Protecting the Airway and the Physician: Lessons from 214 Cases of Endotracheal Intubation Litigation.

Objective: Medicolegal examination of an intervention as common as endotracheal intubation may be valuable to physicians in many specialties. Our objectives were to comprehensively detail the factors raised in litigation to better educate physicians on strategies for minimizing liability and augmenting patient safety. Methods: Publicly available court records were searched for pertinent litigation. Ultimately, 214 jury verdict and settlement reports were examined for various factors, including outcome, award, geographic location, defendant specialty, setting in which an injury occurred, patient demographics, and other causes of malpractice. Results: Ninety-two cases (43.0%) were resolved in the defendant's favor, with the remaining cases resulting in out-of-court settlement or a plaintiff's verdict. Payments from these cases were considerable, averaging $2.5 M. The most frequent physician defendants were anesthesiologists (59.8%) and emergency-physicians (19.2%), although other specialties were well represented. The most common setting of injury was the operating room (45.3%). Common factors included sustaining permanent deficits (89.2%), death (50.5%), and anoxic brain injury (37.4%). Injuries occurring in labor and delivery mostly involved newborns and had among the highest awards. Conclusions: Litigation involves injuries sustained in numerous settings. The most common factors present included sustaining permanent deficits, including anoxic brain injury. The presence of this latter injury increased the likelihood of a case being resolved with payment. Finally, deficits in informed consent were noted in numerous cases, stressing the importance of a clear process in which the physician explains specific risks (such as those detailed in this analysis), benefits, and alternatives.

Preoperative Optimization for Perioperative Analgesia.

The perioperative analgesic plan begins with preoperative planning. The surgeon should be versed in practical approaches for managing analgesia in patients with chronic pain. The first step includes evaluating the patient and conducting a focused pain history. Confirming, documenting, and understanding current outpatient prescriptions is critical. Patients should be screened for medical conditions that preclude the use of certain analgesics, or place them at higher risk of respiratory depression. Providers should coordinate with the patient's outpatient prescribers and pain specialists to ensure a safe and effective analgesic plan. Multimodal analgesia should be implemented to optimize analgesia and decrease opioid requirements.

Pain Management for the Otolaryngologist: Overview of Perioperative Analgesia and Introduction to Opioids.

Nearly 50,000 US adults experience opioid-overdose deaths annually and 1.7 million experience a substance use disorder from prescription opioids. Hence, understanding analgesia strategies is of utmost importance. A pre-operative analgesic plan can consist of a brief conversation between the surgeon, patient, and anesthesiologist in an uncomplicated case or range all the way to an involved, multidisciplinary plan for a chronic pain patient. Over the past several decades, there have been myriad studies examining perioperative analgesic regimens for otolaryngologic procedures, many of which have demonstrated the efficacy of nonopioid analgesics.

Controlled Substance Agreements and Other Best Opioid Prescription Practices.

Controlled substance agreements between providers and patients represent important strategies for setting expectations for chronic opioid therapy. These agreements generally summarize best opioid prescription practices and destigmatize practice policies such as regular toxicology screenings. These controlled substance agreements also set expectations for discontinuation of therapy if appropriate.

Perioperative Analgesia for Patients Undergoing Thyroidectomy and Parathyroidectomy: An Evidence-Based Review.

OBJECTIVE: To perform an evidence-based systematic review evaluating perioperative analgesia, including opioid alternatives, used for patients undergoing thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search from 1997 to January 2018 of Pubmed, Cochrane, and EmBase libraries was performed for studies reporting analgesic administration following thyroid or parathyroid surgery. This systematic review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were evaluated for level of evidence and given a Jadad score to assess for risk of bias. Outcomes gathered included postoperative pain scores, time to rescue analgesia, rescue analgesic consumption, and adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. The GRADE criteria determined the overall evidence to be moderate-high. Studies utilizing NSAIDs reported reduced requirements for rescue analgesics. Acetaminophen studies presented with conflicting data on effectiveness. Gabapentinoid studies demonstrated lower pain scores and an increased time to rescue analgesic. Local anesthetics were effective at decreasing Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores while also reducing rescue analgesic consumption. Ketamine was shown to increased postoperative nausea and vomiting. NSAIDs and local anesthetic studies had an aggregate grade of evidence A, while all others had grade B evidence. CONCLUSION: There is significant evidence supporting the use of NSAIDs and local anesthetics in the perioperative period for pain management for thyroid and parathyroid surgeries. Acetaminophen, gabapentinoid and ketamine have some supporting evidence and may serve as adequate alternatives. Further multi-institutional RCTs are warranted to delineate optimal analgesic regimens. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.

Perioperative analgesia for patients undergoing otologic surgery: An evidence-based review.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Opioid misuse and diversion is a major concern, with a negative impact on both the individual and society. The objective of this study was to perform an evidence-based systematic review of the efficacy of perioperative analgesic regimens following otologic surgery. METHODS: Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed/MEDLINE databases (January 1, 1947 to June 30, 2018) were searched for studies investigating pain management in otologic surgeries. All studies were assessed for quality and bias using the Cochrane bias tool. Patient demographics, type of surgery, medication class, dose, administration characteristics, pain scores, and adverse events were reported. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies encompassing 1,842 patients met inclusion criteria. In 21.4% of studies, an overall reduction in pain scores was reported when the treatment group included more than one analgesic. Nausea and vomiting were the most common adverse events across all medication types (10.2%), with local anesthetic patients experiencing these side effects most frequently (38.0%). Perioperative acetaminophen was reported to have the fewest adverse drug reactions overall (6.1%), but did not reduce pain scores as much as other modalities, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or combination analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that combination analgesics, such as acetaminophen plus codeine, provide superior pain relief to monotherapy analgesics in the perioperative pain management of otologic surgeries. NSAIDs, α-agonists, and nerve blocks may also be viable single-therapy options. Further prospective randomized controlled trials into perioperative analgesia for patients undergoing otologic surgery may be helpful in establishing a definitive consensus. Laryngoscope, 130:190-199, 2020.

Fellowships Represent a Logical Target for Cultivating Research in Academic Anesthesiology.

Background: The need for greater emphasis on research contributions in academic anesthesiology has been widely recognized in recent years. Some propose increasing integration of research, including dedicated research time, into ACGME requirements for residency and fellowship training experiences. The h-index, an effective measure of research productivity that takes into account relevance and impact of an author's contributions on discourse within a field, was used to examine whether there are differences in research productivity between non-fellowship and fellowship-trained faculty in academic anesthesiology departments. This bibliometric was further used to examine differences in subspecialties, and other specialties of medicine. Methods: Research productivity, as measured by the h-index, was examined using the Scopus database for 508 academic Anesthesiologists practicing in the various subspecialties. Results: There was no statistical difference in research productivity, as measured by the h-index, between non-fellowship and fellowship-trained academic anesthesiologists (2.98+-0.32 vs. 2.88+-0.31). Critical care anesthesiologists had the highest h-indices (5.78+-1.11), while regional anesthesia and pain medicine practitioners had the lowest values (1.18+-0.32). Unlike in anesthesiology, a sample of physicians from other specialties revealed a statistical difference in h-index between non-fellowship and fellowship-trained physicians. Conclusions: Scholarly productivity, as measured by the h-index was similar for fellowship and non-fellowship trained anesthesiologists.

Gender differences in successful National Institutes of Health funding in ophthalmology.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether gender differences in individual National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards and in funding totals exist in ophthalmology, and to further characterize whether factors such as experience, academic rank, and terminal degree play a role. DESIGN: A retrospective review of awards granted to primary investigators (PIs) in ophthalmology departments from 2011 through the present was conducted. PIs were classified by gender, degree, experience, and academic position. The NIH funding database was used to gather award data. SETTING: Academic medical center. RESULTS: Men had higher mean NIH awards ($418,605) than their female colleagues ($353,170; p = 0.005) and had higher total funding per PI (p = 0.004). Men had statistically higher awards at the level of assistant professor than their female counterparts (p < 0.05). A gender difference was statistically significant and most marked among researchers holding an MD (or equivalent) degree. When controlled for publication experience, men had higher NIH awards throughout their careers, although this difference only reached statistical significance on comparison of faculty with 10 or fewer years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Male PIs receiving grants since 2011 had higher awards than their female colleagues did, most markedly among PIs in the earlier portions of their career. Differences in gender representation among senior faculty and in positions of leadership in academic ophthalmology may be partially a result of disparities in research output, as scholarly productivity is an important component of the academic advancement process in ophthalmology.

Obstructive sleep apnea: strategies for minimizing liability and enhancing patient safety.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize malpractice litigation regarding obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and educate physicians on frequently cited factors. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of the Westlaw legal database. METHODS: Jury verdict and settlement reports were examined for outcome, awards, patient demographic factors, defendant specialty, and alleged causes of malpractice. RESULTS: Out of 54 identified cases, 33 (61.1%) cases were resolved in favor of defendants, 12 (22.2%) via settlement, and 9 (16.7%) through jury award. Median settlement and jury awards did not significantly differ ($750,000 vs $550,000, P > .50). Age and gender did not affect outcome. Otolaryngologists and anesthesiologists were the most frequently named defendants. Forty-seven cases (87.1%) stemmed from OSA patients who underwent procedures with resultant perioperative adverse events. Common alleged factors included death (48.1%), permanent deficits (42.6%), intraoperative complications (35.2%), requiring additional surgery (25.9%), anoxic brain injury (24.1%), inadequate informed consent (24.1%), inappropriate medication administration (22.2%), and inadequate monitoring (20.4%). CONCLUSION: Litigation related to OSA is frequently associated with perioperative complications more than nonoperative issues such as a failure to diagnose this disorder. Nonetheless, OSA is considerably underdiagnosed, and special attention should be paid to at-risk patients, including close monitoring of their clinical status and the medications they receive. For patients with diagnosed or suspected OSA with planned operative intervention, whether for OSA or an unrelated issue, a comprehensive informed consent process detailing the factors outlined in this analysis is an effective strategy to increase communication and improve the physician-patient relationship, minimize liability, and ultimately improve patient safety.

Esophageal perforation and rupture: a comprehensive medicolegal examination of 59 jury verdicts and settlements.

BACKGROUND: Consequences accompanying esophageal perforation make this complication a prime litigation target. We characterize factors in jury verdicts and settlements regarding esophageal perforation, including operative procedure, patient demographics, alleged cause(s) of malpractice, outcome, and other factors. METHODS: Pertinent court records were examined for the aforementioned factors. RESULTS: Gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and anesthesiologists were the most commonly named defendants. Two thirds of outcomes were for the defendant, and 11.9 % were settled (median--$650,000); 20.3% resulted in awarded damages (median--$1.2 M). Esophagogastroduodenoscopy was the most commonly litigated procedure, followed by intubation and Nissen fundoplication. Necessity of repair, delayed diagnosis, death, and inadequate consent were the most frequently cited factors in litigation. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of the factors important in determining legal responsibility is of great interest for practitioners in multiple specialties. The requirement of surgical repair and a delay in diagnosis are two of the most common factors present in litigated cases resulting in a payment. The importance of explicitly listing esophageal perforation in the informed consent for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, abdominal surgery, and any patients at risk of intubation injury needs to be emphasized.

Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: an examination of 2429 academic surgeons.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The h-index, a bibliometric indicator that objectively characterizes the impact of an author's scholarship, is an effective tool that may be considered by academic departments for decisions related to hiring and faculty advancement. Our objective was to characterize the scholarly productivity of academic surgeons from different specialties relative to otolaryngologists. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of a bibliometric database. METHODS: The h-indices of 2,429 faculty members within surgical specialties at 20 randomly selected academic institutions were calculated using the Scopus database and were examined to determine relationship with academic rank and comparison among surgical subspecialties. RESULTS: The h-index statistically increased with academic rank. Mean h-indices were as follows: assistant professor, 4.37 (range, 2.73-6.69); associate professor, 8.70 (6.53-11.02); professor, 16.44 (13.39-20.45); and chairperson, 20.79 (14.81-27.89). Mean increase between academic rank was 5.47, with the largest increase between the levels of associate professor and professor. Further examination demonstrated statistically significant increases through all academic ranks for most, but not all, individual specialties. Urologists, general surgeons, and neurosurgeons had the highest mean h-indices. CONCLUSIONS: h-indices among the different surgical specialties vary and are potentially impacted by the number of practitioners as well as research emphasis within a field. The mean h-index of academic otolaryngologists falls in the lower values for academic surgeons. Because this metric varies among different fields, it is most relevant for comparison when examining values within a field. H-indices reliably increase with increasing academic rank through professor and offer a quantifiable and objective alternative to other metrics when evaluating faculty members for academic advancement.

Determination of legal responsibility in iatrogenic tracheal and laryngeal stenosis.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Laryngotracheal stenosis usually occurs as a result of injury from endotracheal intubation or tracheostomy placement. With an estimated incidence of 1% to 22% after these procedures, chronic sequelae ranging from discomfort to devastating effects on quality of life, and even death, make this complication a potential litigation target. We examined federal and state court records for malpractice regarding laryngotracheal stenosis and examined characteristics influencing determination of liability. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: The Westlaw Next legal database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY) was searched for pertinent federal and state malpractice cases and examined for several factors including alleged cause of malpractice, complications, case outcome, and specialty of the defendants. RESULTS: Twenty-three pertinent cases over 35 years were identified. Fourteen (60.9%) cases were decided in the physician's favor, with six plaintiff verdicts awarding an average of $922,129 for malpractice, and three out-of-court settlements averaging $441,600. Hospitals were the most frequently named defendants, and anesthesiologists were most commonly named physician defendants. Endotracheal intubations and tracheostomy history were frequent factors in these cases. Laryngeal lesions were more likely to result in payments, trending higher than those stemming from tracheal lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple cases mentioned previous intubation as a potential risk factor that may have led to laryngotracheal stenosis. Location of stenosis and requirement of reparative procedures may also influence outcomes. Cases not decided in the defendant's favor frequently included other extenuating circumstances, including severity of other injuries. Although the majority of cases were defendant decisions, the verdicts decided for the plaintiffs had considerable damages awarded.