Relationship between rural hospital closures and the supply of nurse practitioners and certified registered nurse anesthetists.

BACKGROUND: Reductions in primary care and specialist physicians follow rural hospital closures. As the supply of physicians declines, rural healthcare systems increasingly rely on nurse practitioners (NPs) and certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to deliver care. PURPOSE: We sought to examine the extent to which rural hospital closures are associated with changes in the NP and CRNA workforce. METHOD: Using Area Health Resources Files (AHRF) data from 2010-2017, we used an event-study design to estimate the relationship between rural hospital closures and changes in the supply of NPs and CRNAs. FINDINGS: Among 1,544 rural counties, we observed 151 hospital closures. After controlling for local market characteristics, we did not find a significant relationship between hospital closure and the supply of NPs and CRNAs. DISCUSSION: We do not find evidence that NPs and CRNAs respond to rural hospital closures by leaving the healthcare market.

[Nurse anaesthetist, autonomous and expanded practice]. / Infirmier anesthésiste, un exercice autonome et élargi.

Nurse anaesthetists have had the right to perform certain procedures for more than twenty years. A 2017 decree further expanded their scope of practice both within and outside the theatre. In parallel, their practice continues to adapt to medical developments, in collaboration with the anaesthesiologist. They are also starting to perform more clinical practices with the patient, such as hypnosis, which need to be better integrated into the often dense operating schedules.

Exploring Production Pressure and Normalization of Deviance and Their Relationship to Poor Patient Outcomes.

Production pressure and/or normalization of deviance contribute to poor patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between production pressure and normalization of deviance to poor patient outcomes. A team of experienced qualitative researchers conducted a metasynthesis of all qualitative closed claims studies that used the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) Foundation Closed Claims database and were accepted for publication at the time of the study. Three central concepts emerged from the analysis: (1) impaired culture of safety, (2) violations of standards of care, and (3) impaired patient safety and outcomes. It is imperative that anesthesia providers support a culture of safety and follow AANA Standards for Nurse Anesthesia Practice.

Effects of opting-out from federal nurse anesthetists' supervision requirements on anesthesiologist work patterns.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of opting-out from Medicare supervision requirements for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) on anesthesiologists' work patterns. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Secondary data from two national surveys of anesthesiologists and the Area Health Resource File. STUDY DESIGN: We use a matching difference-in-difference regression which contrasts the change in work patterns for anesthesiologists in California, which dropped supervision requirements, to the change for similar anesthesiologists. Key outcome variables include the number of weekly hours worked, the type of work done, and type of care delivery teams. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Self-reported national survey data drawn from members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Anesthesiologists in California saw no change in time spent working or time spent supervising CRNAs. There was a decrease in direct care clinical work hours along with a shift in working more in intraoperative care, a decrease in postoperative care, and an increase in the percentage of cases supervising residents. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiologists had small but real responses to California's decisions to opt-out of the physician supervision requirement for CRNAs, doing more work in intraoperative care and less outside of the operating room. Total hours worked saw no change.

Presence of anesthesiologists and nurses in the operating room: Liability of surgeons and health care facilities.

The presence of an anesthesiologist and certified registered nurse anesthesiologist in the operating room remains a topic of discussion in many facilities. This article provides an overview on the legislation and recommendations on this topic and recounts some of the related jurisprudence. The opinions of various actors, surgeons, anesthesiologists, anesthesiology-intensive care physicians, certified registered nurse anesthesiologists, care-facility directors and insurance companies are included. Based on these elements, we attempt to answer the question of presence of competence in anesthesiology in the operating room.

"Opt Out" and Access to Anesthesia Care for Elective and Urgent Surgeries among U.S. Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a rule allowing U.S. states to "opt out" of the regulations requiring physician supervision of nurse anesthetists in an effort to increase access to anesthesia care. Whether "opt out" has successfully achieved this goal remains unknown. METHODS: Using Medicare administrative claims data, we examined whether "opt out" reduced the distance traveled by patients, a common measure of access, for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty, cataract surgery, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, appendectomy, or hip fracture repair. In addition, we examined whether "opt out" was associated with an increase in the use of anesthesia care for cataract surgery, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, or esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Our analysis used a difference-in-differences approach with a robust set of controls to minimize confounding. RESULTS: "Opt out" did not reduce the percentage of patients who traveled outside of their home zip code except in the case of total hip arthroplasty (2.2% point reduction; P = 0.007). For patients travelling outside of their zip code, "opt out" had no significant effect on the distance traveled among any of the procedures we examined, with point estimates ranging from a 7.9-km decrease for appendectomy (95% CI, -19 to 3.4; P = 0.173) to a 1.6-km increase (95% CI, -5.1 to 8.2; P = 0.641) for total hip arthroplasty. There was also no significant effect on the use of anesthesia for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, appendectomy, or cataract surgery. CONCLUSIONS: "Opt out" was associated with little or no increased access to anesthesia care for several common procedures.

Advanced Practice Registered Nurses. Final rule with comment period.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its medical regulations to permit full practice authority of three roles of VA advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) when they are acting within the scope of their VA employment. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA) will not be included in VA's full practice authority under this final rule, but comment is requested on whether there are access issues or other unconsidered circumstances that might warrant their inclusion in a future rulemaking. The final rulemaking establishes the professional qualifications an individual must possess to be appointed as an APRN within VA, establishes the criteria under which VA may grant full practice authority to an APRN, and defines the scope of full practice authority for each of the three roles of APRN. The services provided by an APRN under full practice authority in VA are consistent with the nursing profession's standards of practice for such roles. This rulemaking increases veterans' access to VA health care by expanding the pool of qualified health care professionals who are authorized to provide primary health care and other related health care services to the full extent of their education, training, and certification, without the clinical supervision of physicians, and it permits VA to use its health care resources more effectively and in a manner that is consistent with the role of APRNs in the non-VA health care sector, while maintaining the patient-centered, safe, high-quality health care that veterans receive from VA.

The Effect of "Opt-Out" Regulation on Access to Surgical Care for Urgent Cases in the United States: Evidence from the National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a rule permitting states to "opt-out" of federal regulations requiring physician supervision of nurse anesthetists. We examined the extent to which this rule increased access to anesthesia care for urgent cases. METHODS: Using data from a national sample of inpatient discharges, we examined whether opt-out was associated with an increase in the percentage of patients receiving a therapeutic procedure among patients admitted for appendicitis, bowel obstruction, choledocholithiasis, or hip fracture. We chose these 4 diagnoses because they represent instances where urgent access to a procedure requiring anesthesia is often indicated. In addition, we examined whether opt-out was associated with a reduction in the number of appendicitis patients who presented with a ruptured appendix. In addition to controlling for patient morbidities and demographics, our analysis incorporated a difference-in-differences approach, with additional controls for state-year trends, to reduce confounding. RESULTS: Across all 4 diagnoses, opt-out was not associated with a statistically significant change in the percentage of patients who received a procedure (0.0315 percentage point increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.843 to 0.906 percentage point increase). When broken down by diagnosis, opt-out was also not associated with statistically significant changes in the percentage of patients who received a procedure for bowel obstruction (0.511 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.26), choledocholithiasis (2.78 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -6.12 to 0.565), and hip fracture (0.291 percentage point increase, 95% CI -1.76 to 2.94). Opt-out was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the percentage of appendicitis patients receiving an appendectomy (0.876 percentage point increase, 95% CI 0.194 to 1.56); however, there was no significant change in the percentage of patients presenting with a ruptured appendix (-0.914 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -2.41 to 0.582). Subanalyses showed that the effects of opt-out did not differ in rural versus urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Based on 2 measures of access, opt-out does not appear to have significantly increased access to anesthesia for urgent inpatient conditions.

Scope of Practice Laws and Anesthesia Complications: No Measurable Impact of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist Expanded Scope of Practice on Anesthesia-related Complications.

BACKGROUND: Scope of practice (SOP) laws governing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) vary by state and drive CRNA practice and reimbursement. OBJECTIVE: To test whether the odds of an anesthesia complication vary by SOP and delivery model (CRNA only, anesthesiologist only, or mixed anesthesiologist and CRNAs team). METHODS: Anesthesia claims and related complications were identified in a large commercial payor database, including inpatient and ambulatory settings. Logit regression models were estimated by setting to determine the impact of SOP and delivery model on the odds of an anesthesia-related complication, while controlling for patient characteristics, patient comorbidities, procedure and procedure complexity, and local area economic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 8 in every 10,000 anesthesia-related procedures had a complication. However, complications were 4 times more likely in the inpatient setting (20 per 10,000) than the outpatient setting (4 per 10,000). In both settings, the odds of a complication were found to differ significantly with patient characteristics, patient comorbidities, and the procedures being administered. The odds of an anesthesia-elated complication are particularly high for procedures related to childbirth. However, complication odds were not found to differ by SOP or delivery model. CONCLUSIONS: Our research results suggest that there is strong evidence of differences in the likelihood of anesthesia complications by patient characteristics, patient comorbidities, and the procedures being administered, but virtually no evidence that the odds of a complication differ by SOP or delivery model.

The AANA Foundation Malpractice Closed Claims Study: A Descriptive Analysis.

The AANA Foundation Closed Claims Researchers evaluated 245 closed claims spanning from 2003-2012. The majority of claims comprised CRNA providers whom are mainly male, independent contractors, certified between 1980-1999, and with malpractice coverage limits of $1 million/$3 million. The median age for all claimants was 50 years old, and 63.7% of claimants were female. For those claims where race was known, 54% of claimants were Caucasian. Most adverse events occurred in a hospital with an outpatient admission status. The majority of adverse events were identified as intra-anesthesia. The top five surgical procedures associated with these claims were orthopedic general surgery, cosmetic, obstetric, and neurologic procedures. An adverse event leading to death occurred in 35.1% of claims. Regardless of severity of injury, reviewers determined that 45.5% of negative outcomes were preventable, 32.7% of the anesthesia treatment was inappropriate, and 29% of negative outcomes were caused by CRNAs' actions. Reviewers found that no AANA Standards were breached in 45.7% of claims; however, Standards 4, 5, and 3 were the most common standards breached. The most costly severity classification was major permanent injury (ie, paraplegia, blindness, loss of two limbs, or brain ddamage) with a median payment of $299,810.

The Noncompete Clause and the Nurse Anesthetist: An Assessment of Knowledge, Perception, and Experience.

Economic pressures and the challenge to maintain competitive advantage have resulted in many healthcare entities requiring their practitioners to contractually enter into noncompete clauses (NCCs). Many student registered nurse anesthetists (SRNAs) and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) are unaware of NCCs in employee contracts. An anonymous, web-based questionnaire regarding NCCs was distributed to SRNAs and CRNAs nationwide. Of 242 practicing CRNAs who responded, 147 (60.7%) were employed without a noncompete clause and 22 (9.1%) were unaware whether they had such a provision in their employment contracts. The knowledge level of the nurse anesthetist respondents was low (average score of 55.3%). There was a significant difference in knowledge level between independently practicing CRNAs and group-practice CRNAs (P = .007) as well as practicing CRNAs vs SRNAs (n = 8, P = .006). Independent CRNAs had more experience with declining positions, changing positions, and loss of employment due to NCCs. More CRNAs believed the NCC is not applicable to practice, and no evidence existed to show a relationship between geographic location and having an NCC. Business-minded CRNAs with a practical knowledge of keyterms, concepts, and legal implications of NCCs are in a better position to bargain and negotiate against objectionable provisions.

The national practitioner data bank and CRNA anesthesia-related malpractice payments.

A retrospective analysis of the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) Public Use Data File was performed on anesthesia-related malpractice payments from 2004 to 2010. Anesthesia-related allegations, malpractice act or omission codes, severity of injury, and cost were assessed. The NPDB captured 369 anesthesia-related malpractice payments associated with Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs), of which the 3 most frequently coded injury classifications for severity were death, minor permanent injury, and grave permanent injury. In general, the most costly payments based on median cost were major permanent injury, followed by grave permanent injury and death. When reviewing specific allegations of malpractice act or omission among the total number of CRNA malpractice payments, the most common allegations were improper performance,, failure to monitor, and problem with intubation. Patients between the ages of 40 and 59 years, inpatients, and female gender were independently more prevalent among CRNA malpractice claims leading to payment than other patient demographics.

The National Practitioner Data Bank: what CRNAs need to know.

As a nationwide flagging system, the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) allows state licensing boards, hospitals, and other registered healthcare entities the ability to monitor practitioners through reporting and inquiry about the qualifications and competency of healthcare practitioners seeking clinical privileges where incompetence or unprofessional conduct could adversely affect a patient's welfare. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists are not exempt from being reported on or queried by registered reporting and querying entities. The NPDB warehouses data pertaining to adverse actions or medical malpractice payments taken against a practitioner. Based on the updated federal ruling published in the Federal Register regarding the NPDB and Section 1921 of the Social Security Act, the NPDB has expanded the definition of healthcare practitioners to include all healthcare practitioners as a means of protecting beneficiaries of the Social Security Act's healthcare programs. As such, nurse anesthetists should be aware of the additional reportable information that may be collected or disseminated based on the updated ruling pertaining to the NPDB.