PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Steven J Barker

Publications and source records attributed to Steven J Barker.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

Faculty and finances of United States anesthesiology training programs: 2002-2003.

Between February, 2000 and August, 2002 three surveys have been submitted to the program directors of the anesthesiology training programs in the United States (U.S.) to assess the departments' needs for faculty and financial support from their institutions. In this article we present the results of a fourth follow-up survey. This survey also asked questions regarding the need for additional support to meet the new 80-h workweek resident requirement and asked the average academic time offered to faculty. The average department has 40 faculty members with 3.7 open faculty positions in the 78% of departments with open positions. Only 25% of the departments planned to add personnel to comply with the 80-h resident workweek. Fifty-one percent of the departments had a positive financial margin of 15,908 dollars/full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty anesthesiologist (faculty FTE), whereas 34% had a negative margin of 42,603 dollars/faculty FTE. The overall institutional support was 85,607 dollars/faculty FTE, which is a 43% increase over the previous year. The average academic time provided to faculty was 13.8%, a decline from 20% in 2000. Twenty-five percent of departments have closed an anesthetizing location as a result of a lack of faculty in 2003. Open faculty positions in U.S. training programs have remained fairly constant at 8% to 10% from 2000 to 2003. Institutional support for training departments has more than doubled since 2000, reaching approximately 85,000 dollars/faculty in 2003.

Academic Medical Centers↗

Organizational factors affect comparisons of the clinical productivity of academic anesthesiology departments.

UNLABELLED: Productivity measurements based on "per operating room (OR) site" and "per case" are not influenced by staffing ratios and have permitted meaningful comparisons among small samples of both academic and private-practice anesthesiology groups. These comparisons have suggested that a larger sample would allow for clinical groups to be compared using a number of different variables (including type of hospital, number of OR sites, type of surgical staff, or other organizational characteristics), which may permit more focused benchmarking. In this study, we used such grouping variables to compare clinical productivity in a broad survey of academic anesthesiology programs. Descriptive, billing, and staffing data were collected for 1 fiscal or calendar year from 37 academic anesthesiology departments representing 58 hospitals. Descriptive data included types of surgical staff (e.g., academic versus private practice) and hospital centers (e.g., academic medical centers and ambulatory surgical centers [ASCs]). Billing and staffing data included total number of cases performed, total American Society of Anesthesiologists units (tASA) billed, total time units billed (15-min units), and daily number of anesthetizing sites staffed (OR sites). Measurements of total productivity (tASA/OR site), billed hours per OR site per day (h/OR/d), surgical duration (h/case), hourly billing productivity (tASA/h), and base units/case were compared. These comparisons were made according to type of hospital, number of OR sites, and type of surgical staff. The ASCs had significantly less tASA/OR site, fewer h/OR/d, and less h/case than non-ASC hospitals. Community hospitals had significantly less h/OR/d and h/case than academic medical centers and indigent hospitals and a larger percentage of private-practice or mixed surgical staff. Academic staffs had significantly less tASA/h and significantly more h/case. tASA/h correlated highly with h/case (r = -0.68). This study showed that the hospitals at which academic anesthesiology groups provide care are not all the same from a clinical productivity perspective. By grouping based on type of hospital, number of OR sites, and type of surgical staff, academic anesthesiology departments (and hospitals) can be better compared by using clinical productivity measurements based on "per OR site" and "per case" measurements (tASA/OR, billed h/OR/d, h/case, tASA/h, and base/case). IMPLICATIONS: Organizational factors, including type of hospital, number of operating rooms, and type of surgical staff, influence the clinical productivity of academic anesthesiology departments. Reporting quartile data by focused grouping variables allows anesthesiology groups to compare their clinical productivity with groups practicing in similar clinical settings.

Academic Medical Centers↗

A demographic, service, and financial survey of anesthesia training programs in the United States.

UNLABELLED: In February 2000, a demographic, service, and finance survey was sent to the directors of anesthesiology training programs in the United States under the auspices of the Society of Academic Anesthesia Chairs/Association of Academic Program Directors. In August of 2000, 2001, and 2002, shorter follow-up surveys were sent to the same program directors requesting the numbers of vacancies in faculty positions and certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNA) positions. The August 2001 survey also inquired if departments had positive or negative financial margins for the fiscal year ending June 2001. The August 2002 survey included the questions of the 2001 survey and additionally asked if the departments had had an increase or decrease in institutional support and the amount of that current support. The survey results revealed that the average program had 36 anesthetizing locations and 36 faculty. Those faculty spent 69% of their time providing clinical service. Approximately one-half of the departments paid for some of their residents, whereas the other 50% paid for none. Eighty-five percent of the departments employed CRNAs who were funded by the hospital in one third of the departments. In 2000, departments received $34,319/yr in support per faculty full-time equivalent (FTE) from their institutions and had a mean revenue of $407,000/yr/faculty FTE. In 2002, the department's institutional support per FTE increased to $59,680 (a 74% increase since 2000). The departments in academic medical centers paid 20% in overhead expenses, whereas departments in nonacademic medical centers paid 10%. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, the percentage of departments with positive margins was 53%, 53%, and 65%, respectively, whereas the departments with a negative margin decreased from 44% in the year 2000 to 38% in 2001 and 33% in 2002. For the departments with a positive margin, the amount of margin per FTE over this 3-yr period was approximately $50,000, $15,000, and $30,000, respectively. Although the percentage of departments with a negative margin has been decreasing, the negative margin per FTE seems to be increasing from approximately $24,000 to $43,000. The number of departments with open faculty positions has decreased from 91.5% in the year 2000 to 83.5% in 2001 and 78.4% in 2002; in these departments, the number of open faculty positions has also decreased from 3.8 in 2000 to 3.9 in 2001 to 3.4 in 2002. The number of open CRNA positions seems to have been relatively constant with approximately two thirds of the departments requiring an average of approximately four CRNAs each. Overall, academic anesthesiology departments fiscal security seems to have eroded with an increased dependence on institutional support. Departments pay larger overhead rates relative to private practice, and there seems to be a continued, but possibly decreasing, shortage of faculty. IMPLICATIONS: A survey was conducted of anesthesia training program directors that demonstrated that their departments' financial conditions have been eroding over the years 2000 to 2002. During this same period of time, departments were receiving an increase in institutional support from $34,319/full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty in the year 2000 to $59,680/FTE in the year 2002. Although there seems to be an approximate 10% shortage in academic faculty, the number of departments with open positions has progressively decreased from 91% to 73% over the past 3 yr. On average, the financial condition of the training departments has deteriorated over the past 3 yr despite a significant increase in institutional support to enable departments to recruit and retain faculty in an era of an apparent national shortage of anesthesiologists.

Accreditation↗

"Motion-resistant" pulse oximetry: a comparison of new and old models.

Several pulse oximeter manufacturers have recently developed instruments that are claimed to be resistant to the effects of patient motion. We performed a laboratory volunteer experiment to compare the performances of several of these instruments, as well as some older models, during combinations of motion and hypoxemia. Twenty oximeters were studied. A motorized table produced different hand motions, and each motion was studied during both room air breathing and hypoxemia. Pulse oximeters on the nonmoving hand were used to provide control measurements for comparison. The Masimo SET((R)) pulse oximeter exhibited the best overall performance, with a performance index (percentage of time in which the SpO(2) reading is within 7% of control value) of 94%. The Agilent Viridia 24C was next, with an 84% index, followed by the Agilent CMS (80%), the Datex-Ohmeda 3740 (80%), and the Nellcor N-395 (69%). For comparison with older oximeter technology, the Criticare 5040 had an index of 28%. Recent technology changes have significantly improved pulse oximeter performance during motion artifact, with the Masimo oximeter leading the way. IMPLICATIONS. New improvements in pulse oximeter technology have resulted in significantly better accuracy and reliability during patient motion. The Masimo pulse oximeter demonstrated the best performance of the 20 instruments tested.

Fingers↗