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

Larger anesthesia practitioner per operating room ratios are needed to prevent unnecessary non-operative time than to mitigate patient risk: A narrative review

When choosing the anesthesia practitioner to operating room (OR) ratio for a hospital, objectives are applied to mitigate patient risk: 1) ensuring sufficient anesthesiologists to meet requirements for presence during critical intraoperative events (e.g., anesthesia induction) and 2) ensuring sufficient numbers to cover emergencies outside the ORs (e.g., emergent reintubation in the post-anesthesia care unit). At a 24-OR suite with each anesthesiologist supervising residents in 2 ORs, because critical events overlapped among ORs, ≥14 anesthesiologists were needed to be present for all critical events on >90% of days. The suitable anesthesia practitioner to OR ratio would be 1.58, where 1.58 = (24 + 14)/24. Our narrative review of 22 studies from 17 distinct hospitals shows that the practitioner to OR ratio needed to reduce non-operative time is reliably even larger. Activities to reduce non-operative times include performing preoperative evaluations, making prompt evidence-based decisions at the OR control desk, giving breaks during cases (e.g., lunch or lactation sessions), and using induction and block rooms in parallel to OR cases. The reviewed articles counted the frequency of these activities, finding them much more common than urgent patient-care events. Our review shows, also, that 1 anesthesiologist per OR, working without assistants, is often more expensive, from a societal perspective, than having a few more anesthesia practitioners (i.e., ratio > 1.00). These results are generalizable among hundreds of hospitals, based on managerial epidemiology studies. The implication of our narrative review is that existing studies have already shown, functionally, that artificial intelligence and monitoring technologies based on increasing the safety of intraoperative care have little to no potential to influence anesthesia or OR productivity. There are, in contrast, opportunities to use sensor data and decision-support to facilitate communication among anesthesiologists outside of ORs to choose optimal task sequences that reduce non-operative times, thereby increasing production and OR efficiency.

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.

Similarities Between Pediatric and General Hospitals Based on Fundamental Attributes of Surgery Including Cases Per Surgeon Per Workday

Introduction

Operating room (OR) management decision-making at both pediatric and adult hospitals is determined, in large part, by the same fundamental attributes of surgery and other considerations related to case duration prediction. These include the non-preemptive nature of surgeries, wide prediction limits for case duration, and constraints to moving or resequencing cases on the day of surgery. Another attribute fundamentally affecting OR management is the median number of cases a surgeon performs on their OR days. Most adult surgeons have short lists of cases (i.e., one or two cases per day). Similarly, at adult hospitals, growth in caseloads is mostly due to the subset of those surgeons who also operate just once or twice per week. It is unknown if these characteristics of surgery apply to pediatric surgeons and pediatric hospitals as well.

Methods

Our retrospective cohort study included all elective surgical cases performed at the six pediatric hospitals in Florida during 2018 and 2019 (n = 71,340 cases). We calculated the percentages of combinations of surgeon, date, and hospital (lists) comprising one or two cases, or just one case, and determined if the values were statistically >50% (i.e., indicative of “most”). We determined if most of the growth in caseload and intraoperative work relative value units (wRVUs) at the pediatric hospitals between 2018 and 2019 accrued from low-caseload surgeons. Results are reported as mean ± standard error of the mean.

Results

Averaging among the six pediatric hospitals, the non-holiday weekday lists of most surgeons at each facility had just one or two elective cases, inpatient and/or ambulatory (68.1%; p = 0.016 vs. 50%, n = 27,557 lists). Growth in surgical caseloads from 2018 to 2019 was mostly attributable to surgeons who in 2018 averaged ≤2.0 cases per week (76.3% ± 5.4%, p = 0.0085 vs. 50%). Similarly, growth in wRVUs was mostly attributable to these low-caseload surgeons (73.8% ± 5.4%, p = 0.017 vs. 50%).

Conclusions

Like adult hospitals, most pediatric surgeons’ lists of cases consist of only one or two cases per day, with many lists containing a single case. Similarly, growth at pediatric hospitals accrued from low-caseload surgeons who performed one or two cases per week in the preceding year. These findings indicate that hospitals desiring to increase their surgical caseload should ensure that low-caseload surgeons are provided access to the OR schedule. Additionally, since percent-adjusted utilization and raw utilization cannot be accurately measured for low-caseload surgeons, neither metric should be used to allocate OR time to individual surgeons. Since most adult and pediatric surgeons have low caseloads, this is a fundamental attribute of surgery.

Most surgeons' daily elective lists in Florida comprise only 1 or 2 elective cases, making percent utilization unreliable for planning individual surgeons' block time

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Operating room (OR) utilization has been shown in multiple studies to be an inappropriate metric for planning OR time for individual surgeons. Among surgeons with low daily caseloads, percentage utilization cannot be measured accurately because confidence limits are extremely wide. In Iowa, a largely rural state, most surgeons performed only 1 or 2 elective cases on their OR days. To assess generalizability, we analyzed Florida, a state with many high-population density areas.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

The 602 facilities in Florida that performed inpatient or outpatient elective surgery from January 2010 through December 2019.

SUBJECTS

The providers licensed to perform surgery in Florida (physician, oral surgeons, dentists, and podiatrists) were identified by their national provider number. Hospitals were deidentified before analysis.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was the mean among facilities in percentages of surgeon-day combinations ("lists") containing 1 or 2 cases. Proportions were calculated using Freeman-Tukey transformation and the harmonic mean of the number of lists at each facility. Comparison to "most" (>50%) used Student's two-sided one-group t-test.

MAIN RESULTS

Averaging among hospitals, most surgeons' lists included 1 or 2 cases (64.4%; 99% confidence interval [CI] 61.3%-67.4%) P < 0.00001). Many lists had 1 case (44.2%, 99% CI 41.2%-47.2%). Nearly all (96.7%) surgeons operated at just one hospital on their OR days.

CONCLUSIONS

Most surgeons' lists of elective surgical cases comprised 1 or 2 cases in the largely urban state of Florida, as previously found in the largely rural state of Iowa. Results were insensitive to organizational size or county population. Thus, our finding is generalizable in the United States. Consequently, neither adjusted nor raw utilization should be used solely when allocating OR time to individual surgeons. Anesthesia and nursing coverage of cases can be based on maximizing the efficiency of use of OR time.