At all hospitals in the State of Iowa over a decade, the number of cases performed during weekends or holidays increased approximately proportionally to the total caseload

Narrative review of mathematical and psychological studies of staff scheduling for holidays as applicable to anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists

We performed a narrative review of articles applicable to anesthesiologists' and nurse anesthetists' choices of who works each statutory holiday for operating room and non-operating room anesthesia. We include search protocols and detailed supplementary annotated comments. Studies showed that holiday staff scheduling is emotional. Working on holidays often is more stressful and undesirable than comparable workdays. Intrinsic motivation may overall, among practitioners, be greater by preferentially scheduling practitioners who choose to work on holidays, for compensation, before mandating that practitioners who would prefer to be off must work on holidays. Granting each practitioner (who so desires) at least one major holiday off can depend on identifying and scheduling other clinicians who want to work holidays for monetary compensation or extra compensatory time off. Scheduling holidays by random priority (i.e., a lottery choosing who gets to pick their holiday[s] first, second, etc.) is inefficient, resulting in fewer practitioners having their preferences satisfied, especially for small departments or divisions (e.g., cardiac anesthesia). No article that we reviewed implemented a random priority mechanism for staff scheduling. The selection of practitioners to take turns in choosing their holidays is perceived to have less fairness than a selection process that collects each participants' preferences. Although holidays often are scheduled separately from regular workdays and weekends, doing so will not increase efficiency or fairness. Holidays can, in practice, be scheduled simultaneously with non-holidays. Models can explicitly include fairness as an objective. For example, fairness can be based on the difference between the maximum and minimum number of holidays for which practitioners of the same division are scheduled. Holidays can be given greater weights than other shifts when estimating fairness. Staff scheduling for holidays, when done simultaneously with regular workdays, nights, and weekends, can also use personalized weights, specifying practitioners' preferences to be satisfied if possible.

The anesthetizing sites supervised to anesthesiologist ratio is an invalid surrogate for group productivity in academic anesthesia departments when used without consideration of the corresponding managerial decisions

When the anesthesiologist does not individually perform the anesthesia care, then to make valid comparisons among US anesthesia departments, one must consider the staffing ratio (i.e., how many cases each anesthesiologist supervises when working with Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists [CRNAs] or Certified Anesthesiologist Assistants [CAA]). The staffing ratio also must be considered when accurately measuring group productivity. In this narrative review, we consider anesthesia departments with non-physician anesthesia providers and anesthesiology residents. We investigate the validity of such departments assessing the overall ratio of anesthetizing sites supervised per anesthesiologist as a surrogate for group clinical productivity. The sites/anesthesiologist ratio can be estimated accurately using the arithmetic mean calculated by anesthesiologist, the harmonic mean calculated by case, or the harmonic mean calculated by CRNA or CAA, but not by the arithmetic mean ratio by case. However, there is lack of validity to benchmarking the percentage time that anesthesiologists are supervising the maximum possible number of CRNAs or CAAs when some of the anesthesiologists also are supervising resident physicians. Assignments can differ in the total number anesthesiologists needed while every anesthesiologist is supervising as many sites as possible. Similarly, there is lack of validity to limiting assessment to the anesthesiologists supervising only CRNAs or CAAs. There also is lack of validity to limiting assessment only to cases performed by supervised CRNAs or CAAs. When cases can be assigned to anesthesiology residents or CRNAs or CAAs, increasing sites/anesthesiologist while limiting consideration to the CRNAs or CAAs creates incentive for the CRNAs or CAAs to be assigned cases, even when lesser productivity is the outcome. Decisions also can increase sites/anesthesiologist without increasing productivity (e.g., when one anesthesiologist relieves another before the end of the regular workday). A suitable alternative approach to fallaciously treating the sites/anesthesiologist ratio as a surrogate for productivity is that, when a teaching hospital supplies financial support, a responsibility of the anesthesia department is to explain annually the principal factors affecting productivity at each facility it manages and to show annually that decisions were made that maximized productivity, subject to the facilities' constraints.

Benefit of systematic selection of pairs of cases matched by surgical specialty for surveillance of bacterial transmission in operating rooms

BACKGROUND

Bacterial transmission within and between successive surgical cases occurs in operating rooms (ORs), often includes anesthesia equipment as a reservoir, and can be monitored by collecting samples and identifying bacteria by genetic testing. We evaluated how to choose cases for active surveillance to quantify the effectiveness of interventions in 2 groups of ORs (eg, rooms with germicidal lighting vs those without).

METHODS

Data were from a 7 OR single-specialty gastrointestinal endoscopy suite and from a typical 8 OR multispecialty surgical suite.

RESULTS

At the multispecialty hospital, 40.3% (SE 1.2%) of the total number of cases could be used for surveillance (ie, followed by another case of the same specialty and matched with a corresponding pair of cases from the other OR group). Random selection obtained fewer matched pairs than deliberate selection: mean ratio of random/deliberate = 0.64 (0.01) for the single-specialty and 0.51 (0.02) for the multispecialty suite (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficiency of sampling to obtain pairs of successive surgical cases of the same specialty is impaired markedly by randomly selecting pairs of cases (or using convenience sampling) as compared to choosing pairs deliberately. This is important because the number of cases that can be suitably used for surveillance of bacterial transmission will typically be less than one-half the total case number.