Search

Purpose of Review: This review explores new concepts in competency assessment in anesthesiology, the associated ethical challenges, and directions for new research., Recent Findings: Many new tools for the assessment of competence are currently in development to address changes in medical education curricula. The assessment of competence currently focuses on technical skills, nontechnical skills, and the interaction of both through the use of simulation, with increasing emphasis on validity and reliability testing., Summary: The search for objective measures of competence is well underway. Current methods require substantial investment of resources, and further research into more efficient and financially feasible tools of assessment is needed. As these assessments become more common in use, the ethical challenges raised by defining competency in high-stakes clinical practice situations will need to be addressed.

Since 2006, the Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) has promoted 3 perioperative antibiotic recommendations designed to reduce the incidence of surgical site infections. Despite good evidence for the efficacy of these recommendations, the efforts of SCIP have not measurably improved the rates of surgical site infections. We offer 3 arguments as to why SCIP has fallen short of expectations. We then suggest a reorientation of quality improvement efforts to focus less on reporting, and incentivizing adherence to imperfect metrics, and more on creating local and regional quality collaboratives to educate clinicians about how to improve practice. Ultimately, successful quality improvement projects are behavioral interventions that will only succeed to the degree that they motivate individual clinicians, practicing within a particular context, to do the difficult work of identifying failures and iteratively working toward excellence.

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine shocked the world by claiming that medical error was among the leading causes of death in the United States. In contrast, anesthesiology was cited as an area in which there have been impressive gains in safety and quality. The mechanisms to which these impressive gains have been attributed include practice guidelines, anesthesia simulators, and benchmarking. Unfortunately, the current literature offers little evidence that these systematic approaches to patient safety have resulted in measurable improvements in quality, but efforts continue in the development of traditional and non-traditional quality indicators.

Unlabelled: Quality management programs have used several data reporting sources to identify adverse perioperative outcomes. We compared reporting sources and identified factors that might improve data capture. Adverse perioperative outcomes between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1994, were reported to the Department of Anesthesiology Quality Management program by anesthesiologists, hospital chart reviewers, and other hospital personnel using incident reports. The reports were compared for preoperative health status, severity of outcome, and associated human error. Subsequently, personnel representing the various sources were surveyed regarding factors that might affect their reporting of adverse outcomes. Of 37,924 anesthetics, 734 (1. 9%) adverse outcomes were reported, 519 (71%) of which were identified by anesthesiologists, 282 (38%) by chart reviewers, and 67 (9.1%) by incident report. There was no statistically significant difference in reporting rates by anesthesiologists according to preexisting disease, severity of outcome, or presence of human error. Thirteen cases involving human error, however, resulted in disabling patient injury, with a higher rate of self-reporting for these cases (92%, P < 0.05). Rates of reporting by chart reviewers varied (P < 0.05) according to severity of patient illness and severity of outcome. Incident reports identified only 67 adverse outcomes (9.1%), but included a significantly higher percentage of the adverse outcomes involving human error (23.3%, P < 0.05). Twenty attending anesthesiologists, 15 resident anesthesiologists, 29 operating room nurses, 19 postanesthesia care unit nurses, and 6 hospital chart reviewers responded to the survey. Only the potential to improve quality of patient care influenced or strongly influenced a decision by all groups to report an adverse outcome to a peer review process. Physician self-reporting is a more reliable method of identifying adverse outcomes than either medical chart review or incident reporting., Implications: Physician self-reporting is a more reliable method of identifying adverse outcomes than either medical chart review or incident reporting. Reporting by chart reviewers is biased both by the severity of outcome and severity of patient illness, whereas incident reports tend to focus on human error. All groups feel compelled to report adverse outcomes when the data may result in improved patient care.

Background: Through peer review, we separated the contributions of system error and human (anesthesiologist) error to adverse perioperative outcomes. In addition, we monitored the quality of our perioperative care by statistically defining a predictable rate of adverse outcome dependent on the system in which practice occurs and respondent to any special causes for variation., Methods: Traditional methods of identifying human errors using peer review were expanded to allow identification of system errors in cases involving one or more of the anesthesia clinical indicators recommended in 1992 by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Outcome data also were subjected to statistical process control analysis, an industrial method that uses control charts to monitor product quality and variation., Results: Of 13,389 anesthetics, 110 involved one or more clinical indicators of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Peer review revealed that 6 of 110 cases involved two separate errors. Of these 116 errors, 9 (7.8%) were human errors and 107 (92.2%) were system errors. Attribute control charts demonstrated all indicators, excepting one (fulminant pulmonary edema), to be in statistical control., Conclusions: The major determinant of our patient care quality is the system through which services are delivered and not the individual anesthesia care provider. Outcome of anesthesia services and perioperative care is in statistical control and therefore stable. A stable system has a measurable, communicable capability that allows description and prediction of the quality of care we provide on a monthly basis.