Introduction There is an expanding role for anesthesiologists in the preoperative optimization and postoperative management of patients, often in the context of a so-called perioperative surgical home. Such efforts typically include enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols and often an anesthesiologist-led team for perioperative management. Studies of the cost-effectiveness of such approaches have generally been conducted at single institutions, with most patients cared for by small numbers of surgeons. This limitation creates generalizability issues as to whether improvement was related mostly to organizational culture or the studied surgeons' practices (non-generalizable) versus the procedures (generalizable). We studied whether other organizations can rely on achieving similar benefits following the adoption of a studied process improvement strategy at a single institution. Methods All patients undergoing elective major therapeutic inpatient surgery discharged between October 2015 and June 2022 at non-federal hospitals in the state of Florida were included. For each discharge, the United States Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group (MS-DRG) weighting factor (i.e., the multiplier for the hospital's base rate for admissions that determines reimbursement) and the Clinical Classification Software Refined (CCSR) code for the principal procedure were determined at admission and discharge from the state's inpatient healthcare database based on the diagnoses present at those time points. An increase in the weighting factor from admission to discharge represents societal costs from perioperative complications. Statewide, by hospital, and by surgeon, we calculated the total increase for each CCSR's weighting factor. Our primary hypothesis was that surgeon variability would be statistically greater than CCSR variability but that the incremental effect would be <5%. If CCSR and surgeon variability were comparable, this would be supportive of generalizability. In contrast, if there were a predominant effect related to the surgeon, results from one institution might not be applicable to others. Results Among the 1,482,344 discharges studied, the pooled (N=7 years) contributions to MS-DRG weighting factor increases from the upper 20% of surgeons were 2.8% more than from the upper 20% of CCSRs (95% CI 1.9%-3.9%, p=0.0006). Those CCSRs accounted for 85.5% (95% CI 79.4%-91.7%, p<0.0001) of the total increase in the MS-DRG weighting factor. The average contribution of the top two surgeons at each hospital to that hospital's increase in the weighting factor ranged among CCSRs from 68% to 97%. The median and 75th percentile of surgeons performing at least 10% of the total number of cases at each hospital was similar to those values for the contributions to the increases in the MS-DRG weighting factor, median 2.0 to 3.0, and 75th percentile 1.75 to 4.0. Conclusions Because variability among surgeons in their contributions to increases in the MS-DRG weighting factor only slightly exceeded the variability among CCSR surgical categories, perioperative surgical home and ERAS study research results involving single institutions and a small number of surgeons would likely be generalizable to other hospitals and healthcare systems. Funding agencies should not be hesitant to fund single-center perioperative surgical home studies and ERAS interventions based on concerns related to lack of generalizability.

International consensus recommendations support neuraxial anesthesia as the preferred anesthetic technique for total hip arthroplasty. We hypothesized that an institutional initiative to promote spinal anesthesia within a clinical pathway would result in increased use of this technique.

We reviewed primary unilateral total hip arthroplasty data between June 2017 and June 2019-one year before vs one year after implementation. The primary outcome was rate of spinal anesthesia use. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores and opioid use, rates of postoperative complications, and unplanned resource use. We built a run chart-tracking rates of spinal anesthesia; compared postoperative outcomes based on anesthetic technique; and developed a mixed model, multivariable logistic regression with margins analysis evaluating the use of spinal anesthesia.

The final sample included 172 patients (87 before and 85 after implementation) with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. For the primary outcome, 42/87 (48%) patients received spinal anesthesia before implementation compared with 48/85 (56%) postimplementation (unadjusted difference, 8%; 95% confidence interval, -7 to 23; P = 0.28). There were no differences in secondary outcomes. Factors associated with receipt of spinal anesthesia included American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status II (vs III), lower body mass index, and shorter case duration. Using a reduced mixed model, the average marginal effect was 10.7%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 25.7%.

Implementation of a clinical pathway change to promote spinal anesthesia for total hip arthroplasty may not have been associated with increased use of spinal anesthesia, but utilization rates can vary widely. Baseline spinal anesthesia usage at our institution was higher than the USA national average, and many factors may influence choice of anesthesia technique. Patients who receive spinal anesthesia have decreased opioid requirements and pain scores postoperatively.

In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss the models, value propositions, and opportunities of preoperative clinics run by anesthesiologists versus hospitalists and their role in perioperative care. The medical and anesthesia evaluation before surgery has pivoted from the model of "clearance" to the model of risk assessment, preparation, and optimization of medical and psychosocial risk factors. Assessment of these risk factors, optimization, and care coordination in the preoperative period has expanded the roles of anesthesiologists and hospitalists as members of the perioperative care team. There is ongoing debate regarding which model of preoperative assessment provides the most optimal preparation for the patient undergoing surgery. This article hopes to shed light on this debate with the data and perspectives on these care models.

In the short-stay surgery setting, where patients remain in hospital for a single overnight at most, it is unclear as to whether postoperative length of stay is a good surrogate for assessing rapidity of recovery. We hypothesized that length of stay would be a function of time of surgery and would be a poorer marker of recovery than time of discharge.

A cohort of 891 mastectomy and 538 prostatectomy patients had a planned single overnight stay after surgery at an ambulatory surgical hospital during 2016. The relationship between surgical start time and postoperative length of stay or discharge time was assessed.

For both mastectomy and prostatectomy patients, 75% of patients were discharged between 10 AM and 12 noon and the median postoperative length of stay was 20 hours. There was a strong association between time of surgery and calculated length of stay. For mastectomies, having a surgery which begins at 6 PM vs 8 AM results in an estimated decrease of 8.8 hours (95% CI, 8.3-9.3) in postoperative length of stay but only 1.2 hours (95% CI, 0.77-1.6) later time of discharge. For prostatectomies, the estimated difference is a decrease of 6.9 hours (95% CI, 6.4-7.4) for postoperative length of stay and 2.5 hours (95% CI, 2.0-3.0) later discharge time.

Postoperative length of stay is a poor outcome measure in a short-stay setting. When assessing rapidity of recovery for single overnight stay patients, we advocate the use of discharge time with adjustment for surgery start time. The effect of surgery start time on both postoperative length of stay and discharge time should be investigated to ascertain which is best to assess rapidity of recovery in other ambulatory care settings where recovery involves a single overnight stay.

The topic of patient satisfaction has gained increasing importance over the past decade. Due to the impact of patient satisfaction on health care quality, understanding factors that predict satisfaction is vital. The purpose of this review is to examine the literature and identify factors related to patient perioperative satisfaction as well as predictive variables that, if modified, can enhance satisfaction scores of patients undergoing surgery. Our review reports that patient satisfaction scores are affected by modifiable factors such as clinician-patient communication, information provision to patients, and operational function of a hospital. Non-modifiable factors affecting patient satisfaction scores include patient demographics such as gender, age, and education. In order to enhance patient perioperative satisfaction, we suggest that anesthesiologists and surgeons focus their efforts on enhancing their communication skills and providing information that is appropriately tailored to the understanding of their patients.

In the setting of an expanding prevalence of acute pain medicine services and the aggressive use of multimodal analgesia, an overview of systems-based safety gaps and safety concerns in the setting of aggressive multimodal analgesia is provided below.

Expert commentary.

Recent evidence focused on systems-based gaps in acute pain medicine is discussed. A focused literature review was conducted to assess safety concerns related to commonly used multimodal pharmacologic agents (opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gabapentanoids, ketamine, acetaminophen) in the setting of inpatient acute pain management.

Optimization of systems-based gaps will increase the probability of accurate pain assessment, improve the application of uniform evidence-based multimodal analgesia, and ensure a continuum of pain care. While acute pain medicine strategies should be aggressively applied, multimodal regimens must be strategically utilized to minimize risk to patients and in a comorbidity-specific fashion.

Integrating perioperative medicine with anaesthesia is the need of the hour. Evolution of a new superspeciality called perioperative anaesthesia can improve surgical outcomes by quality perioperative care and guarantee imminent escalation of influence and power for anaesthesiologists. All original peer-reviewed manuscripts pertaining to surgery-specific perioperative surgical home models involving preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative initiatives spanning the past 5 years have been reviewed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Whether the perioperative surgical home model is feasible or still a distant dream in the Indian perspective has been analysed.

The rising prominence of value-based health care and population health management supports evolving perioperative surgical home (PSH) models that rely on continuously evolving evidence-based best practice and telemedicine and telehealth, including mobile technologies and connectivity. To successfully deliver greater perioperative valued-based care and to effectively contribute to sustained and meaningful perioperative population health management, the scope of existing perioperative management and its associated services and care provider skills must be expanded. This article focuses on the PSH model as continued opportunity and mechanism for delivering greater value-based, comprehensive perioperative assessment and global optimization of surgical patients.

The main objective of this article is to present the updated data regarding the perioperative management of patients undergoing major spine surgery in an era where the surgical techniques are changing and there is a high demand for these surgeries in older and high-risk patients.

Preoperative assessment and stabilization is now more structured protocol and it is based on a multidisciplinary approach to the patient. The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs and the Perioperative Surgical Home on major spine surgery are not yet fully evidence based but it seems that the use of a perioperative optimization of patients and use of a drugs' bundle is more effective than using single drugs or interventions on the postoperative pain reduction and faster recovery from surgery. Fluid and pain-control protocols combined with an accurate blood management represent the key to success.

A tailored approach to patients undergoing major spine surgeries seems to be effective improving the outcome and quality of life of patients. Future studies should aim to understand which elements of the ERAS can be improved to allow the patient to have a long-term good outcome. VIDEO ABSTRACT.