Changing the Culture: Increasing and Sustaining Anesthesiology Resident Physician Publication Rates.

Background: Academic inquiry is foundational to the advancement of medicine and resident training and must be demonstrated to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Past attempts at increasing publication rates have failed to identify educational best practice models. Our aim was to increase resident publication rates via culture and value changes that are universally implementable, affordable, effective, and sustainable. Methods: In 2018, a multifaceted initiative was implemented to shift departmental values and foster a culture of academic productivity. This culture change stressed the value of scientific publication through frequent, consistent messaging from department leaders. In addition, residents were provided the freedom to choose their scholarly activities. In this retrospective cohort innovation, resident authors were identified for 4 academic years before and after the intervention and publication rates were determined (2014-2018 vs 2018-2022). Resident authors and publications per resident per year were compared using descriptive statistics and Student t test. Results: The pre- and postintervention groups included 38 and 37 residents, respectively. Resident-authored publications increased from 7 preintervention to 24 postintervention, representing 343% of baseline. Mean ± SD publications per resident per year similarly increased 357% from 0.183 ± 0.16 to 0.654 ± 0.11 postintervention. Unpaired t test analysis demonstrated a significant difference in total publications per year (P = .002) and authorship rate (P = .003). Conclusions: A multifaceted academic initiative resulted in a threefold increase in resident publication rates. This initiative demonstrates that local advocacy by leaders, freedom of choice for authors, and supportive departmental culture are driving factors in publication rates.

Coronavirus Disease 2019: Anesthesia Machine Circuit Pressure During Use as an Improvised Intensive Care Unit Ventilator.

BACKGROUND: Use of anesthesia machines as improvised intensive care unit (ICU) ventilators may occur in locations where waste anesthesia gas suction (WAGS) is unavailable. Anecdotal reports suggest as much as 18 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) being inadvertently applied under these circumstances, accompanied by inaccurate pressure readings by the anesthesia machine. We hypothesized that resistance within closed anesthesia gas scavenging systems (AGSS) disconnected from WAGS may inadvertently increase circuit pressures. METHODS: An anesthesia machine was connected to an anesthesia breathing circuit, a reference manometer, and a standard bag reservoir to simulate a lung. Ventilation was initiated as follows: volume control, tidal volume (TV) 500 mL, respiratory rate 12, ratio of inspiration to expiration times (I:E) 1:1.9, fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) 1.0, fresh gas flow (FGF) rate 2.0 liters per minute (LPM), and PEEP 0 cm H2O. After engaging the ventilator, PEEP and peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) were measured by the reference manometer and the anesthesia machine display simultaneously. The process was repeated using prescribed PEEP levels of 5, 10, 15, and 20 cm H2O. Measurements were repeated with the WAGS disconnected and then were performed again at FGF of 4, 6, 8, 10, and 15 LPM. This process was completed on 3 anesthesia machines: Dräger Perseus A500, Dräger Apollo, and the GE Avance CS2. Simple linear regression was used to assess differences. RESULTS: Utilizing nonparametric Bland-Altman analysis, the reference and machine manometer measurements of PIP demonstrated median differences of -0.40 cm H2O (95% limits of agreement [LOA], -1.00 to 0.55) for the Dräger Apollo, -0.40 cm H2O (95% LOA, -1.10 to 0.41) for the Dräger Perseus, and 1.70 cm H2O (95% LOA, 0.80-3.00) for the GE Avance CS2. At FGF 2 LPM and PEEP 0 cm H2O with the WAGS disconnected, the Dräger Apollo had a difference in PEEP of 0.02 cm H2O (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.04 to 0.08; P = .53); the Dräger Perseus A500, <0.0001 cm H2O (95% CI, -0.11 to 0.11; P = 1.00); and the GE Avance CS2, 8.62 cm H2O (95% CI, 8.55-8.69; P < .0001). After removing the hose connected to the AGSS and the visual indicator bag on the GE Avance CS2, the PEEP difference was 0.12 cm H2O (95% CI, 0.059-0.181; P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: Displayed airway pressure measurements are clinically accurate in the setting of disconnected WAGS. The Dräger Perseus A500 and Apollo with open scavenging systems do not deliver inadvertent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with WAGS disconnected, but the GE Avance CS2 with a closed AGSS does. This increase in airway pressure can be mitigated by the manufacturer's recommended alterations. Anesthesiologists should be aware of the potential clinically important increases in pressure that may be inadvertently delivered on some anesthesia machines, should the WAGS not be properly connected.

Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are used by clinicians to derive treatment guidelines and make resource allocation decisions in anesthesiology. One cause for concern with such reviews is the possibility that results from unpublished trials are not represented in the review findings or data synthesis. This problem, known as publication bias, results when studies reporting statistically nonsignificant findings are left unpublished and, therefore, not included in meta-analyses when estimating a pooled treatment effect. In turn, publication bias may lead to skewed results with overestimated effect sizes. The primary objective of this study is to determine the extent to which evaluations for publication bias are conducted by systematic reviewers in highly ranked anesthesiology journals and which practices reviewers use to mitigate publication bias. The secondary objective of this study is to conduct publication bias analyses on the meta-analyses that did not perform these assessments and examine the adjusted pooled effect estimates after accounting for publication bias. METHODS: This study considered meta-analyses and systematic reviews from 5 peer-reviewed anesthesia journals from 2007 through 2015. A PubMed search was conducted, and full-text systematic reviews that fit inclusion criteria were downloaded and coded independently by 2 authors. Coding was then validated, and disagreements were settled by consensus. In total, 207 systematic reviews were included for analysis. In addition, publication bias evaluation was performed for 25 systematic reviews that did not do so originally. We used Egger regression, Duval and Tweedie trim and fill, and funnel plots for these analyses. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent (n = 114) of the reviews discussed publication bias, and 43% (n = 89) of the reviews evaluated publication bias. Funnel plots and Egger regression were the most common methods for evaluating publication bias. Publication bias was reported in 34 reviews (16%). Thirty-six of the 45 (80.0%) publication bias analyses indicated the presence of publication bias by trim and fill analysis, whereas Egger regression indicated publication bias in 23 of 45 (51.1%) analyses. The mean absolute percent difference between adjusted and observed point estimates was 15.5%, the median was 6.2%, and the range was 0% to 85.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Many of these reviews reported following published guidelines such as PRISMA or MOOSE, yet only half appropriately addressed publication bias in their reviews. Compared with previous research, our study found fewer reviews assessing publication bias and greater likelihood of publication bias among reviews not performing these evaluations.

Apps of steel: are exercise apps providing consumers with realistic expectations?: a content analysis of exercise apps for presence of behavior change theory.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the presence of health behavior theory constructs in iPhone apps targeting physical activity. METHODS: This study used a content analysis of 127 apps from Apple's (App Store) Health & Fitness category. Coders downloaded the apps and then used an established theory-based instrument to rate each app's inclusion of theoretical constructs from prominent behavior change theories. Five common items were used to measure 20 theoretical constructs, for a total of 100 items. A theory score was calculated for each app. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with higher theory scores. RESULTS: Apps were generally observed to be lacking in theoretical content. Theory scores ranged from 1 to 28 on a 100-point scale. The health belief model was the most prevalent theory, accounting for 32% of all constructs. Regression analyses indicated that higher priced apps and apps that addressed a broader activity spectrum were associated with higher total theory scores. CONCLUSION: It is not unexpected that apps contained only minimal theoretical content, given that app developers come from a variety of backgrounds and many are not trained in the application of health behavior theory. The relationship between price and theory score corroborates research indicating that higher quality apps are more expensive. There is an opportunity for health and behavior change experts to partner with app developers to incorporate behavior change theories into the development of apps. These future collaborations between health behavior change experts and app developers could foster apps superior in both theory and programming possibly resulting in better health outcomes.

Drug Poisoning Deaths according to Ethnicity in Utah.

This study characterizes drug-related deaths according to ethnicity in Utah during 2005-2010, based on data from the Utah Violent Death Reporting System (UTVDRS). Hispanics made up 12.1% (12.5% male and 11.7% female) of deaths. The most frequently identified drugs among decedents were opiates, then illicit drugs, benzodiazepines, over-the-counter medication, and antidepressants. Death rates for each drug were significantly greater in non-Hispanics than Hispanics. Most decedents used a combination of drugs. For each combination, rates were significantly greater for non-Hispanics than Hispanics, with an exception for opiates and illicit drugs combined, where there was no significant difference. Approximately 79% of non-Hispanics and 65% of Hispanics had one or more of the selected problems (e.g., mental, physical, or crisis related). Rates for each combination of problems were significantly greater in non-Hispanics, with the exception of crisis. Hispanics were less affected by the rise in prescription drug abuse. Hispanic decedents had a greater proportion of illegal drugs, consistent with it being more difficult to obtain prescription drugs. Hispanic decedents were less likely to have physical and mental health problems, which may be related to a smaller chance of diagnosis of such problems through the healthcare system.