Improving agreement of ASA physical status class between pre-anesthesia screening and day of surgery by adding institutional-specific and ASA-approved examples: a quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: A successful anesthesia pre-assessment clinic needs to identify patients who need further testing, evaluation, and optimization prior to the day of surgery to avoid delays and cancelations. Although the ASA Physical Status Classification system (ASA PS) has been used widely for over 50 years, it has poor interrater agreement when only using the definitions. In 2014, ASA-approved examples for each ASA physical status class (ASA PS). In this quality improvement study, we developed and evaluated the effectiveness of institutional-specific examples on interrater reliability between anesthesia pre-anesthesia clinic (APAC) and the day of surgery evaluation (DOS). METHODS: A multi-step, multi-year quality improvement project was performed. Step 1, pre-intervention, was a retrospective review to determine the percentage agreement of ASA PS assignment between APAC and DOS for adult and pediatric patients. Step 2 was a retrospective review of the step 1 cases where the ASA PS assignment differed to determine which medical conditions were valued differently and then develop institutional-specific examples for medical conditions not addressed by ASA-approved examples. Step 3 was to educate clinicians about the newly implemented examples and how they should be used as a guide. Step 4, post-intervention, was a retrospective review to determine if the examples improved agreement between APAC and DOS ASA PS assignments. Weighted Kappa coefficient was used to measure of interrater agreement excluding chance agreement. RESULTS: Having only ASA PS definitions available, APAC and DOS agreement was only 74% for adults (n = 737) and 63% for pediatric patients (n = 216). For adults, 20 medical co-morbidity categories and, for pediatric patients, 9 medical co-morbidity categories accounted for > 90% the differences in ASA PS. After development and implementation of institutional-specific examples with ASA-approved examples, the percentage agreement increased for adult patients (n = 795) to 91% and for pediatric patients (n = 239) to 84%. Weighted Kappa coefficients increased significantly for all patients (from 0.62 to 0.85, p < .0001), adult patients (from 0.62 to 0.86, p < .0001), and pediatric patients (from 0.48 to 0.78, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: ASA-approved examples do not address all medical conditions that account for differences in the assignment of ASA PS between pre-anesthesia screening and day of anesthesia evaluation at our institution. The process of developing institutional-specific examples addressed the medical conditions that caused differences in assignment at one institution. The implementation of ASA PS examples improved consistency of assignment, and therefore communication of medical conditions of patients presenting for anesthesia care.

Ultrasound-determined landmarks decrease pressure pain at epidural insertion site in immediate post-partum period.

BACKGROUND: Women have blamed epidurals for their post-partum back pain for decades. Survey-based studies have shown similar incidence of chronic back pain between women who delivered with epidurals compared to those who did not. However, epidural insertion site pain has yet to be evaluated by a quantitative measure: pressure pain threshold (PPT). Algometer measured PPT has been shown to be accurate and reproducible in acute, chronic, and postoperative pain studies. This study determines the effect of ultrasound-based landmarks on the PPT at the epidural insertion site in the post-partum period. METHODS: Participants were randomized into either the ultrasound or sham groups. In addition, a non-randomized control group (no epidural) participated. Ultrasound of the lumbar region was used to mark mid intervertebral levels in the US group but not in the sham group. Epidural were placed using the marks in the US group or palpated bony landmarks in the sham group. PPT at each intervertebral space measured before and after the use of epidural. RESULTS: Epidural placement did significantly decreased PPT in US (68%) and US sham (79%) groups and less in the control group (21%). US group showed decreased PPT only at insertion site whereas US sham group also showed decreased PPT at insertion site and adjacent levels. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that epidural placed with ultrasound-determined landmarks not only improves the success of epidural placement but also minimizes the number of intervertebral levels with decreased PPT.

Adding Examples to the ASA-Physical Status Classification Improves Correct Assignment to Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite its widespread use, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)-Physical Status Classification System has been shown to result in inconsistent assignments among anesthesiologists. The ASA-Physical Status Classification System is also used by nonanesthesia-trained clinicians and others. In 2014, the ASA developed and approved examples to assist clinicians in determining the correct ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment. The effect of these examples by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians on appropriate ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment in hypothetical cases was examined. METHODS: Anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians were recruited via email to participate in a web-based questionnaire study. The questionnaire consisted of 10 hypothetical cases, for which respondents were first asked to assign ASA-Physical Status using only the ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions and a second time using the newly ASA-approved examples. RESULTS: With ASA-approved examples, both anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved in mean number of correct answers (out of possible 10) compared to ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions alone (P < 0.001 for all). However, with examples, nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved more compared to anesthesia-trained clinicians. With definitions only, anesthesia-trained clinicians (5.8 ± 1.6) scored higher than nonanesthesia-trained clinicians (5.4 ± 1.7; P = 0.041). With examples, anesthesia-trained (7.7 ± 1.8) and nonanesthesia-trained (8.0 ± 1.7) groups were not significantly different (P = 0.100). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of examples to the definitions of the ASA-Physical Status Classification System increases the correct assignment of patients by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians.

Broken spinal needle: case report and review of the literature.

The occurrence of broken spinal and epidural needles has been reported. However, most case reports have focused primarily on prevention rather than on management. A broken spinal needle fragment was left in a patient before it was removed one month later due to back pain.