Associated Roles of Perioperative Medical Directors and Anesthesia

Bibliometric Analysis of Contributions of Anesthesiology Journals and Anesthesiologists to Operating Room Management Science

BACKGROUND

Anesthesiology journals appear to have been progressively publishing a smaller percentage of operating room (OR) management studies. Similarly, non-anesthesiologists have increasingly been authors of these publications. Five hypotheses were formulated to evaluate these impressions based on 2 of the authors' curation of an online, comprehensive bibliography of OR management articles and corresponding referenced course materials.

METHODS

We studied all 2938 publications having Scopus' SciVal topic T.6319 (OR management) more than 28 years from 1996 through May 2023, including 8608 distinct authors.

RESULTS

Half (50%) of the publications were absent from PubMed, and the percentage absent has been increasing progressively (Kendall's τ = 0.71; P < .0001). Fewer than half were published in journals including anesthesiology as the sole classification (20%) or as one of the classifications (27%). The anesthesiology journals have been publishing a progressively decreasing fraction (τ = -0.61; P < .0001). Among the 11 authors each contributing at least 1% of the OR management science publications, 9 were anesthesiologists and the other 2 had anesthesiologists as coauthors on all these publications. Only 3% of authors had at least 10 OR management publications from earlier years. There were 75% of authors with no such earlier publications and 85% with 0 or 1. There was a progressive increase in the number of authors publishing OR management annually and with at most 1 such earlier publication (τ = 0.90; P < .0001). Only 20% of publications had any author with at least 10 earlier OR management publications, 48% had every author with no such earlier publications, and 60% had all authors with 0 or 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most of the authors with the greatest production of OR management science were anesthesiologists, the percentage of publications in anesthesiology journals has been decreasing progressively. Anesthesiologists cannot rely solely on anesthesiology journals to keep up with the field. For most publications, every author had few or no earlier publications on the topic. Clinicians and managers relying on OR management science will continue to need to apply more information when judging whether published results can reliably be applied to their facilities.

Managing capacity for urgent surgery: staffing, staff scheduling in-house or on-call from home, and work assignments

Parmar and colleagues developed and validated a graphical method for choosing the number of operating theatres to set aside for urgent surgical cases. We address appropriate usage of their new method for calculating anaesthesia staffing, including comparison with previously published techniques. Parmar and colleagues' method is based on all staff scheduled in-house, rather than some on-call from home. We review that this is not nearly as large a limitation as it may seem because of behavioural factors of staff assignment.

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.

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.

Trends in Direct Hospital Payments to Anesthesia Groups: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Nonacademic Hospitals in California

BACKGROUND

In addition to payments for services, anesthesia groups in the United States often receive revenue from direct hospital payments. Understanding the magnitude of these payments and their association with the hospitals' payer mixes has important policy implications.

METHODS

Using a dataset of financial reports from 240 nonacademic California hospitals between 2002 and 2014, the authors characterized the prevalence and magnitude of direct hospital payments to anesthesia groups, and analyzed the association between these payments and the fraction of anesthesia revenue derived from public payers (e.g., Medicaid).

RESULTS

Of hospitals analyzed, 69% (124 of 180) made direct payments to an anesthesia group in 2014, compared to 52% (76 of 147) in 2002; the median payment increased from $242,351 (mean, $578,322; interquartile range, $72,753 to $523,861; all dollar values in 2018 U.S. dollars) to $765,128 (mean, $1,295,369; interquartile range, $267,006 to $1,503,163) during this time period. After adjusting for relevant covariates, hospitals where public insurers accounted for a larger fraction of anesthesia revenues were more likely to make direct payments to anesthesia groups (β = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.81; P = 0.013), so that a 10-percentage point increase in the fraction of anesthesia revenue derived from public payers would be associated with a 4.5-percentage point increase in the probability of receiving any payment. Among hospitals making payments, our results (β = 2.10; 95% CI, 0.74 to 3.45; P = 0.003) suggest that a 1-percentage point increase in the fraction of anesthesia revenue derived from public payers would be associated with a 2% relative increase in the amount paid.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct payments from hospitals are becoming a larger financial consideration for anesthesia groups in California serving nonacademic hospitals, and are larger for groups working at hospitals serving publicly insured patients.

Improving intraoperative handoffs for ambulatory anesthesia: challenges and solutions for the anesthesiologist

Permanent transitions of care from one anesthesia provider to another are associated with adverse events and mortality. There are currently no available data on how to mitigate these poor patient outcomes other than to reduce the occurrence of such handoffs. We used data from an ambulatory surgery center to demonstrate the steps that can be taken to achieve this goal. First, perform statistical forecasting using many months of historical data to create optimal, as opposed to arbitrary shift durations. Second, consider assigning the anesthesia providers designated to work late, if necessary, to the ORs estimated to finish the earliest, rather than latest. We performed multiple analyses showing the quantitative advantage of this strategy for the ambulatory surgery center with multiple brief cases. Third, sequence the cases in the 1 or 2 ORs with the latest scheduled end times so that the briefest cases are finished last. If a supervising anesthesiologist needs to be relieved early for administrative duties (eg, head of the group to meet with administrators or surgeons), assign the anesthesiologist to an OR that finishes with several brief cases. The rationale for these recommendations is that such strategies provide multiple opportunities for a different anesthesia provider to assume responsibility for the patients between cases, thus avoiding a handoff altogether.

US National Anesthesia Workload on Saturday and Sunday Mornings

BACKGROUND

In order to provide guidance to organizations considering elective weekend surgical case scheduling, we analyzed data from the American Society of Anesthesiologist's Anesthesia Quality Institute. We determined the US anesthesia workload on Saturdays and Sundays.

METHODS

The American Society of Anesthesiologist's Anesthesia Quality Institute data were from all US anesthesia groups that submitted cases to the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry for 2013. For each of the N = 2,075,188 cases, we identified the local date and time of the start of anesthesia care and the duration of anesthesia care. Anesthesia workload was measured as the time from the start to the end of continuous anesthesia care. Because elective cases are rarely scheduled on Sundays, we considered the difference in workload between Saturday and Sunday to estimate elective case scheduling. This difference would be an overestimate if some patients' scheduled cases were postponed from Friday to Saturday. Data are reported as mean ± standard error; N = 13 four-week periods.

RESULTS

The difference in the anesthesia minutes between Saturdays versus Sundays 7:00 AM to 2:59 PM (ie, elective caseload) represented just 0.38% ± 0.02% of the total minutes nationwide; Saturday 1.57% ± 0.03% versus Sunday 1.19% ± 0.02%. The P < .00001 comparing the 0.38% with 1.0% and, also, with 0.5% (upper 99% confidence interval = 0.42%).

CONCLUSIONS

The imputed Saturday elective schedule represents a tiny percentage of overall anesthetic workload nationwide. Saturday elective surgery is currently an uncommon practice in the United States. Based on this prior knowledge, organizations considering changes to their current scheduling strategies should perform a thorough statistical analysis of their local workload prior to implementation and apply evidence-based criteria to guide their decision-making process.

Timeliness of Operating Room Case Planning and Time Utilization: Influence of First and To-Follow Cases

Resource and cost constraints in hospitals demand thorough planning of operating room schedules. Ideally, exact start times and durations are known in advance for each case. However, aside from the first case’s start, most factors are hard to predict. While the role of the start of the first case for optimal room utilization has been shown before, data for to-follow cases are lacking. The present study therefore aimed to analyze all elective surgery cases of a university hospital within 1 year in search of visible patterns. A total of 14,014 cases scheduled on 254 regular working days at a university hospital between September 2015 and August 2016 underwent screening. After eliminating 112 emergencies during regular working hours, 13,547 elective daytime cases were analyzed, out of which 4,346 ranked first, 3,723 second, and 5,478 third or higher in the daily schedule. Also, 36% of cases changed start times from the day before to 7:00 a.m., with half of these (52%) resulting in a delay of more than 15 min. After 7:00 a.m., 87% of cases started more than 10 min off schedule, with 26% being early and 74% late. Timeliness was 15 ± 72 min (mean ± SD) for first, 21 ± 84 min for second, and 25 ± 93 min for all to-follow cases, compared to preoperative day planning, and 21 ± 45, 23 ± 61, and 19 ± 74 min compared to 7:00 a.m. status. Start time deviations were also related to procedure duration, with cases of 61–90 min duration being most reliable (deviation 9.8 ± 67 min compared to 7:00 a.m.), regardless of order. In consequence, cases following after 61–90 min long cases had the shortest deviations of incision time from schedule (16 ± 66 min). Taken together, start times for elective surgery cases deviate substantially from schedule, with first and second cases falling into the highest mean deviation category. Second cases had the largest deviations from scheduled times compared to first and all to-follow cases. While planned vs. actual start times differ among specialties, cases of 61–90 min duration had the most reliable start times, with neither shorter nor longer cases seeming to improve timeliness of start times.