(1/28) A risk management audit: are we complying with the national guidelines for sedation by non-anaesthetists?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a preprinted form in ensuring an improved and sustained quality of documentation of clinical data in compliance with the national guidelines for sedation by non-anaesthetists. DESIGN: The process of retrospective case note audit was used to identify areas of poor performance, reiterate national guidelines, introduce a post-sedation advice sheet, and demonstrate improvement. SETTING: Emergency Department, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton. SUBJECTS: Forty seven patients requiring sedation for relocation of a dislocated shoulder or manipulation of a Colles' fracture between July and October 1996 and July and October 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Evidence that the following items had been documented: consent for procedure, risk assessment, monitored observations, prophylactic use of supplementary oxygen, and discharging patients with printed advice. Case note review was performed before (n = 23) and after (n = 24) the introduction of a sedation audit form. Notes were analysed for the above outcome measures. The monitored observations analysed included: pulse oximetry, respiratory rate, pulse rate, blood pressure, electrocardiography, and conscious level. RESULTS: Use of the form significantly improved documentation of most parameters measured. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of the form, together with staff education, resulted in enhanced documentation of data and improved conformity with national guidelines. A risk management approach to preempting critical incidents following sedation, can be adopted in this area of emergency medicine.  (+info)

(2/28) Practice and education of nurse anaesthetists.

A survey was conducted of the anaesthesia services provided by nurses and the education available to them in this field in 107 countries. Among the procedures carried out were general anaesthesia, spinal blocks and tracheal intubation. The implications of the findings for health planning and policy-making are discussed with particular reference to workforce structure and women's involvement in it.  (+info)

(3/28) Medicare program; payment for nursing and allied health education. Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS. Final rule.

This final rule sets forth in regulations Medicare policy for the payment of costs of approved nursing and allied health education programs. In addition, the rule clarifies the payment methodology for certified registered nurse anesthetist education programs. In general, the final rule clarifies and restates payment policies previously established in the Provider Reimbursement Manual and other documents, but never specifically addressed in regulations. The final rule carries out a directive made in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 and addresses changes required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.  (+info)

(4/28) Medicare and Medicaid programs; hospital Conditions of Participation: anesthesia services. Final rule.

This final rule amends the Anesthesia Services Condition of Participation (CoP) for hospitals, the Surgical Services Condition of Participation for Critical Access Hospitals (CAH), and the Surgical Services Condition of Coverage for Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs), and, with its publication, withdraws the January 18, 2001 final rule (66 FR 4674).This final rule maintains the current physician supervision requirement for certified registered nurse anesthetists(CRNAs), unless the Governor of a State, in consultation with the State's Boards of Medicine and Nursing, exercises the option of exemption from this requirement consistent with State law.  (+info)

(5/28) Multiple sclerosis in nurse anaesthetists.

BACKGROUND: Volatile anaesthetics are chemically related to organic solvents used in industry. Exposure to industrial solvents may increase the incidence of multiple sclerosis (MS). AIM: To examine the risk among nurse anaesthetists of contracting MS. METHODS: Nurses with MS were identified by an appeal in the monthly magazine of the Swedish Nurse Union and a magazine of the Neurological Patients Association in Sweden. Ninety nurses with MS responded and contacted our clinic. They were given a questionnaire, which was filled in by 85 subjects; 13 of these were nurse anaesthetists. The questionnaire requested information about work tasks, exposure, diagnosis, symptoms, and year. The number of active nurse anaesthetists was estimated based on information from the National Board of Health and Welfare and The Nurse Union. Incidence data for women in the region of Gothenburg and Denmark were used as the reference to estimate the risk by calculation of the standardised incidence ratio (SIR). RESULTS: Eleven of the 13 nurse anaesthetists were exposed to anaesthetic gases before onset of MS. Mean duration of exposure before diagnosis was 14.4 years (range 4-27 years). Ten cases were diagnosed in the study period 1980-99, resulting in significantly increased SIRs of 2.9 and 2.8 with the Gothenburg and the Danish reference data, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although based on crude data and a somewhat approximate analysis, this study provides preliminary evidence for an excess risk of MS in nurse anaesthetists. The risk may be even greater than observed, as the case ascertainment might have been incomplete because of the crude method applied. Further studies in this respect are clearly required to more definitely assess the risk.  (+info)

(6/28) TRICARE Program; inclusion of anesthesiologist assistants as authorized providers; coverage of cardiac rehabilitation in freestanding cardiac rehabilitation facilities. Final rule.

This final rule establishes a new category of provider as an authorized TRICARE provider and it increases the settings where cardiac rehabilitation can be covered as a TRICARE benefit. It recognizes anesthesiologist assistants (AAs) as authorized providers under certain circumstances. It also authorizes cardiac rehabilitation services, which are already a covered TRICARE benefit when provided by hospitals, to be provided in freestanding cardiac rehabilitation facilities.  (+info)

(7/28) Comparative effectiveness and safety of physician and nurse anaesthetists: a narrative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread debate on the merits of different models of anaesthesia care delivery, there are few published data on the relative safety and effectiveness of different anaesthesia providers. METHOD: We conducted a systematic search for, and critical appraisal of, primary research comparing safety and effectiveness of different anaesthetic providers. RESULTS: Our search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and HMIC for material published between 1990 and April 2003 yielded four articles of relevance to the question. The studies used a variety of methodologies and all had potential confounding factors limiting the validity of the results. CONCLUSIONS: In view of the paucity of high-level primary evidence in this area, it is not possible to draw a conclusion regarding differences in patient safety as a function of provider type. There are difficulties in classifying events as "anaesthesia-related", and also in the variable definitions of "supervision" and "anaesthesia care team". We suggest that existing attempts to show differences in outcome might usefully be complemented by studies examining measures of anaesthetic process.  (+info)

(8/28) Influence of the type of anesthesia provider on costs of labor analgesia to the Texas Medicaid program.

BACKGROUND: The Texas Medicaid Program (Medicaid) defines billable time for labor analgesia as face-to-face time; therefore, anesthesia providers determine billed time. The authors' goal was to determine the influence of anesthesia providers on labor analgesia costs billed to Medicaid. METHODS: Under the Freedom of Information Act, Medicaid provided data on claims paid for 6 months in 2001 for labor analgesia administered during the course of a vaginal delivery. Claims were either time based (codes 00946 or 00955) or a flat fee (codes 26311 or 26319). Using modifiers, the authors grouped time-based claims as either anesthesiologist group or certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) group. The cost to Medicaid was based on the 2001 fee schedule. The conversion factor was 18.21 USD per American Society of Anesthesiologists unit. The flat-fee reimbursement was 152.50 USD. CRNA services were paid at 85% of the fee schedule. Average time per time claim, percent of providers with more than 4 h of billed time, and cost per claim were determined for each group. Providers with more than 120 claims (> 20 claims/month) were considered high-volume. RESULTS: The database included 21,378 claims (anesthesiologist group: 12,698 claims from 219 providers; CRNA group: 8,680 claims from 117 providers). For time-based claims, the average time per case was significantly higher in the CRNA group (146 min) than in the anesthesiologist group (105 min). The CRNA group cost to Medicaid (225.11 USD) was 19% more per claim than the anesthesiologist group (189.26 USD). The difference in cost per claim was greater among high-volume providers--213.10 USD for the CRNA group versus 168.76 USD for the anesthesiologist group. If a flat-fee program were instituted using the average cost per claim for all groups (203.81 USD), the Texas Medicaid program would save more than 500,000 USD annually. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of labor analgesia billed to Texas Medicaid were 19% to 26% less per patient when provided by anesthesiologists than by CRNAs, despite lower per-unit reimbursement of CRNAs.  (+info)