Tuesday, August 3, 2010

CRNAs = Anesthesiologists. We Only Have Ourselves To Blame

Sigh.  In another indictment on the worth of anesthesiologists in the operating room, a study in Health Affairs has declared that patients who receive anesthesia from CRNAs are no more likely to suffer a complication than those who are anesthetized by anesthesiologists.  The authors of the report looked at anesthetic complications in states who opted out of Medicare's rule requiring physician oversight of CRNAs vs. states who did not opt out.  They found no differences in the reported rates of deaths or complications from anesthesia.  They also looked at the complication rates before and after states opted out.  Again there were no differences. They only found that anesthesiologists tended to perform more complicated anesthetics, perhaps due to CRNAs doing more work in small rural hospital settings.

For any anesthesiologist who has worked with CRNAs, the results should come as no surprise.  Though we hate to admit it, most of them are every bit as competent as MDAs. I wonder though how much of this equivalency is the result of the evolving nature of anesthesia.  Are anesthesiologists and the ASA, in our relentless pursuit of patient safety, devaluing our own work?  It was not that long ago that the practice of anesthesia was a tedious, tiresome, hands-on drudgery.  Back before automated sphygmomanometers, the anesthesiologist had to crouch under the drapes to measure the blood pressure by listening for distant Korotkoff sounds in a noisy operating room.  Good luck if the patient was hypotensive or the arms were not accessible.  In the days before capnography, anesthesiologists were literally tethered to the patient by a precordial or esophageal stethoscope to ensure the airway was patent.  Nowadays with all the automated monitoring in the operating room, an anesthesiologist is free to walk around the OR to chat up the surgeons and the nurses or just to stretch his legs.

Anesthesia is so safe now that anesthesia attendings feel comfortable leaving a CA 1 resident in the OR by himself to do a case while he goes to another room nearby to teach a different resident.  The safety profile of anesthesia is so high that it takes thousands of cases to find any meaningful rates of complications.  Take for instance the recent quick demise of rapacuronium.  The FDA tested this new muscle relaxant on thousands of patients before approving its use. It was not until millions of doses had been given that the FDA realized there were serious side effects of the drug and had it quickly pulled from the market.  Succinylcholine would not stand a chance of approval today.

Is it any wonder that, despite the ASA's demagoguery of CRNAs, their work holds up just as well as anesthesiologists.  I fear it will get more difficult in the future for anesthesiologists to justify our reimbursement levels when we can't prove that our skills are any more valuable than CRNAs', not when technology has leveled the playing field for everybody.

5 comments:

  1. Anesthesiology value lies in critical care/intensivist role, clinical anesthesia does not routinely require the level of education mandated by ASA/ABA.
    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder if it's even that much. Pulmonologists are very active in the critical care field and any surgeon will tell you that surgeons make the best post operative intensivists. Really the only function unique to anesthesiologists is Regional or Pain. If not for legislative obstacles the CRNAs are trying to infiltrate those fields too.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Before TEFRA, CRNA & Anesthesiologist relations were more consultative, collegial & respectful, since TEFRA they are more adversarial & suspicious. Hospitals & Payers use this conflict to their advantage when negotiating with either party.

    Using Game theory analogy, ASA and AANA too often choose a "Zero sum" approach meaning for one side to win the other side must lose. If an "N-person" approach were chosen, aligning ASA & AANA mutual interest, like the recent FDA propofol warning label, results are mutually beneficial.
    ReplyDelete
  4. I simply cannot agree. CRNAs do not equate to MD Anesthesiologists. Sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion,...but from what I've seen in a major metropolitan area at one of the best teaching hospitals in the country... the average CRNA does NOT equate to MD. There are outliers... and that goes for CRNAs and MDs. It's like you're comparing dentists to dental hygenists. It's not the same.
    ReplyDelete
  5. It is dumb to compare a dental hygienist to a dentist. Hygienists are trained to clean teeth and not to pull out impacted wisdom teeth. A dentist does that. CRNA's are trained to perform all aspects of anesthesia, and therefore can do the most complicated anesthesia procedures just like an anesthesiologist.
    ReplyDelete