Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.943
Filtrar
1.
Anesthesiology ; 134(4): 526-540, 2021 04 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33630039

RESUMO

Health care is undergoing major transformation with a shift from fee-for-service care to fee-for-value. The advent of new care delivery and payment models is serving as a driver for value-based care. Hospitals, payors, and patients increasingly expect physicians and healthcare systems to improve outcomes and manage costs. The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical and procedural practices further highlights the urgency and need for anesthesiologists to expand their roles in perioperative care, and to impact system improvement. While there have been substantial advances in anesthesia care, perioperative complications and mortality after surgery remain a key concern. Anesthesiologists are in a unique position to impact perioperative health care through their multitude of interactions and influences on various aspects of the perioperative domain, by using the surgical experience as the first touchpoint to reengage the patient in their own health care. Among the key interventions that are being effectively instituted by anesthesiologists include proactive engagement in preoperative optimization of patients' health; personalization and standardization of care delivery by segmenting patients based upon their complexity and risk; and implementation of best practices that are data-driven and evidence-based and provide structure that allow the patient to return to their optimal state of functional, cognitive, and psychologic health. Through collaborative relationships with other perioperative stakeholders, anesthesiologists can consolidate their role as clinical leaders driving value-based care and healthcare transformation in the best interests of patients.


Assuntos
Anestesiologistas/estatística & dados numéricos , Anestesiologia/métodos , Assistência à Saúde/métodos , Assistência Perioperatória/métodos , Papel do Médico , Humanos
3.
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol ; 34(3): 539-551, 2020 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33004165

RESUMO

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading rapidly around the world with devastating consequences on patients, healthcare workers, health systems, as well as economies. While, healthcare systems are globally operating at maximum capacity, healthcare workers and especially anesthesia providers are facing extreme pressures, something that is also leading to declining availability and increasing stress. In this regard, it is extremely concerning the fact that some regions worldwide have reported up to 20% of their cases to be healthcare workers. When considering that the global case fatality rate may be as much as 5.4%, these numbers are concerning and unacceptable. As this pandemic accelerates, access to personal protective equipment for health workers is a key concern since at present, healthcare workers are every country's most valuable resource in the fight against COVID-19. Governments and heath organizations should take care of their staff and support them in any way possible. This review aims to describe the current situation anesthesia providers are facing in the setting of COVID-19 and provide solutions and evidence on important concerns, including which guidance to follow, the level of equipment that is adequate, and the level of protection they need for every patient being administered an anesthetic.


Assuntos
Anestesiologia/métodos , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Pessoal de Saúde , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Equipamento de Proteção Individual
4.
J Anesth Hist ; 6(3): 151-155, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32921485

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Regional and general anesthesia were widely available in the United States in the late 1960s. The risk of permanent neurological sequelae resulting from spinal anesthesia had largely been dismissed. Although many academic departments of anesthesiology had gained independent status, a significant number operated as divisions within the department of surgery. We present a case report from Peter Bent Brigham Hospital to illustrate the state of anesthetic techniques in use during the late 1960s, and the power dynamics vis-à-vis physician anesthesiologists and surgeons. SOURCES: Hospital records and interviews with individuals familiar with the case. FINDINGS: An otherwise healthy patient underwent inguinal hernia repair. The resident anesthesiologist conducted a preoperative assessment the evening prior to surgery with the patient consenting to the spinal anesthesia, a plan agreeable to the faculty anesthesiologist. The attending surgeon was one of the most prominent surgeons in America and the chairman of their department. He disapproved of the planned anesthetic. Subsequent modifications to the anesthetic plans are discussed, as is the fallout from those actions. CONCLUSION: Spinal anesthesia remained a popular anesthetic option during the late 1960s. General anesthesia with ether, halothane, and other agents an alternative. This case highlights various aspects of perioperative management during a period when many American academic departments of anesthesiology existed as divisions within the department of surgery. It also touches upon the careers of two prominent American physicians.


Assuntos
Anestesia Geral/história , Raquianestesia/história , Anestesiologia/história , Anestesiologistas/história , Anestesiologia/métodos , Boston , História do Século XX , Hospitais de Ensino/história , Humanos , Relações Interprofissionais , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/história , Cirurgiões/história
5.
BMC Anesthesiol ; 20(1): 232, 2020 09 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32928122

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The challenges posed by the spread of COVID-19 disease through aerosols have compelled anesthesiologists to modify their airway management practices. Devices such as barrier boxes are being considered as potential adjuncts to full PPE's to limit the aerosol spread. Usage of the barrier box raises concerns of delay in time to intubate (TTI). We designed our study to determine if using a barrier box with glidescope delays TTI within acceptable parameters to make relevant clinical conclusions. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients were enrolled in this prospective non-inferiority controlled trial and were randomly allocated to either group C (without the barrier box) or the study group BB (using barrier box). The primary measured endpoint is time to intubate (TTI), which is defined as time taken from loss of twitches confirmed with a peripheral nerve stimulator to confirmation of end-tidal CO 2. 15 s was used as non-inferiority margin for the purpose of the study. We used an unpaired two-sample single-sided t-test to test our non- inferiority hypothesis (H 0: Mean TTI diff ≥15 s, H A: Mean TTI diff < 15 s). Secondary endpoints include the number of attempts at intubation, lowest oxygen saturation during induction, and the need for bag-mask ventilation. RESULTS: Mean TTI in group C was 42 s (CI 19.2 to 64.8) vs. 52.1 s (CI 26.1 to 78) in group BB. The difference in mean TTI was 10.1 s (CI -∞ to 14.9). We rejected the null hypothesis and concluded with 95% confidence that the difference of the mean TTI between the groups is less than < 15 s (95% CI -∞ to 14.9,p = 0.0461). Our induction times were comparable (67.7 vs. 65.9 s).100% of our patients were intubated on the first attempt in both groups. None of our patients needed rescue breaths. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in patients with normal airway exam, scheduled for elective surgeries, our barrier box did not cause any clinically significant delay in TTI when airway manipulation is performed by well-trained providers. The study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04411056) on May 27, 2020.


Assuntos
Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/métodos , Anestesiologia/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Adulto , Aerossóis , Idoso , Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/instrumentação , Anestesiologistas/organização & administração , Anestesiologia/instrumentação , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Intubação Intratraqueal/instrumentação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Estudos Prospectivos , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Fatores de Tempo
7.
Anesthesiology ; 133(3): 500-509, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32788557

RESUMO

There are an increasing number of "big data" studies in anesthesia that seek to answer clinical questions by observing the care and outcomes of many patients across a variety of care settings. This Readers' Toolbox will explain how to estimate the influence of patient factors on clinical outcome, addressing bias and confounding. One approach to limit the influence of confounding is to perform a clinical trial. When such a trial is infeasible, observational studies using robust regression techniques may be able to advance knowledge. Logistic regression is used when the outcome is binary (e.g., intracranial hemorrhage: yes or no), by modeling the natural log for the odds of an outcome. Because outcomes are influenced by many factors, we commonly use multivariable logistic regression to estimate the unique influence of each factor. From this tutorial, one should acquire a clearer understanding of how to perform and assess multivariable logistic regression.


Assuntos
Anestesiologia/métodos , Anestesiologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Viés , Feminino , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Gravidez
8.
Artigo em Alemão | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32736389

RESUMO

It is necessary to discuss the sometimes competing goals of sufficient critical care capacity, maintenance of regular patient care, protection of medical staff, interruption of infectious chains within the general public and individual aspects of patient care in anesthesia and the operating room in times of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic, given the uncertainty of many data on which decisions need to be based. Basic hygiene remains the cornerstone of infection prevention especially when resources are sparse and SARS-CoV-2 specific additional measures need to be taken according to a risk analysis taking the dynamic of the pandemic as well as local factors into account.


Assuntos
Anestesiologia/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Pandemias
10.
Pain Physician ; 23(4): 413-422, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32709176

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists. OBJECTIVES: To examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database. METHODS: Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database. Data collected for each case included year, state, patient age, patient gender, defendant specialty, legal outcome, award amount, alleged cause of malpractice, and factors in plaintiff's decision to file. After elimination of duplicates and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria to our initial search yielding over 1,500 cases, a total of 82 cases were included in this study. RESULTS: A total of 57.3% of cases resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, whereas 41.5% favored the plaintiff. When comparing cases that were performed in the operating room to cases performed outside the operating room, we found the jury verdicts to favor the plaintiff 83.3% of the time for operating room procedures (P = 0.003). In other words, interventional pain practitioners were more likely to be found at fault for complications from procedures performed in the operating room. To eliminate confounders, a logistical regression was performed and confirmed operating room procedures were an independent predictor of a verdict awarded to the plaintiff (P = 0.008). The median amount awarded to the plaintiff for all cases was $333,000, and the single highest award amount was $36,636,288. The median payout for operating room procedures was $450,000 (P = 0.010), which was significantly different from the median payout for nonoperating room procedures. Procedure categorization demonstrated a statistically significant difference in jury verdicts (P = 0.01411) and procedural error was the leading reason for pursuing litigation, followed by lack of informed consent and unnecessary procedure performed. LIMITATIONS: There is more than one database that captures medicolegal claims brought against practitioners. Westlaw, which has been previously utilized by other studies, is only one of them and the extent to which overlap exists in unclear. For each, data input are not necessarily consistent and data capture are not complete. As a result, there could exist a skew toward more severe complications and the details of individual cases likely vary. During data extraction, we found that all details of the procedure were not always included. For example, not all cases specified the type of injectate utilized for epidural injection (i.e., local anesthetic, steroid, mixture, and others) or route of injection (i.e., transforaminal vs. interlaminar). Moreover, as previously mentioned, cases that are settled out of court or finalized prior to trial are not necessarily reported by the Westlaw database, and therefore were not always included in our data search. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, interventional pain medicine physicians were favored by jury verdicts for malpractice claims. However, when filtering by procedure or setting, jury verdicts favored the plaintiff in some cases. KEY WORDS: Interventional pain, medical, malpractice, anesthesiology.


Assuntos
Anestesiologia/legislação & jurisprudência , Governo Federal , Imperícia/legislação & jurisprudência , Manejo da Dor/normas , Dor/epidemiologia , Governo Estadual , Adulto , Anestesiologia/métodos , Anestesiologia/normas , Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Anestésicos Locais/efeitos adversos , Bases de Dados Factuais/normas , Feminino , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais/métodos , Injeções Epidurais/normas , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Manejo da Dor/efeitos adversos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Projetos Piloto , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
11.
Pain Physician ; 23(4): E335-E342, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32709179

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: More patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) are presenting to spine and pain practices for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedures for chronic pain. Although the potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI) affecting CIED function is known with RFA procedures, available guidelines do not specifically address CIED management for percutaneous RFA for zygapophyseal (z-joint) joint pain, and thus physician practice may vary. OBJECTIVES: To better understand current practices of physicians who perform RFA for chronic z-joint pain with respect to management of CIEDs. Perioperative CIED management guidelines are also reviewed to specifically address risk mitigation strategies for potential EMI created by ambulatory percutaneous spine RFA procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Web-based provider survey and narrative review. SETTING: Multispecialty pain clinic, academic medical center. METHODS: A web-based survey was created using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). A survey link was provided via e-mail to active members of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS), American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, as well as distributed freely to community Pain Physicians and any receptive academic departments of PM&R or Anesthesiology. The narrative review summarizes pertinent case series, review articles, a SIS recommendation statement, and multi-specialty peri-operative guidelines as they relate specifically to spine RFA procedures. RESULTS: A total of 197 clinicians participated in the survey from diverse clinical backgrounds, including anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, radiology, neurosurgery, and neurology, with 81% reporting fellowship training. Survey responses indicate wide variability in provider management of CIEDs before, during, and after RFA for z-joint pain. Respondents indicated they would like more specific guidelines to aid in management and decision-making around CIEDs and spine RFA procedures. Literature review yielded several practice guidelines related to perioperative management of CIEDs, but no specific guideline for percutaneous spine RFA procedures. However, combining the risk mitigation strategies provided in these guidelines, with interventional pain physician clinical experience allows for reasonable management recommendations to aid in decision-making. LIMITATIONS: Although this manuscript can serve as a review of CIEDs and aid in management decisions in patients with CIEDs, it is not a clinical practice guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Practice patterns vary regarding CIED management in ambulatory spine RFA procedures. CIED presence is not a contraindication for spine RFA but does increase the complexity of a spine RFA procedure and necessitates some added precautions. KEY WORDS: Radiofrequency ablation, neurotomy, cardiac implantable electrical device, zygapophyseal joint, spondylosis, neck pain, low back pain, chronic pain.


Assuntos
Dor nas Costas/cirurgia , Ablação por Cateter/normas , Desfibriladores Implantáveis/normas , Médicos/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Inquéritos e Questionários , Anestesia por Condução/métodos , Anestesia por Condução/normas , Anestesiologia/métodos , Anestesiologia/normas , Ablação por Cateter/métodos , Dor Crônica/cirurgia , Humanos , Articulação Zigapofisária/cirurgia
13.
A A Pract ; 14(8): e01252, 2020 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32496429

RESUMO

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has created serious challenges to anesthesiologists. As hospitalized patients' respiratory function deteriorates, many will require endotracheal intubation. Airway management of infected patients risks aerosolization of viral-loaded droplets that pose serious hazards to the anesthesiologist and all health care personnel present. The addition of an enclosure barrier during airway management minimizes the hazard by entrapping the droplets and possibly the aerosols within an enclosed space adding additional protection for health care workers. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different barrier enclosure techniques during tracheal intubation and extubation.


Assuntos
Extubação/métodos , Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Exposição Ocupacional/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Extubação/instrumentação , Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/instrumentação , Anestesiologistas , Anestesiologia/métodos , Desenho de Equipamento , Humanos , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , Intubação Intratraqueal/instrumentação , Manequins , Pandemias , Recursos Humanos em Hospital
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...