Anesthesiologists as perioperative hospitalists and outcomes in patients undergoing major urologic surgery: a historical prospective, comparative effectiveness study

Scoping Review: Anesthesiologist Involvement in Alternative Payment Models, Value Measurement, and Nonclinical Capabilities for Success in the United States of America

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.

Effect of Active Surgical Co-Management by Medical Hospitalists in Urology Inpatient Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the use of active surgical co-management (SCM) by medical hospitalists for urology inpatient care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since March 2019, a hospitalist-SCM program was implemented at a tertiary-care medical center, and a retrospective cohort study was conducted among co-managed urology inpatients. We assessed the clinical outcomes of urology inpatients who received SCM and compared passive SCM (co-management of patients by hospitalists only on request; March 2019 to June 2020) with active SCM (co-management of patients based on active screening by hospitalists; July 2020 to October 2021). We also evaluated the perceptions of patients who received SCM toward inpatient care quality, safety, and subjective satisfaction with inpatient care at discharge or when transferred to other wards.

RESULTS

We assessed 525 patients. Compared with the passive SCM group (n=205), patients in the active SCM group (n=320) required co-management for a significantly shorter duration (p=0.012) and tended to have a shorter length of stay at the urology ward (p=0.062) and less frequent unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge (p=0.095) while triggering significantly fewer events of rapid response team activation (p=0.002). No differences were found in the proportion of patients transferred to the intensive care unit, in-hospital mortality rates, or inpatient care questionnaire scores.

CONCLUSION

Active surveillance and co-management of urology inpatients by medical hospitalists can improve the quality and efficacy of inpatient care without compromising subjective inpatient satisfaction.

Perioperative outcomes in intermediate and high-risk patients after major surgery following introduction of a dedicated perioperative medicine team: A single centre cohort study

Intermediate and high-risk patients undergoing surgery are often managed on a surgical ward in the absence of haemodynamic or ventilatory support requirements necessitating intensive care unit or high dependency unit admission. We describe a model of care for the multidisciplinary management of selected postoperative patients and the epidemiology of patients managed using this model at a tertiary Australian hospital.Of 25,139 patients undergoing inpatient surgery at our institution over a two-year period, 506 (2%) were referred to the Perioperative Medicine team. The median age of patients referred was 74 years; 85% had an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥3, and 44% underwent emergency surgery. Major complication or death within 30 days was 44.2% (213/482). The most common complications, as defined by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were transfusion within 72 h (17.4%), pneumonia/aspiration pneumonitis (11.3%), and acute renal failure (10.6%); median time to Medical Emergency Team call was 146 (interquartile range 77-279) h.Sixty-six percent of referred patients (280/423) required an intervention during their time under the service. This high incidence indicates that this population of patients merits closer attention, including routine measurement and reporting of postoperative outcomes to monitor and improve quality of care at our institution as part of an integrated perioperative service. We believe that with so much current focus on perioperative medicine, it is important we translate this to clinical care by evolving traditional models of management into more innovative strategies to meet the complex demands of today's surgical patients.

Perceptions and practices surrounding the perioperative management of frail emergency surgery patients: a WSES-endorsed cross-sectional qualitative survey

BACKGROUND

Frailty is associated with poor post-operative outcomes in emergency surgical patients. Shared multidisciplinary models have been developed to provide a holistic, reactive model of care to improve outcomes for older people living with frailty. We aimed to describe current perioperative practices, and surgeons' awareness and perception of perioperative frailty management, and barriers to its implementation.

METHODS

A qualitative cross-sectional survey was sent via the World Society of Emergency Surgery e-letter to their members. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and reported by themes: risk scoring systems, frailty awareness and assessment and barriers to implementation.

RESULT

Of 168/1000 respondents, 38% were aware of the terms "Perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery" (POPS) and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). 66.6% of respondents assessed perioperative risk, with 45.2% using the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA-PS). 77.8% of respondents mostly agreed or agreed with the statement that they routinely conducted medical comorbidity management, and pain and falls risk assessment during emergency surgical admissions. Although 98.2% of respondents agreed that frailty was important, only 2.4% performed CGA and 1.2% used a specific frailty screening tool. Clinical frailty score was the most commonly used tool by those who did. Screening was usually conducted by surgical trainees. Key barriers included a lack of knowledge about frailty assessment, a lack of clarity on who should be responsible for frailty screening, and a lack of trained staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the ubiquitous lack of awareness regarding frailty assessment and the POPS model of care. More training and clear guidelines on frailty scoring, alongside support by multidisciplinary teams, may reduce the burden on surgical trainees, potentially improving rates of appropriate frailty assessment and management of the frailty syndrome in emergency surgical patients.

Pro-Con Debate: Anesthesiologist- Versus Hospitalist- Run Preoperative Clinics and Perioperative Care

In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss the models, value propositions, and opportunities of preoperative clinics run by anesthesiologists versus hospitalists and their role in perioperative care. The medical and anesthesia evaluation before surgery has pivoted from the model of "clearance" to the model of risk assessment, preparation, and optimization of medical and psychosocial risk factors. Assessment of these risk factors, optimization, and care coordination in the preoperative period has expanded the roles of anesthesiologists and hospitalists as members of the perioperative care team. There is ongoing debate regarding which model of preoperative assessment provides the most optimal preparation for the patient undergoing surgery. This article hopes to shed light on this debate with the data and perspectives on these care models.

Critical Care Medicine Practice: A Pilot Survey of US Anesthesia Critical Care Medicine-Trained Physicians

BACKGROUND

This survey assessed satisfaction with the practice environment among physicians who have completed fellowship training in critical care medicine (CCM) as recognized by the American Board of Anesthesiology (and are members of the American Society of Anesthesiology) and evaluated the perceived effectiveness of training programs in preparing fellows for critical care practice.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey composed of 39 multiple choice and open-ended questions was administered between August and December 2018 to all members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) who self-identified as being CCM trained. The survey instrument was developed and revised in an iterative fashion by ASA committee on CCM and the Society for Education in Anesthesia (SEA). Survey results were analyzed using a mixed-method approach.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-three of the 1400 anesthesiologists who self-identified to the ASA as having CCM training (25.2%) completed the survey. Most were men (72.3%), board certified in CCM (98.7%), and had practiced a median of 5 years. Half of the respondents rated their training as "excellent." A total of 70.6% described currently working in academic centers with 53.6% providing care in open surgical intensive care units (ICUs). Most anesthesiologist intensivists (75%) spend at least 25% of their clinical time providing ICU care (versus clinical anesthesia). A total of 89% of the respondents were involved in educational activities, 60% reported being in administrative leadership roles, and 37% engaged in scholarly activity. Areas of dissatisfaction included fatigue, lack of collegiality or respect, lack of research training, decreased job satisfaction, and burnout. Analysis suggested moderate levels of job satisfaction (49%), work-life balance (52%), and high levels of burnout (74%). A significant contributor to burnout was with a perception of lack of respect (P = .005) in the work environment. Burnout was not significantly associated with gender or duration of practice. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses also identified these 3 variables as major themes.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey of CCM-trained anesthesiologists described a high rate of board certification, practice in academic settings, and participation in resident education. Areas of dissatisfaction with an anesthesia/critical care practice included burnout, work/life balance, and lack of respect. These results may increase recruitment of anesthesiologists into critical care and inform strategies to improve satisfaction with anesthesia critical care practice, fellowship training.