CYP2D6 genotype-guided prescription changes, costs, lengths of stay, and implementation metrics also will be investigated. CONCLUSIONS: The PREEMPTIVE pilot study is the first perioperative pilot trial to provide essential information for the design of a future, large-scale trial comparing CYP2D6 genotype-guided metoprolol management with a nontailored strategy in terms of managing AF. In addition, secondary outcomes regarding implementation, clinical benefit, safety, and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing cardiac surgery will be examined.

Pediatric Perioperative Mortality in Kenya: A Prospective Cohort Study from 24 Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The global surgery access imbalance will have a dramatic impact on the growing population of the world's children. In regions of the world with pediatric surgery and anesthesia manpower deficits and pediatric surgery-specific infrastructure and supply chain gaps, this expanding population will present new challenges. Perioperative mortality rate is an established indicator of the quality and safety of surgical care. To establish a baseline pediatric perioperative mortality rate and factors associated with mortality in Kenya, the authors designed a prospective cohort study and measured 24-h, 48-h, and 7-day perioperative mortality. METHODS: The authors trained anesthesia providers to electronically collect 132 data elements for pediatric surgical cases in 24 government and nongovernment facilities at primary, secondary, and tertiary hospitals from January 2014 to December 2016. Data assistants tracked all patients to 7 days postoperative, even if they had been discharged. Adjusted analyses were performed to compare mortality among different hospital levels after adjusting for prespecified risk factors. RESULTS: Of 6,005 cases analyzed, there were 46 (0.8%) 24-h, 62 (1.1%) 48-h, and 77 (1.7%) 7-day cumulative mortalities reported. In the adjusted analysis, factors associated with a statistically significant increase in 7-day mortality were American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status of III or more, night or weekend surgery, and not having the Safe Surgery Checklist performed. The 7-day perioperative mortality rate is less in the secondary (1.4%) and tertiary (2.4%) hospitals when compared with the primary (3.7%) hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have established a baseline pediatric perioperative mortality rate that is greater than 100 times higher than in high-income countries. The authors have identified factors associated with an increased mortality, such as not using the Safe Surgery Checklist. This analysis may be helpful in establishing pediatric surgical care systems in low-middle income countries and develop research pathways addressing interventions that will assist in decreasing mortality rate.

An enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery is associated with decreased organ level rates of complications: a difference-in-differences analysis.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative care has lacked coordination and standardization. Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have been shown to decrease aggregate complications across surgical specialties. We hypothesize that the sustained implementation of an ERP will be associated with a decrease in a broad range of complications at the organ system level. STUDY DESIGN: Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal procedures between 1/2011 and 10/2016 were included. Patients were stratified based on exposure to a sustained ERP (7/2014-10/2016) after an 18-month wash-in period in a pre-post analysis. The primary outcome was 30-day complication rate by organ category as collected by National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) abstractors. Demographic and other patient level data were collected. Complication rates were compared using multivariable regression employing a differences-in-differences (DiD) approach using the national NSQIP PUF file to account for secular trends. RESULTS: A total of 1182 patients were included in this study, with 47% treated in an ERP. The two groups were similar in age, gender, race, BMI, comorbidity index, and procedure type. In a multivariable DiD analysis, significant reductions were seen in surgical site infection (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.20-0.43), postoperative pulmonary complications (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24-0.90), transfusion (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.15-0.51), urinary tract infections (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.18-0.66), sepsis (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.20-0.61), and cardiac complications (OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.01-0.84). A reduction in return to the operating room and 30-day readmission was also observed. Median length of stay (LOS) decreased from 5.2 to 3.5 days (p < 0.001). No significant changes occurred for acute kidney injury and hematologic complications. CONCLUSION: An ERP was associated with reduced complication rates across a wide range of organ categories and > 1.5-day reduction in LOS in a colorectal surgery population.

A retrospective evaluation of the risk of bias in perioperative temperature metrics.

The prevention and treatment of hypothermia is an important part of routine anesthesia care. Avoidance of perioperative hypothermia was introduced as a quality metric in 2010. We sought to assess the integrity of the perioperative hypothermia metric in routine care at a single large center. Perioperative temperatures from all anesthetics of at least 60 min duration between January 2012 and 2017 were eligible for inclusion in analysis. Temperatures were displayed graphically, assessed for normality, and analyzed using paired comparisons. Automatically-recorded temperatures were obtained from several monitoring sites. Provider-entered temperatures were non-normally distributed, exhibiting peaks at temperatures at multiples of 0.5 °C. Automatically-acquired temperatures, on the other hand, were more normally distributed, demonstrating smoother curves without peaks at multiples of 0.5 °C. Automatically-acquired median temperature was highest, 36.8 °C (SD = 0.8 °C), followed by the three manually acquired temperatures (nurse-documented postoperative temperature, 36.5 °C [SD = 0.6 °C]; intraoperative manual temperature, 36.5 °C [SD = 0.6 °C]; provider-documented postoperative temperature, 36.1 °C [SD = 0.6 °C]). Provider-entered temperatures exhibit values that are unlikely to represent a normal probability distribution around a central physiologic value. Manually-entered perioperative temperatures appear to cluster around salient anchoring values, either deliberately, or as an unintended result driven by cognitive bias. Automatically-acquired temperatures may be superior for quality metric purposes.

An enhanced recovery program for bariatric surgical patients significantly reduces perioperative opioid consumption and postoperative nausea.

BACKGROUND: Patients frequently remain in the hospital after bariatric surgery due to pain, nausea, and inability to tolerate oral intake. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) concepts address these perioperative complications and therefore improve length of stay for bariatric surgery patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine if ERAS concepts increase the proportion of patients discharged on postoperative day 1. Secondary objectives included mean length of stay, perioperative opioid use, emergency department visits, and readmissions. SETTING: A large metropolitan university tertiary hospital. METHODS: A quantitative before and after study was conducted for patients undergoing bariatric surgical patients. Data were collected surrounding length of stay, perioperative opioid consumption, antiemetic therapy requirements postoperatively, multimodal analgesia compliance, emergency department visits, and hospital readmission rates. Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ2 test were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. A secondary analysis was performed using Aligned Rank Transformation and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 tests to account for an increase in sleeve gastrectomies in the intervention group. RESULTS: The 2 groups had clinically similar baseline characteristics. Comparison group (N = 366) and ERAS group (N = 715) patients underwent a primary bariatric surgery procedure. There was an increase in the number of patients undergoing a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in the intervention group. After accounting for this increase, the percentage of patients discharged on postoperative day 1 was unchanged (79.8% non-ERAS versus 83.1% ERAS, P = .52). ERAS length of stay was statistically significantly lower for gastric bypass (P<.001) and robotic gastric bypass (P = .01). Perioperative opioid consumption was reduced (41.0 versus 16.2 morphine equivalents, P<0.001), and fewer ERAS patients required postoperative antiemetics (68.8% versus 46.2%, P<.001). Emergency department visits at 7 days were reduced (6.0% versus 3.2%, P = .04), but hospital readmission rates were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing ERAS did not reduce the percentage of patients discharged on postoperative day 1 in a bariatric surgery program with historically low length of stay, but it led to significant reductions in perioperative opioid use, decreases in postoperative nausea, and early emergency room visits.

Implementation of Acceleromyography to Increase Use of Quantitative Neuromuscular Blockade Monitoring: A Quality Improvement Project.

Residual neuromuscular blockade creates excess perioperative morbidity. Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring devices may help ensure full recovery from neuromuscular blocking agents and have been demonstrated to reduce complications associated with residual neuromuscular blockade. We studied the effectiveness of educational efforts to introduce quantitative monitoring at a large academic medical center, with predefined main outcome measures of self-reported familiarity with use of the device and actual device uptake. Anonymous surveys of knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward the devices were administered before and after the education effort. Monitor use rates were quantitatively assessed through data entry into the electronic medical record. Before-and-after results were compared by run charts, unpaired t tests (correcting for multiple comparisons), and examination of 99% confidence intervals. Users agreed that residual blockade was an important topic before and after education, and reported improvement in their ability to use the devices after education. Clinical utilization of the monitors increased from 23% to 40% of eligible cases, with the increased rate sustained in the follow-up period. Education, assessed as improved self-reported proficiency, was associated with measurable increases in utilization of new technology. However, the rate of uptake, even when applied to a problem the users agreed was important, was modest.

Sources of Variation in Anesthetic Drug Costs.

BACKGROUND: Increasing attention has been focused on health care expenditures, which include anesthetic-related drug costs. Using data from 2 large academic medical centers, we sought to identify significant contributors to anesthetic drug cost variation. METHODS: Using anesthesia information management systems, we calculated volatile and intravenous drug costs for 8 types of inpatient surgical procedures performed from July 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011. For each case, we determined patient age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, gender, institution, case duration, in-room provider, and attending anesthesiologist. These variables were then entered into 2 fixed-effects linear regression models, both with logarithmically transformed case cost as the outcome variable. The first model included duration, attending anesthesiologist, patient age, ASA physical status, and patient gender as independent variables. The second model included case type, institution, patient age, ASA physical status, and patient gender as independent variables. When all variables were entered into 1 model, redundancy analyses showed that case type was highly correlated (R = 0.92) with the other variables in the model. More specifically, a model that included case type was no better at predicting cost than a model without the variable, as long as that model contained the combination of attending anesthesiologist and case duration. Therefore, because we were interested in determining the effect both variables had on cost, 2 models were created instead of 1. The average change in cost resulting from each variable compared to the average cost of the reference category was calculated by first exponentiating the ß coefficient and subtracting 1 to get the percent difference in cost. We then multiplied that value by the mean cost of the associated reference group. RESULTS: A total of 5504 records were identified, of which 4856 were analyzed. The median anesthetic drug cost was $38.45 (25th percentile = $23.23, 75th percentile = $63.82). The majority of the variation was not described by our models-35.2% was explained in the model containing case duration, and 32.3% was explained in the model containing case type. However, the largest sources of variation our models identified were attending anesthesiologist, case type, and procedure duration. With all else held constant, the average change in cost between attending anesthesiologists ranged from a cost decrease of $41.25 to a cost increase of $95.67 (10th percentile = -$19.96, 90th percentile = +$20.20) when compared to the provider with the median value for mean cost per case. The average change in cost between institutions was significant but minor ($5.73). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the variation was not described by the models, possibly indicating high per-case random variation. The largest sources of variation identified by our models included attending anesthesiologist, procedure type, and case duration. The difference in cost between institutions was statistically significant but was minor. While many prior studies have found significant savings resulting from cost-reducing interventions, our findings suggest that because the overall cost of anesthetic drugs was small, the savings resulting from interventions focused on the clinical practice of attending anesthesiologists may be negligible, especially in institutions where access to more expensive drugs is already limited. Thus, cost-saving efforts may be better focused elsewhere.