The Future of Anesthesiology

“You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where you are going because you might not get there.”—Yogi Berra Anesthesiology is at a crossroads. The “Burning Platform” allegory highlights the dilemma facing clinical care and anesthesiology today. We are the workers trapped 150 feet above a stormy, cold ocean on a burning oil platform.a Balanced on that burning stage, our options are limited. None are attractive. For the oil rig worker, death is certain if he stays, and almost certain if he jumps. This metaphor emphasizes that in the face of uncertainty about the future, radical action is required of all of us. This analogy is particularly relevant to the practice of medicine in an unsustainable and rapidly evolving health care environment. Survival instincts (e.g., jumping 150 feet into icy water) trumps one’s instinct to hesitate and hope the current situation fades. For years, the flames of change have been nipping at the heels of the medical practice of anesthesiology. Some think we are “crying wolf.” But most health care experts and even the lay public acknowledge that we must change how we approach our patients and practice. We must adapt to new models of care. We must address some of the most vexing problems that compromise the patient-provider relationship and its impact on quality, safety, and health outcomes. As Dr. Karen Domino opined in her 2014 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Rovenstine Lecture, “This is no time for business as usual. The forces driving change are enormous, but they can be guided. The clock is ticking. The time to act is now.” EVOLVING ROLES We acknowledge that the traditional practice of anesthesiology has been undergoing change for many years, expanding some of the opportunities outside of the traditional operating room (OR) environment to include perioperative care. At the same time, even these expansions of our roles and responsibilities may not be sufficient to sustain our specialty. The future options for anesthesia practice are less clear as we confront challenges at many levels. We need to assess our current practice, build on successful initiatives, and most importantly address deficiencies in current practice and the relationship of these items to quality, safety, and costs of care to address the needs of our patients and the overall health care system. A number of changes in our scope of practice have been demonstrated to address some of these challenges. None of these changes should be undervalued nor the implications ignored. Subspecialization has created new opportunities for some of our colleagues to focus their clinical skills and practice on a subset of what has been the focus of anesthesia practice for decades. These include the specialty disciplines of obstetrical anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, and cardiothoracic anesthesia. In addition, we have expanded our scope of practice to include critical care medicine, pain medicine, palliative care, and, for a modicum of clinicians, sleep medicine. However, in each of these areas, other medical specialists and other providers are competing for the same roles and responsibilities. Many have been formidable competitors with or without data to support their positions. Perhaps, most importantly for our specialty, anesthesiologists have taken on new administrative and clinical roles in perioperative care. We have demonstrated our ability to effectively manage patients preoperatively rather than simply assess them and provide improved care in the postanesthesia care unit and during their hospitalization. Our expanded perioperative role has occurred in parallel with the changes in the roles and expectations for surgical specialties. Surgeons are rewarded and incented to operate. As a result, our surgical colleagues have requested assistance in the management of some aspects of perioperative care. This assistance is often provided by hospitalists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. Finally, we have been encouraged to take a broader view of each patient’s clinical experience and to provide for the continuum of care into and out of the surgical suite. This has been promoted by the introduction of value-based purchasing, with the need to reduce hospital lengths of stay, prevent nosocomial complications of care, and reduce hospital readmissions. Although costs are a primary motivator for these changes, quality and safety are the ultimate goals. In response to these changes both within and outside of health care, we have been encouraged to reassess our roles, to identify new models of care, and to take an even broader perspective of patient care throughout the perioperative period and beyond. Most recently, the ASA as well as other groups have proposed that anesthesiologists become the integrators for what has been termed the perioperative surgical home (PSH). The PSH is a strategic response to the challenge laid out by Dr. Berwick and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement to derive better value for the resources invested by providing improved coordination and management across the continuum of clinical needs for each patient. This approach is designed to fulfill the conditions of the frequently articulated “Triple Aims” of health care: Improved health of a defined population; Enhanced patient care experience, including quality, access, and reliability; and Reduction in the per capita costs of care.1 What is incorporated into this new paradigm for perioperative care? What does it mean for the future of anesthesiology? In its simplest definition, the PSH is a broad-based approach for surgical patients that covers the full continuum of the preoperative period, the surgical procedure itself, the immediate postoperative care, and extends care into the postdischarge period. With this perspective, it is very important to address whether this model makes sense for patients, providers, and the health care system. It is also critical to address whether anesthesiologists who are provided the opportunity to take on this role have the skills and interest to do so, along with the ramifications for all other aspects of anesthesia practice. Will this integrated approach increase value, patient-centeredness, and provide better treatment for our patients? Most notably, we need to ask several core questions: are anesthesiologists (now or in the foreseeable future) the best educated, best trained, and best suited to accomplish this effort in the most cost-effective manner? Is it expected that all anesthesiologists will adapt their practices to this model? If so, what are the implications for all other aspects of anesthesia care? Will other providers and health systems allow anesthesiologists to take on this role or will there be competition from surgeons, hospitalists, nurse practitioners, and others? If so, do we create new antagonistic relationships with colleagues who have previously been supportive and collegial? Will we continue practicing in the best interests of our patients? Finally, and perhaps most critical to this proposed model, how do we get compensated, or at least financially supported, for creating, piloting, managing, and sustaining a PSH?2 To our knowledge, no published studies compare anesthesiologists to other providers in fulfilling the tenets of the PSH. There is no published economic analysis of how adequate revenue will be generated by these efforts (whether by anesthesiologists or others) to ensure financial viability. The innovative PSH model is predicated on global perioperative care (“door-to-door” service) of the surgical patient, with the laudable goal of reduced cost coupled with improved outcomes. The proof of concept is particularly timely and important, as similar primary care–based attempts have shown limited efficacy in attaining the desired goals. In one of the earliest, largest, and longest running medical home pilot demonstration projects that sought to measure the changes in quality, usage, and costs of care resulting from participation of primary care practices in medical homes, performance was improved in only 1 of 11 quality measures.3 Unfortunately, this pilot project failed to reduce usage of hospital facilities or total cost of care over 3 years. The PSH model is currently being evaluated with the support of the ASA Collaborative.2–4 There are several innovative and robust pilot programs in progress in which anesthesiologists are managing care for orthopedic, colorectal, and urology patients.5,6 These pilot projects will provide important lessons to allow us to determine how the PSH model fits within the overall specialty of anesthesiology. They will also identify the implications for the work force, including recruitment and education of anesthesia residents. The ASA Collaborative and the pilot projects will help the specialty address some of these specific concerns associated with evolution of the PSH. At the same time, there has been little engagement by others who have an interest in the success or failure of this model. Although some surgeons and some hospital administrators recognize that anesthesiologists are well positioned to take on the role of manager of the PSH, in most cases, it will only succeed if the specific model in each institution takes into account the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders involved in the care of the surgical patients.2,4–6 In other words, these models will succeed not because of fundamental economic principles but rather because they are compatible with local environments and leverage relationships established during a long period of time. We are therefore encouraging more open dialogue and debate about what the PSH entails, the various models that might be evaluated, and the metrics that will be used to define success for these experiments within the ASA Collaborative and beyond. The stakes are huge. The implications of this proposed change in the roles and responsibilities of anesthesiologists are significant. Although the PSH incorporates some important aspects of the new model of anesthesia care, it alone, or its current iterations, may not be sufficiently responsive to our patients, our colleagues, or the payers. Even now some graduating anesthesiology residents struggle to identify optimal practice opportunities because of the consolidation of practices into regional or national multispecialty groups.7 They also may find themselves competing with nurse anesthetists who have already gained independent practice in many states. The final challenge associated with the implementation of the PSH in any clinical environment is the financial implication each model imposes. How will anesthesiologists and other providers be compensated, or at least supported, under this model? Will funds be distributed to physicians based on relative value units from a bundled payment to a health system? Will anesthesiologists be incentivized to reduce costs? If so, how will their role in the cost savings be defined? What other metrics will be used to compensate anesthesiologists or other physician specialists to participate in the PSH? The PSH group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham highlights that the health care organization must be willing to “purchase” the increased “value” achieved by the PSH process.2,4 To that end, 3 conditions must be met: Strong institutional desire to meet the Triple Aims,1 A robust informatics system to capture the impact of the PSH, including local expertise to collate, manage, and analyze the global data, and An anesthesia practice that is financially aligned with the institution.2 This third element requires that the anesthesia practice becomes fully employed by the institution (while simultaneously remaining distinct corporate entities), that the institution develop an integrated funds flow model to achieve collective objectives, and that the institution and anesthesia practice develop comanaged contracts.2 Obviously, these contracts must balance the needs of both partners across value-based purchasing programs and bundled payments methodology. We believe it is incumbent upon the ASA and leading pilot organizations to delineate a financial pro forma as well as demonstrate positive balance sheets from mature PSH programs. In addition, the future of the independent anesthesia practitioner or private practice group within this context should be addressed transparently. We have described many of the challenges associated with the implementation of the PSH. Our intent is not to view these challenges as irreconcilable barriers to adoption. Rather, this is a call to consider how this model is integrated into current practices and to identify ways to evaluate it in a scholarly manner. Our view is that while the PSH incorporates some important aspects of a future model of anesthesia care, it or its current iterations may not be sufficiently robust and responsive to market demands. Whether the PSH model will apply to all patients, subsets of surgical patients, or selected clinical service lines, the transition from the current fragmented model of care represents a major change in focus, required skill set, and, most importantly, a commitment to define how to implement this type of practice. Anesthesiologists are already fragmented into clinical anesthesia, preoperative assessment, pain management, and intensive care unit care. Will we welcome further fragmentation into PSH managers? We acknowledge that the current anesthesia care model may not be either sufficient to meet our patients’ needs or sustainable, at least for many practices and traditional clinical situations. Anesthesiology is at risk of becoming, or perhaps in some cases has already become, a hospital “commodity.” The recent consolidation of practices into regional or national multispecialty groups7 has changed the professional environment and options for graduating residents and may or may not support any role by anesthesiologists in the PSH. For example, some of the national multispecialty organizations use hospitalists or nurse practitioners to manage patients through the continuum of care. Is there a role for the anesthesiologist as well, or is the anesthesiologist best suited to either provide or supervise care in the OR and non-OR procedural areas? What are the implications of the recent decisions to grant independent practice status for advance practice nurses? It is important to encourage a robust dialogue with our colleagues about these questions as we continue the experiments under the ASA Collaborative and beyond. Table 1 summarizes the issues that we believe require further consideration.Table 1: Core Questions While Considering Application and Evaluation of the Impact of the PSH on the Practice of AnesthesiologyOur View of a Different Future Others can best summarize the history and development of the PSH.2,4,8–10 The pursuit of the PSH has involved efforts during the past 14 years and has currently yielded a number of pilot programs in part supported by substantive funding of the ASA Collaborative. Even in a mature PSH future, Warner and Apfelbaum10 predict “most groups 1 or a partners who have specific in this Will that model be sufficient for the future health of our The forces driving change in anesthesia practice and health care in are enormous, as in a number of recent Rovenstine It is critical to be that these changes may not be but they can be It is our to our patients and colleagues to do The current in health care us with the opportunity to in the debate about the future of our specialty, the roles we might in the health care and the implications for future work that the PSH pilot programs are to be in some situations. We that the PSH might into a opportunity for some anesthesiologists to or their We also that some of the of the PSH will be incorporated into anesthesia care of the At the same time, the challenges by all health care providers, health and patients that we also a of the future while an paradigm in who we how we are educated, the of our how we practice, how we how we value, and how we with the skills to adapt to future The PSH may be a of a and more of the specialty, the changes in and that have taken during the past decades. The time is now for the specialty and the ASA to take a broader perspective that incorporates but does not the PSH our To the we an for that is under and is not to past and current but on the to a and about how best to accomplish the of our specialty. This is based on 3 Anesthesiologists are most to be successful care by remaining in procedural management of patients in traditional and environments from to the very we simultaneously recognize that care will be by rather than by medical of a of physician including nurse anesthesiologist and practice These models of care will require that we and implement new ways to anesthesia, and as well as patients throughout the hospital environment and beyond. It will require that we that patient care, whether it be or other We a new paradigm that will the current for all residents and broader and specialty into the core within 1 of in Table The model will continue to include However, some may be into a continuum as selected by each The implications of changes are significant. As an example, medicine, incorporated critical care into the continuum of anesthesia the expanded to years, our future might have been very an expanded might have our transition to the role of managing the PSH. The transition from the current model to these of the future will require to our and number of anesthesiology we that there will be but more and more anesthesiology generated from the of programs. We simultaneously acknowledge that the number of anesthesiology will be market and the future might or more Table of the of the Future We recognize the implications of this are substantive and that many of anesthesia practice are already well in the current We will need a expanded and ways to provide clinical to of anesthesia will require the support of the for and anesthesiology to innovative pilot projects and to allow programs in the expanded needs of residents. It will also require the and support of the American of Anesthesiology and other American of the ASA the ASA of our and, most of support from We need robust support from all stakeholders to achieve timely and Finally, we encourage broader with primary programs as and medicine to ensure that our residents clinical in the care of medical and pediatric patients and from anesthesia and As demonstrated in critical care can also residents from other specialties. A broader including with primary advance the of perioperative physicians as well as integrated that on across What we is a more than the current efforts to develop the PSH as a major approach to the future of our specialty. We that the in our specialty will define many of the of this new model of At the same time, we have experience in not only anesthesiologists but also physicians in other in aspects of anesthesiology and perioperative care. Anesthesiology has supported in anesthesiology and medicine, anesthesiology and of medicine, and in pain medicine, and surgeons, and medicine physicians in critical care of Anesthesiology If our proposed paradigm for anesthesiology represents a in traditional education and practice. It impact the perhaps the of current anesthesiology programs. It might our best to most for Even we that current medical and other economic forces have already as of to a limited core of anesthesiology programs But of the are well the immediate scope of this of to in In our are to and to provide a for further dialogue all of the including but not limited to the American of for and the Society of Anesthesiology to identify opportunities for the future of the specialty. The PSH an innovative and important in the practice of anesthesiology. It in a of patient care. It might provide an expanded role for some However, the PSH is to our We need a national about the of some of our current practice including the current models of perioperative care, pain medicine, and critical care. We need to assess the role we can in palliative care and management in We need to consider the implications of the PSH and its for health systems and, most importantly, for our We believe that our best will be from a of We believe that we need to more from colleagues in and anesthesia and current Finally, we to that these and decisions are We for PSH to be and their value Even some the role of as providers in the OR in as regional anesthesia, and We believe we our specialty the best opportunity to by to change the we a new of anesthesiologists who provide care for patients, supervise the management for all patients, new knowledge, and effectively care to value to the perioperative We efforts to and continue robust with decisions and implementation of changes within years, by as we the of and of you have As part of this robust we to our dialogue with Warner and that in this same of Dr. is the of for The was by Dr. for the and Dr. was not involved in any with the or This in and core of the and the with all other the final and to the of the in the and of is a of the of and on the of of that This in and core of the and the with all other the final and to the of the in the and of This has no of interest to This in and core of the and the with all other the final and to the of the in the and of is in which is a to identify This no This in and core of the and the with all other the final and to the of the in the and of is a of the of and on the of of a medical with no to the or of this This in and core of the and the with all other the final and to the of the in the and of This has no of interest to This in and core of the and the with all other the final and to the of the in the and of on the This in and core of the and the with all other the final and to the of the in the and of This has no of interest to This in and core of the and the with all other the final and to the of the in the and of This has no of interest to