Survey of anesthesia department chairs about the environmental sustainability initiatives of their programs

BACKGROUND

Anesthesia departments can reduce their environmental impact. Barriers exist to the promotion of individual anesthesiologists' roles in environmentally sustainable practices. We hypothesized that accountability of departmental leadership is associated with reports of practices that can encourage and sustain environmentally favorable practices.

METHODS

Invitations to complete a six-question survey were sent to academic anesthesia department chairs in the United States and Canada. Questions were presented in random sequence. We assessed the association between the sum of the answers to five questions about department- and hospital-related sustainability activities (e.g., more than one "educational session dedicated to environmental sustainability … for anesthesiology residents or other trainees?") and the sixth question ("In the past 12 months, did review of the anesthesia department chair or review of your department include" more than one "item related to promotion of environmental sustainability?").

RESULTS

Of the 138 departments receiving invitation and reminder emails, 63 departments (46%) responded to our requests. The median (interquartile range) was 1 (0,3) sustainability activity for "No" items evaluating the department chair or department (N = 43) versus 4 (2, 4.5) activities for "Yes" evaluation of department chair or department (N = 20) (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, P = 0.0021; median regression, P = 0.0002). Results were similar for sensitivity analyses (excluding one question about hospital leadership, excluding the four responding Canadian departments, controlling for time to complete the survey, and controlling for the date of completion of the survey).

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia department chairs and departments with annual performance evaluations that included items related to environmental sustainability reported more activities to promote sustainability. The result suggests that leadership-sponsored initiatives directed toward environmental sustainability are associated with environmental sustainability activities in anesthesia departments.

The intersection of pediatric anesthesiology and social determinants of health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is increasing evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in pediatric perioperative care, which indicates a need to identify factors driving disparities. Social determinants of health (SDOH) play a fundamental role in pediatric health and are recognized as key underlying mechanisms of healthcare inequities. This article summarizes recent research exploring the influence of SDOH on pediatric perioperative outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the scarcity of research exploring SDOH and pediatric perioperative outcomes, recent work demonstrates an association between SDOH and multiple outcomes across the perioperative care continuum. Measures of social disadvantage were associated with preoperative symptom severity, longer hospital stays, and higher rates of postoperative complications and mortality. In some studies, these adverse effects of social disadvantage persisted even when controlling for medical comorbidities and clinical severity.

SUMMARY

The existing literature offers compelling evidence of the impact of SDOH on perioperative outcomes in children and reveals a critical area in pediatric anesthesia that necessitates further exploration and action. To improve outcomes and address care inequities, future efforts should prioritize the integration of SDOH assessment into pediatric perioperative research and practice.

The impact of a medically directed student registered nurse anesthesia staffing model on Postprocedural patient outcomes

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In 2018, the American Society of Anesthesiologists stated that student registered nurse anesthetists (SRNAs) "are not yet fully qualified anesthesia personnel." It remains unclear, however, whether postprocedural outcomes are affected by SRNAs providing anesthesia care under the medical direction of anesthesiologists, as compared with medically directed anesthesiology fellows or residents, or certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs). We therefore aimed to examine whether medically directed SRNAs serving as in-room anesthesia providers impact surgical outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective, matched-cohort analysis.

SETTING

Adult patients (≥18 years old) undergoing inpatient surgery between 2000 and 2017 at a tertiary academic medical center.

PATIENTS

15,365 patients exclusively cared for by medically directed SRNAs were matched to 15,365 cared for by medically directed CRNAs, anesthesiology residents, and/or fellows.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary composite outcome was postoperative occurrence of in-hospital mortality and six categories of major morbidities (infectious, bleeding, serious cardiac, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and urinary complications). In-hospital mortality was analyzed as the secondary outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

In all, 30,730 cases were matched using propensity score matching to control for potential confounding. The primary outcome was identified in 2295 (7.5%) cases (7.5% with exclusive medically directed SRNAs vs 7.4% with medically directed CRNAs, residents and/or fellows; relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.11). Thus, our effort to determine noninferiority (10% difference in relative risk) with other providers was inconclusive (P = .07). However, the medically directed SRNA group (0.8% [118]) was found to be noninferior (P < .001) to the matched group (1.0% [156]) on in-hospital mortality (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Among 30,730 patients undergoing inpatient surgery at a single hospital, findings were inconclusive regarding whether exclusive medically directed SRNAs as in-room providers were noninferior to other providers. The use of medically directed SRNAs under this staffing model should be subject to further review. Clinical Trial and Registry URL: Not applicable.

Artificial Intelligence for Anesthesiology Board-Style Examination Questions: Role of Large Language Models

New artificial intelligence tools have been developed that have implications for medical usage. Large language models (LLMs), such as the widely used ChatGPT developed by OpenAI, have not been explored in the context of anesthesiology education. Understanding the reliability of various publicly available LLMs for medical specialties could offer insight into their understanding of the physiology, pharmacology, and practical applications of anesthesiology. An exploratory prospective review was conducted using 3 commercially available LLMs--OpenAI's ChatGPT GPT-3.5 version (GPT-3.5), OpenAI's ChatGPT GPT-4 (GPT-4), and Google's Bard--on questions from a widely used anesthesia board examination review book. Of the 884 eligible questions, the overall correct answer rates were 47.9% for GPT-3.5, 69.4% for GPT-4, and 45.2% for Bard. GPT-4 exhibited significantly higher performance than both GPT-3.5 and Bard (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). None of the LLMs met the criteria required to secure American Board of Anesthesiology certification, according to the 70% passing score approximation. GPT-4 significantly outperformed GPT-3.5 and Bard in terms of overall performance, but lacked consistency in providing explanations that aligned with scientific and medical consensus. Although GPT-4 shows promise, current LLMs are not sufficiently advanced to answer anesthesiology board examination questions with passing success. Further iterations and domain-specific training may enhance their utility in medical education.

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.

Celebrating the state of the art and innovations in regional anaesthesia in the British Journal of Anaesthesia

To coincide with the annual scientific meeting of Regional Anaesthesia UK in London 2024, where there is a joint scientific session with the British Journal of Anaesthesia, a special regional anaesthesia edition of the journal has been produced. This editorial offers some highlights from the manuscripts contained within the special edition.

Psychology in the operating theatre: the importance of colour and cognition in the redesign of clinical systems for medication safety

Medication errors in anaesthesia remain a leading cause of patient harm. Compared with conventional methods, use of the international colour-code standard on syringes and medication trays allows significantly more errors to be detected, and does so under conditions of cognitive load. Testing methods from experimental psychology provide important new insights for human factors research in anaesthesia and health care.

Overview and Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Cardiac Anesthesiology

Artificial intelligence- (AI) and machine learning (ML)-based applications are becoming increasingly pervasive in the healthcare setting. This has in turn challenged clinicians, hospital administrators, and health policymakers to understand such technologies and develop frameworks for safe and sustained clinical implementation. Within cardiac anesthesiology, challenges and opportunities for AI/ML to support patient care are presented by the vast amounts of electronic health data, which are collected rapidly, interpreted, and acted upon within the periprocedural area. To address such challenges and opportunities, in this article, the authors review 3 recent applications relevant to cardiac anesthesiology, including depth of anesthesia monitoring, operating room resource optimization, and transthoracic/transesophageal echocardiography, as conceptual examples to explore strengths and limitations of AI/ML within healthcare, and characterize this evolving landscape. Through reviewing such applications, the authors introduce basic AI/ML concepts and methodologies, as well as practical considerations and ethical concerns for initiating and maintaining safe clinical implementation of AI/ML-based algorithms for cardiac anesthesia patient care.

Gender differences in professional social networks use among critical care researchers

BACKGROUND

Recent studies highlight that female anaesthesiology researchers have lower visibility on professional social networks (PSNs) than male researchers.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this work was to compare the use of PSNs between women and men in critical care research.

METHODS

We included the first/last authors (FAs/LAs) among the most frequently cited articles in 2018 and 2019 in three critical care journals (Intensive Care Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, and Critical Care). We compared the use of three PSNs-Twitter, ResearchGate, and LinkedIn-between women and men in the FA/LA positions.

RESULTS

We analysed 494 articles, which allowed us to include 426 FAs and 383 LAs. The use of a PSN was similar between women and men (Twitter: 35 vs. 31% FA p = 0.76, 38 vs. 31% LA p = 0.24; ResearchGate: 60 vs. 70% FA p = 0.06, 67 vs. 66% LA p = 0.95; LinkedIn: 54 vs. 56% FA p = 0.25, 68 vs. 64% LA p = 0.58; respectively). On ResearchGate, women had a lower reputation score (FA group 26.4 [19.5-31.5] vs. 34.8 [27.4-41.6], p < 0.01; LA group 38.5 [30.9-43.7] vs. 42.3 [37.6-46.4], p < 0.01) and fewer followers (FA group 28.5 [19-45] vs. 68.5 [72,5-657] p < 0.01; LA group 96.5 [43,8-258] vs. 178 [76.3-313.5] p = 0.02). Female researchers were FAs in 30% of the articles and LAs in 16%.

CONCLUSION

In the field of critical care, the visibility of female researchers on the social networks dedicated to scientific research is lower than that of male researchers.

A threshold of 100 or more colony-forming units on the anesthesia machine predicts bacterial pathogen detection: a retrospective laboratory-based analysis

PURPOSE

Preventing the spread of pathogens in the anesthesia work area reduces surgical site infections. Improved cleaning reduces the percentage of anesthesia machine samples with ≥ 100 colony-forming units (CFU) per surface area sampled. Targeting a threshold of < 100 CFU when cleaning anesthesia machines may be associated with a lower prevalence of bacterial pathogens. We hypothesized that anesthesia work area reservoir samples returning < 100 CFU would have a low (< 5%) prevalence of pathogens.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study of bacterial count data from nine hospitals, obtained between 2017 and 2022, anesthesia attending and assistants' hands, patient skin sites (nares, axilla, and groin), and anesthesia machine (adjustable pressure-limiting valve and agent dials) reservoirs were sampled at case start and at case end. The patient intravenous stopcock set was sampled at case end. The isolation of ≥ 1 CFU of Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, gram-negative (i.e., Klebsiella, Acinetobacter, Pseudomonas, and Enterobacter spp.) or coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was compared for reservoir samples returning ≥ 100 CFU vs those returning < 100 CFU.

RESULTS

Bacterial pathogens were isolated from 24% (7,601/31,783) of reservoir samples, 93% (98/105) of operating rooms, and 83% (2,170/2,616) of cases. The ratio of total pathogen isolates to total CFU was < 0.0003%. Anesthesia machine reservoirs returned ≥ 100 CFU for 44% (2,262/5,150) of cases. Twenty-three percent of samples returning ≥ 100 CFU were positive for ≥ 1 bacterial pathogen (521/2,262; 99% lower confidence limit, 22%) vs 3% of samples returning < 100 CFU (96/2,888; 99% upper limit, 4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia machine reservoir samples returning < 100 CFU were associated with negligible pathogen detection. This threshold can be used for assessment of terminal, routine, and between-case cleaning of the anesthesia machine and equipment. Such feedback may be useful because the 44% prevalence of ≥ 100 CFU was comparable to the 46% (25/54) reported earlier from an unrelated hospital.

Staying Virtual: A Survey Study of the Virtual Lecture Experience in Academic Medicine

BACKGROUND

Increasing clinical demands can adversely impact academic advancement, including the ability to deliver lectures and disseminate scholarly work. The virtual lecture platform became mainstream during the height of the coronavirus-19 pandemic. Lessons learned from this period may offer insight into supporting academic productivity among physicians who must balance multiple demands, including high clinical workloads and family care responsibilities. We evaluated perceptions on delivering virtual lectures to determine whether virtual venues merit continuation beyond the pandemic's initial phase and whether these perceptions differ by gender and rank.

METHODS

In a survey study, faculty who spoke in 1 of 3 virtual lecture programs in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Otolaryngology, and Radiology at a university hospital in 2020 to 2022 were queried about their experience. Speakers' motivations to lecture virtually and the perceived advantages and disadvantages of virtual and in-person lectures were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses.

RESULTS

Seventy-two of 95 (76%) faculty members responded (40% women, 38% men, and 22% gender undisclosed). Virtual lectures supported the speakers "a lot" to "extremely" with the following goals: enhancing one's reputation and credibility (76%), networking (70%), receiving feedback (63%), and advancing prospects for promotion (59%). Virtual programs also increased the speakers' sense of accomplishment (70%) and professional optimism (61%) by at least "a lot," including instructors and assistant professors who previously had difficulty obtaining invitations to speak outside their institution. Many respondents had declined prior invitations to speak in-person due to clinical workload (66%) and family care responsibilities (58%). Previous opportunities to lecture in-person were also refused due to finances (39%), teaching (26%), and research (19%) requirements, personal medical conditions or disabilities (9%), and religious obligations (5%). Promotion was a stronger motivating factor to lecture virtually for instructors and assistant professors than for associate and full professors. By contrast, disseminating work and ideas was a stronger motivator for associate and full professors. Associate and full professors also reported greater improvement in work-related well-being than earlier career faculty from the virtual lecture experience. Very few differences were found by gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual lecture programs support faculty who might not otherwise have the opportunity to lecture in-person due to multiple constraints. To increase the dissemination of scholarly work and expand opportunities to all faculty, virtual lectures should continue even as in-person venues are reestablished.

Broadening the scope and rising to the occasion, an opportunity for anaesthesiologists to take the lead in healthcare quality & patient safety (again)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The landscape of healthcare is characterized by high demands and scarce human and financial resources. This calls for action in improving healthcare quality. This review shows how anaesthesiologists are the designated medical specialist to share their affinity and knowledge in quality and safety, throughout the hospital and across the care continuum.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies show excellent frameworks and examples of anaesthesiologist leading the way in patient safety and quality of care.

SUMMARY

Anaesthesiologist are early adapters of patient safety. In the last decades anaesthesia has become linked with patient safety and the quality of care. With the recent transition from peroperative to perioperative care; new opportunities are emerging, expanding our professional scope. Unfortunately, the anaesthesiologist is not often positioned in a leading role in quality of care and patient safety. After a brief rise during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which anaesthesiologists were visible in the frontline in many countries, we have unfortunately disappeared from the spotlight. This review shows numerous ideas, examples, and a framework how a leading position can be realized.

The 2024 revision of the Norwegian standard for the safe practice of anaesthesia

The Norwegian standard for the safe practice of anaesthesia was first published in 1991, and revised in 1994, 1998, 2005, 2010 and 2016 respectively. The 1998 version was published in English for the first time in Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica in 2002. It must be noted that this is a national standard, reflecting the specific opportunities and challenges in a Norwegian setting, which may be different from other countries in some respects. A feature of the Norwegian healthcare system is the availability, on a national basis, of specifically highly trained and qualified nurse anaesthetists. Another feature is the geography, with parts of the population living in remote areas. These may be served by small, local emergency hospitals. Emergency transport of patients to larger hospitals is not always achievable when weather conditions are rough. These features and challenges were considered important when designing a balanced and consensus-based national standard for the safe practice of anaesthesia, across Norwegian clinical settings. In this article, we present the 2024 revision of the document. This article presents a direct translation of the complete document from the Norwegian original.

A New Distal Pharyngeal Airway Device Associated with a Reduced Need for Chin-Lift and Jaw-Thrust Maneuvers in Sedated Patients

Oropharyngeal airways (OPA) or nasopharyngeal airways (NPA) sometimes require chin-lift or jaw-thrust (CLJT) maneuvers to relieve airway obstruction which creates the burden of continuous hands-on care by the anesthesia provider. A new distal pharyngeal airway device (DPA) was used on 63 successive ambulatory surgery patients to assess the frequency of patients requiring manual CLJT maneuvers to prevent airway obstruction. Results were then compared with a contemporaneous group of patients who had used OPA or NPA devices for similar procedures. Patients using the DPA had a 38.5% lower rate of CLJT maneuvers compared with the combined OPA/NPA groups (22.2% of 63 vs. 60.7% of 163, P ≤ .001). Moreover, the results for the DPA group were close to those of the natural airway group (22.2% of 62 vs. 24.8% of 233, P = .66) Results were similar for a sub-set of the above groups who required deep sedation or deep extubation. CLJT maneuvers were common in this ambulatory surgery setting. The new DPA device was associated with a reduced need for such manual maneuvers when compared with similar patients who received OPA or NPA devices and is comparable with the rate for natural airways.

Closed-loop anesthesia: foundations and applications in contemporary perioperative medicine

A closed-loop automatically controls a variable using the principle of feedback. Automation within anesthesia typically aims to improve the stability of a controlled variable and reduce workload associated with simple repetitive tasks. This approach attempts to limit errors due to distractions or fatigue while simultaneously increasing compliance to evidence based perioperative protocols. The ultimate goal is to use these advantages over manual care to improve patient outcome. For more than twenty years, clinical studies in anesthesia have demonstrated the superiority of closed-loop systems compared to manual control for stabilizing a single variable, reducing practitioner workload, and safely administering therapies. This research has focused on various closed-loops that coupled inputs and outputs such as the processed electroencephalogram with propofol, blood pressure with vasopressors, and dynamic predictors of fluid responsiveness with fluid therapy. Recently, multiple simultaneous independent closed-loop systems have been tested in practice and one study has demonstrated a clinical benefit on postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Despite their advantages, these tools still require that a well-trained practitioner maintains situation awareness, understands how closed-loop systems react to each variable, and is ready to retake control if the closed-loop systems fail. In the future, multiple input multiple output closed-loop systems will control anesthetic, fluid and vasopressor titration and may perhaps integrate other key systems, such as the anesthesia machine. Human supervision will nonetheless always be indispensable as situation awareness, communication, and prediction of events remain irreplaceable human factors.

Challenges for Nurse Anesthetists Reentering Practice Following Substance Use Disorder Treatment

Substance use disorder (SUD) is a persistent, relapsing condition that is present in approximately 10% of anesthesia providers, who, compared with other healthcare providers, face a greater risk of developing an SUD by virtue of constant access to medications. The ability of certified registered nurse anesthesiologists (CRNAs) to obtain or maintain employment after treatment for SUD treatment is not well documented. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore challenges encountered by CRNAs in recovery as they attempt to reenter practice following SUD treatment. The phenomenon was explored through multiple-case study, using qualitative semistructured interviews with participants in four cases: CRNAs in recovery, CRNA colleagues, CRNA employers, and professional health program employees. Thirty-six participants conveyed their perspectives about challenges that CRNAs in recovery face upon reentry into practice following SUD treatment. The Worker Well-Being conceptual model was used to guide this study. The study revealed that more SUD education is a key facilitator for reentry, risk of relapse was a major concern, and stigma was the most significant barrier for CRNAs in recovery. Stigma persists as a considerable barrier in many facets of SUD, contributing to an increase in shame associated with having the disease.

Public Knowledge and Awareness of Anesthesiology and Anesthesiologists in China: A Cross-Sectional National Survey of 1 Million Participants

BACKGROUND

In the past 20 years, anesthesiology has become one of the most advanced specialties and has undergone rapid development. However, public awareness regarding anesthesiology and anesthesiologists is limited, especially in developing countries. It is important for anesthesiologists to make the public aware of their role during surgery. Therefore, a nationwide survey was set up to investigate public awareness of anesthesiology and anesthesiologists in China.

METHOD

A cross-sectional nationwide survey was performed from June 2018 to June 2019 in 34 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions across China and an overseas region. The questionnaires of the survey were divided into 2 main parts: general items and research items. General items included the demographic characteristics of the participants; research items consisted of 10 questions about the public's awareness of anesthesiologists and anesthesiology. Data quality control was undertaken by the investigation committee throughout the survey process.

RESULTS

The nationwide survey enrolled 1,001,279 participants (male, 40.7%). We found that most of the participants regarded anesthesiologists as doctors. However, public knowledge of anesthesiologists' work and duties during surgery was quite low, with correct response rate ranging from 16.5% to 52.9%, and anesthesiologist responsibilities were often mistakenly attributed to surgeons or nurses. It is disappointing that more than half of participants still thought that, once the patient fell asleep after receiving anesthetics, the anesthesiologist could leave the operating room. Finally, the correct response rate was positively correlated with the economic levels of the regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Public awareness regarding anesthesiology and anesthesiologists in China remains inadequate. Due to the biases and characteristics of the participants, the actual situation of the general Chinese public is likely even worse than reflected here. Therefore, extensive measures should be undertaken to improve public knowledge of anesthesiology and anesthesiologists.

Anesthesia Medication Safety in Relation to Pharmacopeia Medication Use Best Practice Initiatives

Improvement to anesthesia medication safety is a useful and worthwhile area of research. Anesthesia is one of the few healthcare professions to have immediate access to compounding and label high-hazard medications at the bedside. There is a need to assess the perceptions of anesthesia medication safety and this relationship with pharmacopeia's updated recommendations for anesthesia to improve medication safety and prevent adverse drug events. Certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) perceptions of medication safety climate in Florida were measured utilizing a validated Likert-scale that merged the Attitudes Questionnaire themes of teamwork, climate, safety climate, job satisfaction, stress recognition, perceptions of management, and working. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture themes utilized were organizational learning, error communication, and support for patient safety. The overall email invitations delivered 5,890, 524 participants voluntarily started, and 401 completed the questionnaire resulting in a 77% completion rate. The overall response rate was 8.896% and 6.8% overall completion rate. The findings demonstrate a correlation between themes related to supportive organizational learning, stress reduction, positive changes, and creating anesthesia medication quality improvements. CRNAs' openness in adopting new pharmacopeia best practice recommendations can improve anesthesia medication safety delivery. The survey indicated clinical noteworthiness that supports the importance of additional examination of frontline providers' perceptions regarding anesthesia medication safety, buy-in, and adoption of updated pharmacopeia recommendations.

Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

BACKGROUND

Awake proning in spontaneously breathing patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure was applied during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to improve oxygenation while avoiding tracheal intubation. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the topic was published.

METHODS

The Clinical practice committee (CPC) of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) assessed the clinical practice guideline "Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline" for possible endorsement. The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool was used.

RESULTS

Four out of six SSAI CPC members completed the appraisal. The individual domain totals were: Scope and Purpose 90%; Stakeholder Involvement 89%; Rigour of Development 74%; Clarity of Presentation 85%; Applicability 75%; Editorial Independence 98%; Overall Assessment 79%.

CONCLUSION

The SSAI CPC endorses the clinical practice guideline "Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline". This guideline serves as a useful decision aid for clinicians caring for critically ill patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and can be used to provide guidance on use of prone positioning in this group of patients.

Artificial intelligence and its clinical application in Anesthesiology: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is quickly expanding. Despite the amount of evidence and promising results, a thorough overview of the current state of AI in clinical practice of anesthesiology is needed. Therefore, our study aims to systematically review the application of AI in this context.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched Medline and Web of Science for articles published up to November 2022 using terms related with AI and clinical practice of anesthesiology. Articles that involved animals, editorials, reviews and sample size lower than 10 patients were excluded. Characteristics and accuracy measures from each study were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 46 articles were included in this review. We have grouped them into 4 categories with regard to their clinical applicability: (1) Depth of Anesthesia Monitoring; (2) Image-guided techniques related to Anesthesia; (3) Prediction of events/risks related to Anesthesia; (4) Drug administration control. Each group was analyzed, and the main findings were summarized. Across all fields, the majority of AI methods tested showed superior performance results compared to traditional methods.

CONCLUSION

AI systems are being integrated into anesthesiology clinical practice, enhancing medical professionals' skills of decision-making, diagnostic accuracy, and therapeutic response.

Anesthesiologists and Community Engagement: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Millions of individuals require anesthesia services each year. Although anesthesia-associated mortality rates have declined, anesthetic-related morbidity remains high, particularly among vulnerable populations. Disparities in perioperative screening, optimization, surveillance, and follow-up contribute to worse outcomes in these populations. Community-engaged collaborations may be the essential ingredient needed for anesthesiologists to improve disparities in anesthetic outcomes and prioritize the needs of patients and communities. This scoping review seeks to examine the available literature on community engagement among anesthesiologists to identify gaps and seek opportunities for future work. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). OVID MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched to identify sources that used or recognized community-engaged strategies and involved the work of anesthesiologists. Sources were selected based on inclusion criteria and consistent data were extracted from each paper for compilation in a data chart. The initial search generated 1230 articles of which 16 met criteria for inclusion in the review. An updated search of the literature and reference scan of included sources resulted in 7 additional articles being included. The sources were grouped according to overarching themes and methods used and ultimately categorized according to the spectrum of public participation developed by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). This spectrum includes 5 levels: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower. This review identified 5 sources at the inform level, 8 studies in consult, 0 in involve, 7 in collaborate, and 3 in empower. Results indicate that most initiatives representing deeper levels of community engagement, at the collaborate or empower level, occur internationally. Efforts that occur in the United States tend to emphasize engagement of individual patients rather than communities. There is a need to pursue deeper, more meaningful community-engaged efforts within the field of anesthesiology at a local and national level.

PRO: Implementation Science Has Value in Anesthesiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery

Implementation science is a nascent field that aims to study the factors that influence the effectiveness of a given clinical intervention, such as the characteristics of the individuals involved, the internal and external settings, the process of implementation, and other factors. Overall, implementation science aims to increase the extent to which an intervention is practiced, and the quality of its delivery to a patient. Although still in its infancy, the applications of implementation science in anesthesiology and cardiothoracic surgery abound. Whether used to adopt novel innovations, avoid the use of obsolete practices, or redeploy existing interventions to improve quality, implementation science holds promise in optimizing how we bring the latest in clinical science to produce tangible benefits to patients and create sustainable change.