A Dynamic Marketplace for Distributing Anesthesia Call: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

Anesthesiologists have a significant responsibility to provide care at all hours of the day, including nights, weekends, and holidays. This call burden carries a significant lifestyle constraint that can impact relationships, affect provider wellbeing, and has been associated with provider burnout. This quality improvement study analyzes the effects of a dynamic call marketplace, which allows anesthesiologists to specify how much call they would like to take across a spectrum of hypothetical compensation levels, from very low to very high. The system then determines the market equilibrium price such that every anesthesiologist gets exactly the amount of desired call. A retrospective analysis compared percentage participation in adjusting call burden both pre- and post-implementation of a dynamic marketplace during the years of 2017 to 2023. Additionally, a 2023 post-implementation survey was sent out assessing various aspects of anesthesiologist perception of the new system including work-life balance and job satisfaction. The dynamic call marketplace in this study enabled a more effective platform for adjusting call levels, as there was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of anesthesiologists participating in call exchanged during post- compared to pre-implementation (p < 0.0001). The satisfaction survey suggested agreement among anesthesiologists that the dynamic call marketplace positively affected professional satisfaction and work-life balance. Further, the level of agreement with these statements was most prevalent among middle career stage anesthesiologists (11-20 years as attending physician). The present system may target elements with the capacity to increase satisfaction, particularly among physicians most at risk of burnout within the anesthesia workforce.

A Quality Improvement Study Designed to Optimize Scheduling Geographic/Site Preferences Among Anesthesia Professionals Utilizing Decision Support Tool Assistance.

This is a quality improvement pilot study comparing percentages of anesthesia professionals receiving their first choice of workplace location both pre-, and post-implementation of an electronic decision support tool for anesthesia-in-charge schedulers. The study evaluates anesthesia professionals who use the electronic decision support tool and scheduling system at four hospitals and two surgical centers within NorthShore University HealthSystem. The subjects in the study are those anesthesia professionals that work at NorthShore University HealthSystem and are subject to being placed in their desired location by anesthesia schedulers who use the electronic decision support tool. The primary author developed the current software system enabling the electronic decision support tool implementation into clinical practice. All anesthesia-in-charge schedulers were educated during a three-week time period via administrative discussions and demonstrations on how to effectively operate the tool in real time. The total numbers and percentage of 1st choice of location selection by anesthesia professionals were summarized each week using interrupted time series Poisson regression. Slope before intervention, slope after intervention, level change, and slope change were all measured over 14-week pre- and post- implementation periods. The level of change (difference in percentage of anesthesia professionals who received their first choice) was statistically (P<0.0001) and clinically significant when comparing the historical cohorts of 2020 and 2021 to the 2022 intervention group weeks. Therefore, the implementation of an electronic decision support scheduling tool resulted in a statistically significant increase in those anesthesia professionals receiving their first-choice workplace location. This study provides the basis for further investigating whether this specific tool may improve anesthesia professional satisfaction within their work-life balance by enhancing workplace geographic/site choice.

Postoperative Pain and Analgesic Requirements in the First Year after Intraoperative Methadone for Complex Spine and Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Methadone is a long-acting opioid that has been reported to reduce postoperative pain scores and analgesic requirements and may attenuate development of chronic postsurgical pain. The aim of this secondary analysis of two previous trials was to follow up with patients who had received a single intraoperative dose of either methadone or traditional opioids for complex spine or cardiac surgical procedures. METHODS: Preplanned analyses of long-term outcomes were conducted for spinal surgery patients randomized to receive 0.2 mg/kg methadone at the start of surgery or 2 mg hydromorphone at surgical closure, and for cardiac surgery patients randomized to receive 0.3 mg/kg methadone or 12 µg/kg fentanyl intraoperatively. A pain questionnaire assessing the weekly frequency (the primary outcome) and intensity of pain was mailed to subjects 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Ordinal data were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test, and nominal data were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher exact probability test. The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis was P < 0.01. RESULTS: Three months after surgery, patients randomized to receive methadone for spine procedures reported the weekly frequency of chronic pain was less (median score 0 on a 0 to 4 scale [less than once a week] vs. 3 [daily] in the hydromorphone group, P = 0.004). Patients randomized to receive methadone for cardiac surgery reported the frequency of postsurgical pain was less at 1 month (median score 0) than it was in patients randomized to receive fentanyl (median score 2 [twice per week], P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Analgesic benefits of a single dose of intraoperative methadone were observed during the first 3 months after spinal surgery (but not at 6 and 12 months), and during the first month after cardiac surgery, when the intensity and frequency of pain were the greatest.

Neostigmine Administration after Spontaneous Recovery to a Train-of-Four Ratio of 0.9 to 1.0: A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effect on Neuromuscular and Clinical Recovery.

BACKGROUND: When a muscle relaxant is administered to facilitate intubation, the benefits of anticholinesterase reversal must be balanced with potential risks. The aim of this double-blinded, randomized noninferiority trial was to evaluate the effect of neostigmine administration on neuromuscular function when given to patients after spontaneous recovery to a train-of-four ratio of 0.9 or greater. METHODS: A total of 120 patients presenting for surgery requiring intubation were given a small dose of rocuronium. At the conclusion of surgery, 90 patients achieving a train-of-four ratio of 0.9 or greater were randomized to receive either neostigmine 40 µg/kg or saline (control). Train-of-four ratios were measured from the time of reversal until postanesthesia care unit admission. Patients were monitored for postextubation adverse respiratory events and assessed for muscle strength. RESULTS: Ninety patients achieved a train-of-four ratio of 0.9 or greater at the time of reversal. Mean train-of-four ratios in the control and neostigmine groups before reversal (1.02 vs. 1.03), 5 min postreversal (1.05 vs. 1.07), and at postanesthesia care unit admission (1.06 vs. 1.08) did not differ. The mean difference and corresponding 95% CI of the latter were -0.018 and -0.046 to 0.010. The incidences of postoperative hypoxemic events and episodes of airway obstruction were similar for the groups. The number of patients with postoperative signs and symptoms of muscle weakness did not differ between groups (except for double vision: 13 in the control group and 2 in the neostigmine group; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of neostigmine at neuromuscular recovery was not associated with clinical evidence of anticholinesterase-induced muscle weakness. VISUAL ABSTRACT: An online visual overview is available for this article.(Figure is included in full-text article.).

Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Intraoperative Methadone in Patients Undergoing Posterior Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Randomized, Double-blinded, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery often experience severe pain during the first three postoperative days. The aim of this parallel-group randomized trial was to assess the effect of the long-duration opioid methadone on postoperative analgesic requirements, pain scores, and patient satisfaction after complex spine surgery. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients were randomized to receive either methadone 0.2 mg/kg at the start of surgery or hydromorphone 2 mg at surgical closure. Anesthetic care was standardized, and clinicians were blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was intravenous hydromorphone consumption on postoperative day 1. Pain scores and satisfaction with pain management were measured at postanesthesia care unit admission, 1 and 2 h postadmission, and on the mornings and afternoons of postoperative days 1 to 3. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen patients were included in the analysis. Median hydromorphone use was reduced in the methadone group not only on postoperative day 1 (4.56 vs. 9.90 mg) but also on postoperative days 2 (0.60 vs. 3.15 mg) and 3 (0 vs. 0.4 mg; all P< 0.001). Pain scores at rest, with movement, and with coughing were less in the methadone group at 21 of 27 assessments (all P = 0.001 to < 0.0001). Overall satisfaction with pain management was higher in the methadone group than in the hydromorphone group until the morning of postoperative day 3 (all P = 0.001 to < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative methadone administration reduced postoperative opioid requirements, decreased pain scores, and improved patient satisfaction with pain management.