RESUMO
The US healthcare sector is undergoing significant payment reforms, leading to the emergence of Alternative Payment Models (APMs) aimed at improving clinical outcomes and patient experiences while reducing costs. This scoping review provides an overview of the involvement of anesthesiologists in APMs as found in published literature. It specifically aims to categorize and understand the breadth and depth of their participation, revolving around 3 main axes or "Aims": (1) shaping APMs through design and implementation, (2) gauging the value and quality of care provided by anesthesiologists within these models, and (3) enhancing nonclinical abilities of anesthesiologists for promoting more value in care. To map out the existing literature, a comprehensive search of relevant electronic databases was conducted, yielding a total of 2173 articles, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 21 prospective or retrospective cohort studies, 2 surveys, and 1 case-control cohort study. Eleven publications (45%) discussed value-based, bundled, or episode-based payments, whereas the rest discussed non-payment-based models, such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (7 articles, 29%), Perioperative Surgical Home (4 articles, 17%), or other models (3 articles, 13%).The review identified key themes related to each aim. The most prominent themes for aim 1 included protocol standardization (16 articles, 67%), design and implementation leadership (8 articles, 33%), multidisciplinary collaboration (7 articles, 29%), and role expansion (5 articles, 21%). For aim 2, the common themes were Process-Based & Patient-Centric Metrics (1 article, 4%), Shared Accountability (3 articles, 13%), and Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) (3 articles, 13%). Furthermore, we identified a wide range of quality metrics, spanning 8 domains that were used in these studies to evaluate anesthesiologists' performance. For aim 3, the main extracted themes included Education on Healthcare Transformation and Policies (3 articles, 13%), Exploring Collaborative Leadership Skills (5 articles, 21%), and Embracing Advanced Analytics and Data Transparency (4 articles, 17%).Findings revealed the pivotal role of anesthesiologists in the design, implementation, and refinement of these emerging delivery and payment models. Our results highlight that while payment models are shifting toward value, patient-centered metrics have yet to be widely accepted for use in measuring quality and affecting payment for anesthesiologists. Gaps remain in understanding how anesthesiologists assess their direct impact and strategies for enhancing the sustainability of anesthesia practices. This review underscores the need for future research contributing to the successful adaptation of clinical practices in this new era of healthcare delivery.
RESUMO
Background/Objectives: The use of neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery remains an active area of research, with recent studies demonstrating mixed findings supporting neuraxial over general anesthesia. The benefits of neuraxial anesthesia have been documented in associated surgeries, including total joint arthroplasty. However, racial disparities in the administration of neuraxial anesthesia have been identified in numerous procedures. We aimed to examine the association of race/ethnicity with neuraxial anesthesia use and the effect of neuraxial anesthesia on length of stay, non-home discharge, 30-day severe adverse events, and rates of readmission among patients undergoing isolated hip and femoral shaft fracture operations. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program database was queried for isolated hip or femoral shaft fractures from 2015 to 2019. Stepwise logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between race/ethnicity and neuraxial anesthesia use. Within each sex-race stratum, neuraxial anesthesia recipients were propensity-matched to general anesthesia recipients in a 1:2 ratio. Logistic regression and negative binomial regression were performed on the propensity-matched cohort. Results: A total of 12,004 neuraxial and 64,250 general anesthesia hip and femoral shaft fracture patients were identified. Compared to White patients, Black and Hispanic patients were between 0.64 and 0.61 times less likely to receive neuraxial anesthesia over general anesthesia, respectively (p < 0.05). 11,993 patients who received neuraxial anesthesia were propensity matched to 23,946 patients who received general anesthesia. Propensity-matched logistic regressions found that neuraxial anesthesia was associated with decreased length of stay, 30-day severe adverse events, and acute rehab/skilled nursing facility discharge for White patients (p < 0.05 for all), but only decreased length of stay in Black and Hispanic patients (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively). Conclusions: Notable disparities exist in the administration of neuraxial anesthesia for isolated hip and femoral shaft fracture patients. Hispanic and Black race/ethnicity in particular influences provision of neuraxial anesthesia. Further research is required to understand the degree of effect modification and root causes of regional anesthesia access and benefits for this high-volume patient population.