Hofer, Ira

Interest in the potential applications of artificial intelligence in medicine, anesthesiology, and the world at large has never been higher. The Anesthesia Research Council steering committee formed an anesthesiologist artificial intelligence expert workgroup charged with evaluating the current state of artificial intelligence in anesthesiology, providing examples of future artificial intelligence applications and identifying barriers to artificial intelligence progress. The workgroup’s findings are summarized here, starting with a brief introduction to artificial intelligence for clinicians, followed by overviews of current and anticipated artificial intelligence–focused research and applications in anesthesiology. Anesthesiology’s progress in artificial intelligence is compared to that of other medical specialties, and barriers to artificial intelligence development and implementation in our specialty are discussed. The workgroup’s recommendations address stakeholders in policymaking, research, development, implementation, training, and use of artificial intelligence–based tools for perioperative care.

Interest in the potential applications of artificial intelligence in medicine, anesthesiology, and the world at large has never been higher. The Anesthesia Research Council steering committee formed an anesthesiologist artificial intelligence expert workgroup charged with evaluating the current state of artificial intelligence in anesthesiology, providing examples of future artificial intelligence applications and identifying barriers to artificial intelligence progress. The workgroup’s findings are summarized here, starting with a brief introduction to artificial intelligence for clinicians, followed by overviews of current and anticipated artificial intelligence–focused research and applications in anesthesiology. Anesthesiology’s progress in artificial intelligence is compared to that of other medical specialties, and barriers to artificial intelligence development and implementation in our specialty are discussed. The workgroup’s recommendations address stakeholders in policymaking, research, development, implementation, training, and use of artificial intelligence–based tools for perioperative care.

Background Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a common and distressing surgical complication that may be associated with the pharmacological reversal technique of neuromuscular blockade (NMB). Objective This study aimed to investigate the impact that POUR has on medical charges. Methods This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients undergoing select surgeries who were administered neuromuscular blockade agent (NMBA), which was pharmacologically reversed between February 2017 and November 2021 using data from the PINC-AI™ Healthcare Database. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those experiencing POUR (composite of retention of urine, insertion of temporary indwelling bladder catheter, insertion of non-indwelling bladder catheter) during index hospitalization following surgery and those without POUR. Surgeries in inpatient and outpatient settings were analyzed separately. A cross-sectional comparison was performed to report total hospital charges for the 2 groups. Furthermore, patients experiencing subsequent POUR events within three days after discharge from index hospitalization were studied. Results A total of 330 838 inpatients and 437 063 outpatients were included. POUR developed in 13 020 inpatients and 2756 outpatients. Unadjusted results showed that POUR was associated with greater charges in both inpatient ($92 529 with POUR vs $78 556 without POUR, p < .001) and outpatient ($48 996 with POUR vs $35 433 without POUR, p < .001) settings. After adjusting for confounders, POUR was found to be associated with greater charges with an overall mean adjusted difference of $10 668 (95% confidence interval [CI] $95 760-$11 760, p < .001) in inpatient and $13 160 (95% CI $11 750-$14 571, p < .001) in outpatient settings. Charges associated with subsequent POUR events following discharge ranged from $9418 inpatient charges to $1694 outpatient charges. Conclusions Surgical patients who were pharmacologically reversed for NMB and developed a POUR event incurred greater charges than patients without POUR. These findings support the use of NMB reversal agents associated with a lower incidence of POUR.

Introduction Robust randomised trial data have shown that routine preoperative (pre-op) testing for cataract surgery patients is inappropriate. While guidelines have discouraged testing since 2002, cataract pre-op testing rates have remained unchanged since the 1990s. Given the challenges of reducing low-value care despite strong consensus around the evidence, innovative approaches are needed to promote high-value care. This trial evaluates the impact of an interdisciplinary electronic health record (EHR) intervention that is informed by behavioural economic theory. Methods and analysis This pragmatic randomised trial is being conducted at UCLA Health between June 2021 and June 2022 with a 12-month follow-up period. We are randomising all UCLA Health physicians who perform pre-op visits during the study period to one of the three nudge arms or usual care. These three nudge alerts address (1) patient harm, (2) increased out-of-pocket costs for patients and (3) psychological harm to the patients related to pre-op testing. The nudges are triggered when a physician starts to order a pre-op test. We hypothesise that receipt of a nudge will be associated with reduced pre-op testing. The primary outcome will be the change in the percentage of patients undergoing pre-op testing at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will include the percentage of patients undergoing specific categories of pre-op tests (labs, EKGs, chest X-rays (CXRs)), the efficacy of each nudge, same-day surgery cancellations and cost savings. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the University of California, Los Angeles as well as a nominated Data Safety Monitoring Board. If successful, we will have created a tool that can be disseminated rapidly to EHR vendors across the nation to reduce inappropriate testing for the most common low-risk surgical procedures in the country. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04104256 .