Cost of Training Crisis: Anaesthetics.

The anaesthetic training programme in the United Kingdom (UK) spans over seven years and is overseen by the Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCOA). Junior doctors in England are currently striking amid ongoing pay negotiations with the government, and almost all junior doctors are worried about the cost of living. This article provides an overview of the average financial cost of training for doctors in the anaesthetic training programme. The cost incurred by anaesthetic trainees illustrates the level of financial burden faced by trainees across multiple specialities. The cost includes: student loan repayment (with interest rates), compulsory membership fees (including the Royal College of Anaesthetists and General Medical Council), postgraduate examinations (Fellowship of the Royal College of Anaesthetist exams are compulsory to complete training) and medical indemnity. The average trainee spends between 5.6% and 7.4% of their annual salary on non-reimbursable costs. This article delineates for aforementioned expenses and compares them with the training programs in Australia and New Zealand, given their status as frequent emigration destinations for UK doctors.

Racial Disparities in Compensation Among US Anesthesiologists: Results of a National Survey of Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: A racial compensation disparity among physicians across numerous specialties is well documented and persists after adjustment for age, sex, experience, work hours, productivity, academic rank, and practice structure. This study examined national survey data to determine whether there are racial differences in compensation among anesthesiologists in the United States. METHODS: In 2018, 28,812 active members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists were surveyed to examine compensation among members. Compensation was defined as the amount reported as direct compensation on a W-2, 1099, or K-1, plus all voluntary salary reductions (eg, 401[k], health insurance). Covariates potentially associated with compensation were identified (eg, sex and academic rank) and included in regression models. Racial differences in outcome and model variables were assessed via Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Pearson's χ 2 tests. Covariate adjusted ordinal logistic regression estimated an odds ratio (OR) for the relationship between race and ethnicity and compensation while adjusting for provider and practice characteristics. RESULTS: The final analytical sample consisted of 1952 anesthesiologists (78% non-Hispanic White). The analytic sample represented a higher percentage of White, female, and younger physicians compared to the demographic makeup of anesthesiologists in the United States. When comparing non-Hispanic White anesthesiologists with anesthesiologists from other racial and ethnic minority groups, (ie, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander), the dependent variable (compensation range) and 6 of the covariates (sex, age, spousal work status, region, practice type, and completed fellowship) had significant differences. In the adjusted model, anesthesiologists from racial and ethnic minority populations had 26% lower odds of being in a higher compensation range compared to White anesthesiologists (OR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Compensation for anesthesiologists showed a significant pay disparity associated with race and ethnicity even after adjusting for provider and practice characteristics. Our study raises concerns that processes, policies, or biases (either implicit or explicit) persist and may impact compensation for anesthesiologists from racial and ethnic minority populations. This disparity in compensation requires actionable solutions and calls for future studies that investigate contributing factors and to validate our findings given the low response rate.

The World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists Minimum Capnometer Specifications 2021-A Guide for Health Care Decision Makers.

Capnometry, the measurement of respiratory carbon dioxide, is regarded as a highly recommended safety technology in intubated and nonintubated sedated and/or anesthetized patients. Its utility includes confirmation of initial and ongoing placement of an airway device as well as in detecting gas exchange, bronchospasm, airway obstruction, reduced cardiac output, and metabolic changes. The utility applies prehospital and throughout all phases of inhospital care. Unfortunately, capnometry devices are not readily available in many countries, especially those that are resource-limited. Constraining factors include cost, durability of devices, availability of consumables, lack of dependable power supply, difficulty with cleaning, and maintenance. There is, thus, an urgent need for all stakeholders to come together to develop, market, and distribute appropriate devices that address costs and other requirements. To foster this process, the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA) has developed the "WFSA-Minimum Capnometer Specifications 2021." The intent of the specifications is to set the minimum that would be acceptable from industry in their attempts to reduce costs while meeting other needs in resource-constrained regions. The document also includes very desirable and preferred options. The intent is to stimulate interest and engagement among industry, clinical providers, professional associations, and ministries of health to address this important patient safety need. The WFSA-Minimum Capnometer Specifications 2021 is based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) capnometer specifications. While industry is familiar with such specifications and their presentation format, most clinicians are not; therefore, this article serves to more clearly explain the requirements. In addition, the specifications as described can be used as a purchasing guide by clinicians.

Anesthesiology and Critical Care Response to COVID-19 in Resource-Limited Settings: Experiences from Nepal.

It is difficult to predict the future course and length of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has devastated health care systems in low- and middle-income countries. Anesthesiology and critical care services are hard hit because many hospitals have stopped performing elective surgeries, staff and scarce hospital resources have been diverted to manage COVID-19 patients, and several makeshift COVID-19 units had to be set up. Intensive care units are overwhelmed with critically ill patients. In these difficult times, low- and middle-income countries need to improvise, perform indigenous research, adapt international guidelines to suit local needs, and target attainable clinical goals.

Anesthesia Information Management Systems in the Czech Republic from the Perspective of Early Adopters.

Although theoretical studies on Anesthesia Information Management Systems (AIMS) have proved their benefits, much less attention has been paid to researching the actual adoption of AIMS. Only a few studies from the USA and Western Europe have been published up to now. The purpose of this article is to assess the adoption, motivation for, and barriers to, usage of AIMS from the perspective of early Czech adopters of these systems. A questionnaire was used to gather adopters' views on motivating factors, benefits encountered after introduction and obstacles perceived to adopting AIMS. Data about usage, costs and functionalities of each of the AIMS was obtained using semi-structured telephone interviews prior to sending out the questionnaire. Five AIMS from three different vendors in four academic hospitals (20% of Czech hospitals of this type) were identified. Improved clinical documentation and convenience for anesthesiologists was reported from every site. Lack of funds, however, was identified as the primary barrier to further adoption. The cost of introduction of AIMS per operating room varied between 1000 and 40,000 US dollars. Although the number of AIMS in the Czech Republic is limited, findings suggest that benefits have been experienced on every site. Findings corroborate previous studies from the USA and Western Europe.

National Institutes of Health-Funded Anesthesiology Research and Anesthesiology Physician-Scientists: Trends, Promises, and Concerns.

With a difficult National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding climate, the pipeline of physician-scientists in Anesthesiology is continuing to get smaller with fewer new entrants. This article studies current NIH funding trends and offers potential solutions to continue the historical trend of academic innovation and research that has characterized academic Anesthesiology. Using publicly available data, specifically the NIH REPORTeR and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, we examined NIH trends in funding in academic Anesthesiology departments that have Anesthesiology residency training programs. When adjusted for inflation, median NIH funding of departments of Anesthesiology declined approximately 15% between 2008 and 2017. The majority (55%) of NIH funding to academic Anesthesiology departments, including R01 and K-series grants, went to 10 departments in the United States. This trend has remained relatively constant for the 9-year period we studied (2009-2017). There is an inequitable distribution of NIH funding to Anesthesiology departments. Arguably, this may be a case of the "rich get richer," but the implications for those who are trying to become or remain NIH-funded investigators are that success may depend, in part, on securing a faculty position in one of these well-funded departments.

Remote Surveillance Technologies: Realizing the Aim of Right Patient, Right Data, Right Time.

The convergence of multiple recent developments in health care information technology and monitoring devices has made possible the creation of remote patient surveillance systems that increase the timeliness and quality of patient care. More convenient, less invasive monitoring devices, including patches, wearables, and biosensors, now allow for continuous physiological data to be gleaned from patients in a variety of care settings across the perioperative experience. These data can be bound into a single data repository, creating so-called data lakes. The high volume and diversity of data in these repositories must be processed into standard formats that can be queried in real time. These data can then be used by sophisticated prediction algorithms currently under development, enabling the early recognition of patterns of clinical deterioration otherwise undetectable to humans. Improved predictions can reduce alarm fatigue. In addition, data are now automatically queriable on a real-time basis such that they can be fed back to clinicians in a time frame that allows for meaningful intervention. These advancements are key components of successful remote surveillance systems. Anesthesiologists have the opportunity to be at the forefront of remote surveillance in the care they provide in the operating room, postanesthesia care unit, and intensive care unit, while also expanding their scope to include high-risk preoperative and postoperative patients on the general care wards. These systems hold the promise of enabling anesthesiologists to detect and intervene upon changes in the clinical status of the patient before adverse events have occurred. Importantly, however, significant barriers still exist to the effective deployment of these technologies and their study in impacting patient outcomes. Studies demonstrating the impact of remote surveillance on patient outcomes are limited. Critical to the impact of the technology are strategies of implementation, including who should receive and respond to alerts and how they should respond. Moreover, the lack of cost-effectiveness data and the uncertainty of whether clinical activities surrounding these technologies will be financially reimbursed remain significant challenges to future scale and sustainability. This narrative review will discuss the evolving technical components of remote surveillance systems, the clinical use cases relevant to the anesthesiologist's practice, the existing evidence for their impact on patients, the barriers that exist to their effective implementation and study, and important considerations regarding sustainability and cost-effectiveness.

Trends in Direct Hospital Payments to Anesthesia Groups: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Nonacademic Hospitals in California.

BACKGROUND: In addition to payments for services, anesthesia groups in the United States often receive revenue from direct hospital payments. Understanding the magnitude of these payments and their association with the hospitals' payer mixes has important policy implications. METHODS: Using a dataset of financial reports from 240 nonacademic California hospitals between 2002 and 2014, the authors characterized the prevalence and magnitude of direct hospital payments to anesthesia groups, and analyzed the association between these payments and the fraction of anesthesia revenue derived from public payers (e.g., Medicaid). RESULTS: Of hospitals analyzed, 69% (124 of 180) made direct payments to an anesthesia group in 2014, compared to 52% (76 of 147) in 2002; the median payment increased from $242,351 (mean, $578,322; interquartile range, $72,753 to $523,861; all dollar values in 2018 U.S. dollars) to $765,128 (mean, $1,295,369; interquartile range, $267,006 to $1,503,163) during this time period. After adjusting for relevant covariates, hospitals where public insurers accounted for a larger fraction of anesthesia revenues were more likely to make direct payments to anesthesia groups (ß = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.81; P = 0.013), so that a 10-percentage point increase in the fraction of anesthesia revenue derived from public payers would be associated with a 4.5-percentage point increase in the probability of receiving any payment. Among hospitals making payments, our results (ß = 2.10; 95% CI, 0.74 to 3.45; P = 0.003) suggest that a 1-percentage point increase in the fraction of anesthesia revenue derived from public payers would be associated with a 2% relative increase in the amount paid. CONCLUSIONS: Direct payments from hospitals are becoming a larger financial consideration for anesthesia groups in California serving nonacademic hospitals, and are larger for groups working at hospitals serving publicly insured patients.

Predatory Open-Access Publishing in Anesthesiology.

Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model that applies charges under the pretense of legitimate publishing operations without actually providing the editorial services associated with legitimate journals. The aim of this study was to analyze this phenomenon in the field of anesthesiology and related specialties (intensive care, critical and respiratory medicine, pain medicine, and emergency care). Two authors independently surveyed a freely accessible, constantly updated version of the original Beall lists of potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and standalone journals. We identified 212 journals from 83 publishers, and the total number of published articles was 12,871. The reported location of most publishers was in the United States. In 43% of cases (37/84), the reported location was judged as "unreliable" after being checked using the 3-dimensional view in Google Maps. Six journals were indexed in PubMed. Although 6 journals were declared to be indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, none were actually registered. The median article processing charge was 634.5 US dollars (interquartile range, 275-1005 US dollars). Several journals reported false indexing/registration in the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors registries and Google Scholar. Only 32% (67/212) reported the name of the editor-in-chief. Rules for ethics/scientific misconduct were reported in only 24% of cases (50/212). In conclusion, potential or probable predatory open-access publishers and journals are widely present in the broad field of anesthesiology and related specialties. Researchers should carefully check journals' reported information, including location, editorial board, indexing, and rules for ethics when submitting their manuscripts to open-access journals.

Comparison between High- and Low-Cost Transmission of Tele-Anesthesia in Japan.

Background: We previously reported a tele-anesthesia system that connected Sado General Hospital (SGH) to Yokohama City University Hospital (YCUH) using a dedicated virtual private network (VPN) that guaranteed the quality of service. The study indicated certain unresolved problems, such as the high cost of constantly using a dedicated VPN for tele-anesthesia. In this study, we assessed whether use of a best-effort system affects the safety and cost of tele-anesthesia in a clinical setting. Methods: One hundred patients were enrolled in this study. We provided tele-anesthesia for 65 patients using a guaranteed transmission system (20 Mbit/s; guaranteed, 372,000 JPY per month: 1 JPY = US$0.01) and for 35 patients using a best-effort system (100 Mbit/s; not guaranteed, 25,000 JPY per month). We measured transmission speed and number of commands completed from YCUH to SGH during tele-anesthesia with both transmission systems. Results: In the guaranteed system, anesthesia duration was 5780 min (88.9 min/case) and surgical duration was 3513 min (54.0 min/case). In the best-effort system, anesthesia duration was 3725 min (106.4 min/case) and surgical duration was 2105 min (60.1 min/case). The average transmission speed in the best-effort system was 17.3 ± 3.8 Mbit/s. The system provided an acceptable delay time and frame rate in clinical use. All commands were completed, and no adverse events occurred with both systems. Discussion: In the field of tele-anesthesia, using a best-effort internet VPN system provided equivalent safety and efficacy at a better price as compared to using a guaranteed internet VPN system.

The effects of graduate competency-based education and mastery learning on patient care and return on investment: a narrative review of basic anesthetic procedures.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread implementation of competency-based education, evidence of ensuing enhanced patient care and cost-benefit remains scarce. This narrative review uses the Kirkpatrick/Phillips model to investigate the patient-related and organizational effects of graduate competency-based medical education for five basic anesthetic procedures. METHODS: The MEDLINE, ERIC, CINAHL, and Embase databases were searched for papers reporting results in Kirkpatrick/Phillips levels 3-5 from graduate competency-based education for five basic anesthetic procedures. A gray literature search was conducted by reference search in Google Scholar. RESULTS: In all, 38 studies were included, predominantly concerning central venous catheterization. Three studies reported significant cost-effectiveness by reducing infection rates for central venous catheterization. Furthermore, the procedural competency, retention of skills and patient care as evaluated by fewer complications improved in 20 of the reported studies. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that competency-based education with procedural central venous catheterization courses have positive effects on patient care and are both cost-effective. However, more rigorously controlled and reproducible studies are needed. Specifically, future studies could focus on organizational effects and the possibility of transferability to other medical specialties and the broader healthcare system.

Value Proposition and Anesthesiology.

Health care in general and anesthesia in particular have seen dramatic changes in the economic landscape. It is vital if anesthesia groups wish to survive and prosper in this new environment to understand the changes occurring in health care and be flexible and proactive in taking on these challenges. More than ever anesthesia groups must be good corporate citizens and seek ways in which to enhance their value to the organization, whether in the operating room or out of operating room locations, and be a proactive partner with the hospital.

Bundled Payments and Hidden Costs.

In a fee-for-service environment, anesthesiologists are paid for the volume of services billed, with little relation to the cost of delivering the services. In bundled payments, anesthesiologists are paid a set fee for an episode of care inclusive of all the anesthesia, pain medicine, and related services for the surgical episode and a period of time after the initial procedure to cover complications and redo procedures. When calculating a bundled payment, all the services typically used by a patient must be counted when calculating both the costs and expected payment.