Feasibility Evaluation of Commercially Available Video Conferencing Devices to Technically Direct Untrained Nonmedical Personnel to Perform a Rapid Trauma Ultrasound Examination.

Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a rapidly expanding discipline that has proven to be a valuable modality in the hospital setting. Recent evidence has demonstrated the utility of commercially available video conferencing technologies, namely, FaceTime (Apple Inc, Cupertino, CA, USA) and Google Glass (Google Inc, Mountain View, CA, USA), to allow an expert POCUS examiner to remotely guide a novice medical professional. However, few studies have evaluated the ability to use these teleultrasound technologies to guide a nonmedical novice to perform an acute care POCUS examination for cardiac, pulmonary, and abdominal assessments. Additionally, few studies have shown the ability of a POCUS-trained cardiac anesthesiologist to perform the role of an expert instructor. This study sought to evaluate the ability of a POCUS-trained anesthesiologist to remotely guide a nonmedically trained participant to perform an acute care POCUS examination. Methods: A total of 21 nonmedically trained undergraduate students who had no prior ultrasound experience were recruited to perform a three-part ultrasound examination on a standardized patient with the guidance of a remote expert who was a POCUS-trained cardiac anesthesiologist. The examination included the following acute care POCUS topics: (1) cardiac function via parasternal long/short axis views, (2) pneumothorax assessment via pleural sliding exam via anterior lung views, and (3) abdominal free fluid exam via right upper quadrant abdominal view. Each examiner was given a handout with static images of probe placement and actual ultrasound images for the three views. After a brief 8 min tutorial on the teleultrasound technologies, a connection was established with the expert, and they were guided through the acute care POCUS exam. Each view was deemed to be complete when the expert sonographer was satisfied with the obtained image or if the expert sonographer determined that the image could not be obtained after 5 min. Image quality was scored on a previously validated 0 to 4 grading scale. The entire session was recorded, and the image quality was scored during the exam by the remote expert instructor as well as by a separate POCUS-trained, blinded expert anesthesiologist. Results: A total of 21 subjects completed the study. The average total time for the exam was 8.5 min (standard deviation = 4.6). A comparison between the live expert examiner and the blinded postexam reviewer showed a 100% agreement between image interpretations. A review of the exams rated as three or higher demonstrated that 87% of abdominal, 90% of cardiac, and 95% of pulmonary exams achieved this level of image quality. A satisfaction survey of the novice users demonstrated higher ease of following commands for the cardiac and pulmonary exams compared to the abdominal exam. Conclusions: The results from this pilot study demonstrate that nonmedically trained individuals can be guided to complete a relevant ultrasound examination within a short period. Further evaluation of using telemedicine technologies to promote POCUS should be evaluated

Comparison of Postoperative Opioid Consumption and Pain Scores in Primary Versus Repeat Cesarean Delivery in Opioid Naïve Patients

Background: Cesarean deliveries represent a large percentage of deliveries worldwide. Patients undergoing repeat cesarean deliveries are known to have increased risks for surgical complications. However, little is known regarding potential differences in pain. We sought to compare postoperative opioid consumption and pain scores in opioid naïve patients undergoing primary versus repeat non-emergent cesarean delivery. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. Patient inclusion criteria included: having a non-emergent cesarean delivery, receiving a spinal procedure for surgical anesthesia without general anesthesia, and following the same postoperative pain management protocols. Exclusion criteria included: history of opioid tolerance, illicit drug use, or prior, non-obstetric, major abdominal surgery. The primary outcome marker was total morphine equivalents consumed 0–72 h post-procedure compared between the primary versus repeat cesarean delivery groups. Secondary outcome markers were opioid consumption and pain scores in 24-h period increments for the first 72 h postoperatively. Results: 1617 patients were screened. 217 primary and 377 repeat cesarean deliveries met criteria for comparison. Reduced opioid consumption was demonstrated for the total opioid consumption 0–72 h for the repeat cesarean delivery group (median = 35) compared to the primary cesarean delivery group (median = 58), p = 0.0005. When divided into 24-h periods, differences were demonstrated for the 24–48 and 48–72 h periods but not the 0–24 h period. Pain scores did not differ statistically. Conclusion: Opioid naïve obstetric patients who undergo non-emergent repeat cesarean delivery demonstrate lower opioid consumption in the postoperative period. Providers should be aware of this potential difference in order to better educate patients and provide adequate pain management. Highlights: The study reviewed differences in opioid consumption between primary and repeat cesarean deliveries. All patients received the same protocol for spinal dosage and pain management. Repeat cesarean deliveries were associated with lower opioid consumption

Anesthesiologists as perioperative hospitalists and outcomes in patients undergoing major urologic surgery: a historical prospective, comparative effectiveness study

Abstract Background Perioperative care has been identified as an area of wide variability in quality, with conflicting models, and involving multiple specialties. In 2014, the Loma Linda University Departments of Anesthesiology and Urology implemented a perioperative hospitalist service (PHS), consisting of anesthesiology-trained physicians, to co-manage patients for the entirety of their perioperative period. We hypothesized that implementation of this PHS model would result in an improvement in patient recovery. Methods As a quality improvement (QI) initiative, the PHS service was formed of selected anesthesiologists who received training on the core competencies for hospitalist medicine. The service was implemented following a co-management agreement to medically manage patients undergoing major urologic procedures (prostatectomy, cystectomy, and nephrectomy). Impact was assessed by comparisons to data from the year prior to PHS service implementation. Data was compared with and without propensity matching. Primary outcome marker was a reduction in length of stay. Secondary outcome markers included complication rate, return of bowel function, number of consultations, reduction in total direct patient costs, and bed days saved. Results Significant reductions in length of stay (p <  0.05) were demonstrated for all surgical procedures with propensity matching and were demonstrated for cystectomy and nephrectomy cases without. Significant reductions in complication rates and ileus were also observed for all surgical procedures post-PHS implementation. Additionally, reductions in total direct patient costs and frequency of consultations were also observed. Conclusions Anesthesiologists can safely function as perioperative hospitalists, providing appropriate medical management, and significantly improving both patient recovery and throughput

Additional file 1: of Anesthesiologists as perioperative hospitalists and outcomes in patients undergoing major urologic surgery: a historical prospective, comparative effectiveness study

Propensity balance tables PHS study. (DOCX 166 kb