The assessment of a growing mobile anesthesia practice from 2016 to 2019: A retrospective observational cohort study of 89,999 cases comparing ambulatory surgery (ASC) and office-based surgery (OBS) centers using a high-fidelity, anesthesia-specific electronic medical record (EMR)

Q3 Medicine
Fred E. Shapiro DO, FASA, Brian H. Park MD, Tal S. Levy MD, Brian M. Osman MD
{"title":"The assessment of a growing mobile anesthesia practice from 2016 to 2019: A retrospective observational cohort study of 89,999 cases comparing ambulatory surgery (ASC) and office-based surgery (OBS) centers using a high-fidelity, anesthesia-specific electronic medical record (EMR)","authors":"Fred E. Shapiro DO, FASA,&nbsp;Brian H. Park MD,&nbsp;Tal S. Levy MD,&nbsp;Brian M. Osman MD","doi":"10.1002/jhrm.21499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Office-based surgery (OBS) has emerged as a significant subspecialty of ambulatory surgery. There are few clinical trials and limited published data on patient characteristics, anesthesia, or outcomes distinguishing OBS from ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). We examined retrospective data from a large mobile anesthesia practice for 89,999 procedures from 2016 to 2019. Data was abstracted from billing and an anesthesia-specific electronic medical record, segregating procedures performed in ASCs versus OBS. The number and breadth of procedures increased substantially. Compared to ASCs, OBS patients were more likely male (52% vs. 48%), older (61 years vs. 55 years), and to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) status (33% vs. 20% ASA 3 or higher). The procedure mix varied substantially between the two settings. The major complication rate was 0.07% for the ASCs and 0.24% for OBS (<i>p</i> = 0.2, confidence interval [CI] −0.15 to 0.04). Minor complications were 11.2% in OBS versus 17.3% the ASCs (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001, 95% CI 5.2–7). The practice demonstrates a low rate of complications, and despite the limitations of this study, the organization and structure of this large mobile anesthesia practice serves as a template for effective risk mitigation and patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":39819,"journal":{"name":"Journal of healthcare risk management : the journal of the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management","volume":"41 4","pages":"27-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of healthcare risk management : the journal of the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jhrm.21499","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Office-based surgery (OBS) has emerged as a significant subspecialty of ambulatory surgery. There are few clinical trials and limited published data on patient characteristics, anesthesia, or outcomes distinguishing OBS from ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). We examined retrospective data from a large mobile anesthesia practice for 89,999 procedures from 2016 to 2019. Data was abstracted from billing and an anesthesia-specific electronic medical record, segregating procedures performed in ASCs versus OBS. The number and breadth of procedures increased substantially. Compared to ASCs, OBS patients were more likely male (52% vs. 48%), older (61 years vs. 55 years), and to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) status (33% vs. 20% ASA 3 or higher). The procedure mix varied substantially between the two settings. The major complication rate was 0.07% for the ASCs and 0.24% for OBS (p = 0.2, confidence interval [CI] −0.15 to 0.04). Minor complications were 11.2% in OBS versus 17.3% the ASCs (p < 0.0001, 95% CI 5.2–7). The practice demonstrates a low rate of complications, and despite the limitations of this study, the organization and structure of this large mobile anesthesia practice serves as a template for effective risk mitigation and patient safety.

2016年至2019年不断增长的移动麻醉实践评估:一项回顾性观察队列研究,89999例病例,使用高保真、麻醉专用电子病历(EMR)比较门诊手术(ASC)和办公室手术(OBS)中心。
以办公室为基础的外科(OBS)已成为门诊外科的一个重要亚专科。很少有临床试验和有限的已发表的关于患者特征、麻醉或将OBS与门诊手术中心(ASCs)区分开来的结果的数据。我们检查了2016年至2019年89999例大型移动麻醉实践的回顾性数据。数据从账单和麻醉特定的电子病历中提取,将ASCs与OBS进行的手术分开。程序的数量和广度大大增加。与ASCs相比,OBS患者更可能是男性(52%对48%),年龄较大(61岁对55岁),并且具有较高的美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)地位(33%对20%,ASA 3或更高)。两种设置的程序组合有很大的不同。ASCs的主要并发症发生率为0.07%,OBS的主要并发症发生率为0.24% (p = 0.2,可信区间[CI] - 0.15 ~ 0.04)。轻度并发症在OBS组为11.2%,在ASCs组为17.3% (p <0.0001, 95% ci 5.2-7)。该实践表明并发症发生率低,尽管本研究存在局限性,但这种大型移动麻醉实践的组织和结构可作为有效降低风险和患者安全的模板。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Journal of Healthcare Risk Management is published quarterly by the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management (ASHRM). The purpose of the journal is to publish research, trends, and new developments in the field of healthcare risk management with the ultimate goal of advancing safe and trusted patient-centered healthcare delivery and promoting proactive and innovative management of organization-wide risk. The journal focuses on insightful, peer-reviewed content that relates to patient safety, emergency preparedness, insurance, legal, leadership, and other timely healthcare risk management issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信