Background A nonroutine event is any aspect of clinical care perceived by clinicians or trained observers as a deviation from optimal care based on the context of the clinical situation. The authors sought to delineate the incidence and nature of intraoperative nonroutine events during anesthesia care. Methods The authors prospectively collected audio, video, and relevant clinical information on 556 cases at three academic hospitals from 1998 to 2004. In addition to direct observation, anesthesia providers were surveyed for nonroutine event occurrence and details at the end of each study case. For the 511 cases with reviewable video, 400 cases had no reported nonroutine events and 111 cases had at least one nonroutine event reported. Each nonroutine event was analyzed by trained anesthesiologists. Rater reliability assessment, comparisons (nonroutine event vs . no event) of patient and case variables were performed. Results Of 511 cases, 111 (21.7%) contained 173 nonroutine events; 35.1% of event-containing cases had more than one nonroutine event. Of the 173 events, 69.4% were rated as having patient impact and 12.7% involved patient injury. Longer case duration (25th vs. 75th percentile; odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.93; P = 0.032) and presence of a comorbid diagnosis (odds ratio, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.35 to 3.40; P = 0.001) were associated with nonroutine events. Common contributory factors were related to the patient (63.6% [110 of 173]) and anesthesia provider (59.0% [102 of 173]) categories. The most common patient impact events involved the cardiovascular system (37.4% [64 of 171]), airway (33.3% [57 of 171]), and human factors, drugs, or equipment (31.0% [53 of 171]). Conclusions This study describes characteristics of intraoperative nonroutine events in a cohort of cases at three academic hospitals. Nonroutine event–containing cases were commonly associated with patient impact and injury. Thus, nonroutine event monitoring in conjunction with traditional error reporting may enhance our understanding of potential intraoperative failure modes to guide prospective safety interventions. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic A nonroutine event is defined as any aspect of clinical care perceived by clinicians or observers as a deviation from optimal care for a patient in a clinical situation Nonroutine events are frequent and associated with increased clinician workload and patient physiologic disturbances What This Article Tells Us That Is New Video recordings of 511 cases from 1998 to 2004 were viewed to identify nonroutine events, which occurred in 22% of cases, and some cases had multiple events One in fifteen patients had events associated with some degree of patient injury The most common contributory factors were related to provider, patient, or teaching/supervision

Benchmarking and comparing group productivity is an essential activity of data-driven management. For clinical anesthesiology, accomplishing this task is a daunting effort if meaningful conclusions are to be made. For anesthesiology groups, productivity must be done at the facility level in order to reduce some of the confounding factors. When industry or external comparisons are done, then the use of total ASA units per anesthetizing sites allows for overall productivity comparisons. Additional productivity components (total ASA units/h, h/case, h/operating room/d) allow for leaders to develop productivity dashboards. With the emergence of large groups that provide care in multiple facilities, these large groups can choose to invest more effort in collecting data and comparing facility productivity internally with group-defined measurements including total ASA units per full time equivalent.

Quality has been defined by six domains: effective, equitable, timely, efficient, safe, and patient centered. Quality of anesthesia care can be improved through measurement, either through local measures in quality improvement or through national measures in value-based purchasing programs. Death directly related to anesthesia care has been reduced, but must be measured beyond simple mortality. To improve perioperative care for our patients, we must take shared accountability for all surgical outcomes including complications, which has traditionally been viewed as being surgically related. Anesthesiologists can also impact public health by being engaged in improving cognitive recovery after surgery and addressing the opiate crisis. Going forward, we must focus on what patients want and deserve: improved patient-oriented outcomes and satisfaction with our care. By listening to our patients and being engaged in the entire perioperative process, we can make the greatest impact on perioperative care.

Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Both nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants work together with physician anesthesiologists as part of care teams It is unknown whether the specific anesthesia care team composition (physician anesthesiologist plus nurse anesthetist or anesthesiologist assistant) is associated with differences in perioperative outcomes What This Article Tells Us That Is New Using national claims data for 443,000 Medicare beneficiaries, the influence of care team composition on inpatient mortality, inpatient length of stay, and inpatient spending was evaluated There were no significant differences in mortality, length of stay, or inpatient spending between the care team models Background In the United States, anesthesia care can be provided by an anesthesia care team consisting of nonphysician providers (nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants) working under the supervision of a physician anesthesiologist. Nurse anesthetists may practice nationwide, whereas anesthesiologist assistants are restricted to 16 states. To inform policies concerning the expanded use of anesthesiologist assistants, the authors examined whether the specific anesthesia care team composition (physician anesthesiologist plus nurse anesthetist or anesthesiologist assistant) was associated with differences in perioperative outcomes. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of national claims data for 443,098 publicly insured elderly (ages 65 to 89 yr) patients who underwent inpatient surgery between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011. The differences in inpatient mortality, spending, and length of stay between cases where an anesthesiologist supervised an anesthesiologist assistant compared to cases where an anesthesiologist supervised a nurse anesthetist were estimated. The approach used a quasirandomization technique known as instrumental variables to reduce confounding. Results The adjusted mortality for care teams with anesthesiologist assistants was 1.6% (95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) versus 1.7% for care teams with nurse anesthetists (95% CI, 1.7 to 1.7; difference −0.08; 95% CI, −0.3 to 0.1; P = 0.47). Compared to care teams with nurse anesthetists, care teams with anesthesiologist assistants were associated with non–statistically significant decreases in length of stay (−0.009 days; 95% CI, −0.1 to 0.1; P = 0.89) and medical spending (−$56; 95% CI, −334 to 223; P = 0.70). Conclusions The specific composition of the anesthesia care team was not associated with any significant differences in mortality, length of stay, or inpatient spending.

Background When workload is low, anesthesia providers may perform non–patient care activities of a clinical, educational, or personal nature. Data are limited on the incidence or impact of distractions on actual care. We examined the prevalence of self-initiated nonclinical distractions and their effects on anesthesia workload, vigilance, and the occurrence of nonroutine events. Methods In 319 qualifying cases in an academic medical center using a Web-based electronic medical chart, a trained observer recorded video and performed behavioral task analysis. Participant workload and response to a vigilance (alarm) light were randomly measured. Postoperatively, participants were interviewed to elicit possible nonroutine events. Two anesthesiologists reviewed each event to evaluate their association with distractions. Results At least one self-initiated distraction was observed in 171 cases (54%), largely during maintenance. Distractions accounted for 2% of case time and lasted 2.3 s (median). The most common distraction was personal internet use. Distractions were more common in longer cases but were not affected by case type or American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status. Workload ratings were significantly lower during distraction-containing case periods and vigilance latencies were significantly longer in cases without any distractions. Three distractions were temporally associated with, but did not cause, events. Conclusions Both nurse anesthetists and residents performed potentially distracting tasks of a personal and/or educational nature in a majority of cases. Self-initiated distractions were rarely associated with events. This study suggests that anesthesia professionals using sound judgment can self-manage nonclinical activities. Future efforts should focus on eliminating more cognitively absorbing and less escapable distractions, as well as training in distraction management.

Background Whether anesthesia care transitions and provision of short breaks affect patient outcomes remains unclear. Methods The authors determined the number of anesthesia handovers and breaks during each case for adults admitted between 2005 and 2014, along with age, sex, race, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, start time and duration of surgery, and diagnosis and procedure codes. The authors defined a collapsed composite of in-hospital mortality and major morbidities based on primary and secondary diagnoses. The relationship between the total number of anesthesia handovers during a case and the collapsed composite outcome was assessed with a multivariable logistic regression. The relationship between the total number of anesthesia handovers during a case and the components of the composite outcome was assessed using multivariate generalized estimating equation methods. Additionally, the authors analyzed major complications and/or death within 30 days of surgery based on the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program–defined events. Results A total of 140,754 anesthetics were identified for the primary analysis. The number of anesthesia handovers was not found to be associated ( P = 0.19) with increased odds of postoperative mortality and serious complications, as measured by the collapsed composite, with odds ratio for a one unit increase in handovers of 0.957; 95% CI, 0.895 to 1.022, when controlled for potential confounding variables. A total of 8,404 anesthetics were identified for the NSQIP analysis (collapsed composite odds ratio, 0.868; 95% CI, 0.718 to 1.049 for handovers). Conclusions In the analysis of intraoperative handovers, anesthesia care transitions were not associated with an increased risk of postoperative adverse outcomes.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF; Doctors Without Borders) anesthesia providers include physician anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, and local nurses trained by MSF to provide anesthesia. A standardized set of essential equipment and medications is provided for each mission to enable anesthesia care delivery and management of potential complications. A retrospective review of anesthetic procedures performed at MSF facilities from 2008 until 2014 found that a wide range of anesthesia procedures can be carried out safely in resource-limited settings with resources such as those provided by MSF. Abstract Background Anesthesia is integral to improving surgical care in low-resource settings. Anesthesia providers who work in these areas should be familiar with the particularities associated with providing care in these settings, including the types and outcomes of commonly performed anesthetic procedures. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of anesthetic procedures performed at Médecins Sans Frontières facilities from July 2008 to June 2014. The authors collected data on patient demographics, procedural characteristics, and patient outcome. The factors associated with perioperative mortality were analyzed. Results Over the 6-yr period, 75,536 anesthetics were provided to adult patients. The most common anesthesia techniques were spinal anesthesia (45.56%) and general anesthesia without intubation (33.85%). Overall perioperative mortality was 0.25%. Emergent procedures (0.41%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 15.86; 95% CI, 2.14 to 115.58), specialized surgeries (2.74%; AOR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.27 to 11.47), and surgical duration more than 6 h (9.76%; AOR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.09 to 14.88) were associated with higher odds of mortality than elective surgeries, minor surgeries, and surgical duration less than 1 h, respectively. Compared with general anesthesia with intubation, spinal anesthesia, regional anesthesia, and general anesthesia without intubation were associated with lower perioperative mortality rates of 0.04% (AOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.18), 0.06% (AOR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.92), and 0.14% (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.45), respectively. Conclusions A wide range of anesthetics can be carried out safely in resource-limited settings. Providers need to be aware of the potential risks and the outcomes associated with anesthesia administration in these settings.