Médicos anestesistas versus administradores de la anestesia no médicos para pacientes quirúrgicos
Resumen
Antecedentes
Con el aumento de las intervenciones quirúrgicas, la presión sobre los profesionales sanitarios para reducir los costos, y la insuficiencia prevista en el número de anestesistas médicamente capacitados, es importante considerar si los anestesistas no médicos (ANM) (que no tienen una calificación médica) pueden proporcionar servicios anestésicos equivalentes a los de los profesionales de la anestesia médicamente capacitados.
Objetivos
Evaluar la seguridad y la efectividad de diferentes profesionales de la anestesia para los pacientes a los que se les realizan procedimientos quirúrgicos bajo anestesia general, regional o epidural. El objetivo fue examinar los resultados de los estudios en países de todo el mundo (incluidos los países desarrollados y en desarrollo).
Métodos de búsqueda
Se hicieron búsquedas en el Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE y CINAHL el 13 de febrero de 2014. Los términos de búsqueda fueron relevantes para la pregunta de la revisión y no se limitaron según el diseño o los resultados del estudio. También se realizaron búsquedas en los registros de ensayos clínicos, se rastrearon las citas hacia adelante y hacia atrás y se buscó en la literatura gris.
Criterios de selección
Se consideraron todos los ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA), los estudios no aleatorios, los ensayos no aleatorios grupales y los diseños de estudio observacionales que tenían un grupo de comparación. Se incluyeron los estudios que compararon un anestésico administrado por un ANM que trabajaba de forma independiente con un anestésico administrado por un médico anestesista que trabajaba de forma independiente o por un ANM que trabajaba en equipo supervisado o dirigido por un médico anestesista.
Obtención y análisis de los datos
Tres autores de la revisión evaluaron de forma independiente la calidad de los ensayos y extrajeron los datos y, cuando fue necesario, establecieron contacto con los autores de los estudios para obtener información adicional. Además de los procedimientos metodológicos estándar, la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo de los estudios no aleatorios se basó en la herramienta de riesgo de sesgo específica para los estudios no aleatorios presentada en la Reunión de Contribuyentes Cochrane del Reino Unido realizada en marzo de 2012. Se consideraron los casos mixtos y el tipo de procedimiento quirúrgico, la comorbilidad del paciente, el tipo de anestésico administrado y las características del hospital como posibles factores de confusión de los estudios y se valoró cuán bien los autores habían ajustado para estos factores de confusión.
Resultados principales
Se incluyeron seis estudios no aleatorios con 1 563 820 participantes. Cinco fueron estudios de cohortes retrospectivas grandes que utilizaron los datos hospitalarios o administrativos recopilados de manera habitual en los Estados Unidos (EE.UU.). El sexto fue un estudio de cohortes más pequeño basado en la atención médica de urgencia en Haití. Dos estaban limitados a pacientes obstétricas, mientras que los otros incluyeron varios procedimientos quirúrgicos. No fue posible combinar los datos porque hubo cierto grado de heterogeneidad entre los estudios incluidos.
Dos estudios no lograron encontrar una diferencia en el riesgo de muerte en las pacientes a las que se les realizó cesárea cuando la anestesia fue administrada por ANM en comparación con médicos anestesistas; ambos trabajaban de forma independiente. Un estudio no informó diferencias en la mortalidad entre los grupos de profesionales que trabajaban de forma independiente. Uno comparó el riesgo de mortalidad entre estados de los EE.UU. que eran o no "autónomos" con respecto a los requisitos federales de seguro para que los médicos anestesistas supervisaran o dirigieran a los ANM. Este estudio informó un menor riesgo de mortalidad para los ANM que trabajaban de forma independiente comparados con los médicos anestesistas que trabajaban de forma independiente en los estados "autónomos" y "no autónomos".
Un estudio informó un menor riesgo de mortalidad para los ANM que trabajaban de forma independiente comparados con los ANM supervisados o dirigidos. Uno informó un mayor riesgo de mortalidad para los ANM que trabajaban de forma independiente comparados con el grupo de ANM supervisados o dirigidos, pero no presentó pruebas estadísticas. Uno informó un menor riesgo de mortalidad en el grupo de ANM que trabajaba de forma independiente comparado con el grupo de ANM supervisados o dirigidos en ambos tipos de estados antes de de que se introdujera la regulación de "autonomía", pero un mayor riesgo de mortalidad en los estados "autónomos" después que se introdujera la regulación de "autonomía". Uno informó solamente una muerte y no pudo detectar un riesgo en la mortalidad. Uno informó que el riesgo de mortalidad e imposibilidad de rescate fue mayor para los ANM categorizados cuando no eran dirigidos que para los dirigidos por un ANM.
Tres estudios informaron el riesgo de complicaciones relacionadas con la anestesia para los ANM que trabajaban de forma independiente comparados con los médicos anestesistas que trabajaban de forma independiente. Dos no lograron encontrar una diferencia en el riesgo de complicaciones en las embarazadas a las que se les realizó cesárea. Uno no logró encontrar una diferencia en el riesgo de complicaciones entre los grupos de los estados "no autónomos". Este estudio informó un menor riesgo de complicaciones para los ANM que trabajaban de forma independiente que para los médicos anestesistas que trabajaban de forma independiente en los estados "autónomos" antes de que se introdujera la regulación de "autonomía", pero un riesgo mayor después, aunque estas diferencias no se probaron estadísticamente.
Dos estudios informaron que el riesgo de complicaciones generalmente fue menor para los ANM que trabajaban de forma independiente que en el grupo de ANM que trabajaban supervisados o en equipo, pero no se informó la realización de pruebas estadísticas. Uno no informó pruebas de un aumento del riesgo de complicaciones posoperatorias en un grupo de ANM no dirigido versus un grupo de ANM dirigido.
El riesgo de sesgo y la evaluación de los factores de confusión fueron particularmente importantes en esta revisión. Hubo preocupación con respecto al uso de datos de investigación habituales y la exactitud probable de dichas bases de datos para determinar los grupos de intervención y control, por lo que cuatro estudios se calificaron de riesgo medio de falta de exactitud, uno de bajo riesgo y uno, sobre el que no hubo detalles suficientes, de riesgo incierto. Aunque era de esperar que la mortalidad se hubiera informado con exactitud en los sistemas de registro, se considera que es posible que el informe de las complicaciones no sea tan exacto ya que dependía de códigos. Por lo tanto, los estudios se consideraron con riesgo de sesgo alto o incierto para el informe de los datos de las complicaciones. Cuatro de los seis estudios recibieron financiamiento, lo que podría haber influido en la presentación y la interpretación de los resultados de los estudios. Los estudios consideraron los factores de confusión casos mixtos, comorbilidad y características del hospital con grados variables de detalles y nuevamente hubo preocupación con respecto a la exactitud de la codificación de los datos en los registros y las variables consideradas durante la evaluación. Cinco de los estudios utilizaron modelos de regresión logística multivariados para representar estos factores de confusión. Tres estudios se consideraron con bajo riesgo, uno con riesgo medio y uno con alto riesgo de ajuste incompleto en el análisis.
Conclusiones de los autores
No es posible hacer declaraciones definitivas acerca de la posible superioridad de un tipo de atención de anestesia sobre otro. La complejidad de la atención perioperatoria, la tasa intrínseca baja de complicaciones que se relacionan directamente con la anestesia y los efectos de confusión potenciales dentro de los estudios examinados (todos fueron no aleatorios) hacen que no sea posible proporcionar una respuesta definitiva a la pregunta de la revisión.
PICO
Resumen en términos sencillos
Médicos anestesistas versus enfermeras anestesistas para pacientes quirúrgicos
Antecedentes
Existe un aumento en la demanda de intervenciones quirúrgicas, presión sobre los profesionales sanitarios para reducir los costos y una insuficiencia prevista en el número de anestesistas médicamente capacitados. Esta revisión intentó considerar si las enfermeras anestesistas (sin calificaciones médicas) pueden proporcionar la anestesia de forma tan eficaz y segura como los anestesistas médicamente capacitados con adiestramiento especializado.
Características de los estudios
Las pruebas estaban actualizadas hasta el 13 de febrero de 2013. Se encontraron seis estudios relevantes, cinco de los cuales fueron estudios observacionales grandes realizados en los EE.UU. con un grupo de comparación y con duraciones de estudio de dos a 11 años, y uno fue un estudio mucho más pequeño de 12 semanas realizado en Haití. Hubo más de 1 500 000 participantes en los estudios. La información de estos estudios se tomó de las bases de datos de seguros estadounidenses (Medicare) y de los registros hospitalarios. El estudio pequeño se basó en la atención médica de urgencia después de los huracanes de 2008 en Haití.
Resultados clave
La mayoría de los estudios señaló que no hubo diferencias en el número de pacientes que murieron cuando la anestesia fue administrada por una enfermera anestesista o un anestesista médicamente capacitado. Un estudio señaló que hubo una menor tasa de muerte con las enfermeras anestesistas en comparación con los anestesistas médicamente capacitados. Un estudio señaló que el riesgo de muerte fue menor con las enfermeras anestesistas comparadas con los que fueron supervisados por un anestesista o trabajaban en un equipo de anestesia, aunque otro señaló que el riesgo de muerte fue mayor en comparación con el enfoque supervisado o de equipo. Otros estudios proporcionaron resultados variados. De manera similar, hubo variaciones entre los estudios para las tasas de complicaciones de los pacientes según el profesional que proporcionó la anestesia.
Calidad de la evidencia
Gran parte de los datos provinieron de bases de datos grandes, que pueden haber contenido inexactitudes en el informe. También puede haber diferencias importantes entre los pacientes que podrían tener que ver con la variación en los resultados de los estudios, por ejemplo, si los pacientes que estaban más enfermos fueron tratados por un anestesista médicamente capacitado o si las enfermeras anestesistas trabajaban en hospitales con menos recursos. Varios de los estudios consideraron estas diferencias potenciales en el análisis; sin embargo, no está claro si el análisis se realizó lo suficientemente bien como para poder tener confianza en los resultados. También hubo factores de confusión potenciales debido a las fuentes de financiamiento en algunos de estos estudios.
Conclusión
Como ninguno de los datos fue de calidad suficientemente alta y los estudios presentaron resultados poco consistentes, se concluye que a partir de las pruebas disponibles, no es posible determinar si hubo diferencias en la atención entre los anestesistas médicamente capacitados y las enfermeras anestesistas.
Authors' conclusions
Background
Internationally there are challenges for the provision of anaesthetic services. Current and predicted shortfalls can be explained by an ageing population, increasing demand for surgery, changes to working hours, migration of anaesthetists, pressure on healthcare costs and in some countries a reduction in the number of medical graduates choosing to specialize in anaesthesia (Egger 2006; Egger 2007; Jordan 2011).
Similar pressures are seen in other fields of health care, resulting in a trend towards the use of a nurse‐led rather than a traditional doctor‐led service, such as in primary care and monitoring of long term conditions. However, the development of similar substitutions within the field of anaesthesia has been met with more resistance (Smith 2005).
With regard to cost containment, there is a substantial difference in the salaries of the two personnel within countries (in the United States (US), for example, the salary of an anaesthetist is approximately double that of non‐physician personnel (Kalist 2011)).
Role of non‐physician anaesthetists
For the purpose of this review, and to avoid confusion, the word 'physician anaesthetist' is used for all personnel who are medically qualified, and 'non‐physician anaesthetist' (NPA) for all those who provide anaesthesia without a medical qualification. This includes a change of terms for discussion regarding some countries, for example, in the US they are normally referred to as 'anesthesiologists' and 'certified registered nurse anesthetists' (or CRNAs), respectively.
There are considerable differences in the organization of anaesthetic teams across Europe and internationally (Egger 2007; Meeusen 2010), where anaesthetics may be administered by physician anaesthetists working alone or as part of an anaesthetic team, or by NPAs who in turn may be working alone or as part of an anaesthetic team (Bacon 2002). Between countries there are also significant differences in the length of training of personnel (Egger 2007; Matsusaki 2011; Meeusen 2010).
Non‐physician anaesthetists (NPAs) in developing countries
Low and middle income countries, with large populations living in rural locations, have few physician anaesthetists with ratios of less than one per 100,000 population. For example, Uganda has approximately one physician anaesthetist per two million population (Dubowitz 2010) as opposed to the UK which has 12,000 per 64 million, that is 1:5000 (Walker 2007). These countries have been using non‐physician personnel to deliver many anaesthetic services, for example, Kenya’s nurse anaesthesia training programme (Newton 2010).
Non‐physician anaesthetists (NPAs) in the US
The US has a long history of using nurses to administer anaesthetics. However, as anaesthesia has developed as a physician specialty there is now a majority of medically qualified anaesthetists and considerable debate exists between the two professional groups regarding roles and responsibilities (Bacon 2002; Gardner 2011; Matsusaki 2011). Kalist 2011 says “there is so much overlap between the work they do that it is not clear whether an MDA (physician anaesthetist) actually does anything that a CRNA (NPA) does not do”. In recent years, changes to state law in the US with regard to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement allow some NPAs to now practice without supervision from a physician anaesthetist. At present there are 17 states who have 'opted out' and NPAs can practice as such (AANA Fact Sheet). Millions of dollars have been spent lobbying for or against this ruling (Bacon 2002).
Non‐physician anaesthetists (NPAs) in the UK and other developed countries
In other developed countries there is variation in the changing roles and responsibilities of anaesthetic providers. A move in some European countries now sees NPAs able to induce general anaesthesia for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients under the indirect supervision of a physician anaesthetist (for example, in Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden), whilst in some countries (for example, Netherlands and Norway) nurse anaesthetists with additional training are also able to give sedation under monitored anaesthesia care (MAC), again under indirect supervision (Meeusen 2010). These countries however continue to resist a move towards unsupervised NPAs. In the UK, the introduction of an anaesthesia physician assistant, now called physician assistant (anaesthesia) (PA(A)), pilot training programme from October 2003 attempted to address the predicted shortfall of physician anaesthetists (Wilkinson 2007). However, there are limits to the responsibilities given to a PA(A) and they are provided with supervision from a physician anaesthetist. After the introduction of PA(A)s, the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland maintains an opinion that “the highest standards of anaesthesia can only be achieved by a physician‐only service” (AAGBI 2010).
Despite differences in opinion regarding the length of training of NPAs in some countries, the potential benefits of independent practice are evident, particularly in rural areas which attract fewer anaesthetists.
Impact of use of non‐physician anaesthetists (NPAs) on patient care
The debate over the use of NPAs has focused on patient safety and the question of whether different providers deliver equivalent quality and safety to patients.
A systematic review has been carried out by Smith et al (Smith 2004). They identified four articles relevant to the review question, none of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The authors were unable to show any significant difference in the safety of using different anaesthetic providers, however they also concluded that, given the methodological flaws in the available studies, this was not evidence of absence of a difference.
Apart from anxieties over patient safety, there are other factors involved in how far the role of an NPA should be developed, such as threats to medically qualified physician anaesthetists’ professional status, access to training and working practices, as well as the wish to avoid the costly and lengthy interprofessional conflict that exists in the US (Kane 2004; Smith 2005).
Why it is important to do this review
Increasing demands on healthcare systems together with a predicted personnel shortfall and the current emphasis on cost containment make this a timely and important review.
This review updates Smith’s existing review (Smith 2004) and aimed to establish what is known about patient safety when anaesthetics are administered by different personnel. We hoped that this may lead to an increase in confidence in the skills of NPAs within the anaesthetic community and may potentially lead to greater flexibility in team roles, both within and between countries, depending on patient need.
Objectives
To assess the safety and effectiveness of different anaesthetic providers for patients undergoing surgical procedures under general, regional or epidural anaesthetic.
A subsidiary question was to determine whether there are types of procedures or patient groups for which a non‐physician anaesthetist is not appropriate. We planned to consider results from studies within different regions (US, UK, other developed countries and developing countries) initially and then assess whether the results were consistent across regions before combining results.
Methods
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Types of studies
We aimed to include RCTs, quasi‐randomized trials in which the allocation to the intervention was decided by non‐random means (such as alternation, digits in date of birth or other identification (ID) number) and cluster randomized trials.
In the absence of RCTs, we included non‐randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) and non‐randomized cluster trials. We considered all designs of observational studies which included a comparison group, including prospective and retrospective cohort study designs, controlled before‐after study designs, prospective and retrospective case‐control study designs and interrupted time‐series. We did not include descriptive studies without a direct comparison group.
If we had identified any RCTs we planned to consider non‐randomized studies (NRS) separately and not include them in a meta‐analysis.
Types of participants
We included studies of patients of all ages undergoing emergency or elective surgery under general or regional anaesthetic in a hospital setting. We also included patients undergoing obstetric surgery.
Types of interventions
We included studies which compared an anaesthetic administered by an NPA working independently with either:
-
an anaesthetic administered by a physician anaesthetist working independently;
-
an anaesthetic administered by a NPA working in a team which was supervised or directed by a physician anaesthetist.
We have taken into consideration the difference in terminology of anaesthetic personnel between countries, which can potentially lead to confusion (Vickers 2002). Throughout we have used the terms 'physician anaesthetist' and 'non‐physician anaesthetist' (NPA), as defined above. Examples of different names for anaesthetic personnel are given in Appendix 1. Where a study author used an unclear term to describe an anaesthetic provider that we were unable to designate to one of the above categories, we aimed to contact the authors to seek clarification. There are also various terms used to describe the role of the main anaesthetic practitioner within a team. Some NPAs may be described as being 'medically directed' (anaesthetic is performed by an NPA whilst the physician anaesthetist oversees no more than four concurrent procedures) or working 'under supervision' (anaesthetic is performed by an NPA who is directed by a physician other than the physician anaesthetist). We ensured that we followed the above definitions as far as possible, aiming to contact authors for clarification if necessary to avoid misclassification of the intervention and comparison in the studies.
Types of outcome measures
Primary outcomes
-
Mortality within 30 days of anaesthetic
-
Failure to rescue between induction and full recovery ("defined as the rate of death after complications" (Silber 2000a))
-
Anaesthesia‐related complications (including cardiac, pulmonary and central nervous system complications due to anaesthesia all within 30 days of anaesthetic)
Secondary outcomes
-
Other minor anaesthetic complications (such as nausea and vomiting, pain, sore throat, dental damage) within 48 hours
-
Length of hospital stay
-
Cost
-
Patient reported satisfaction
Search methods for identification of studies
Electronic searches
We searched for eligible trials in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE (via Ovid) (from 1985 to February 2014), EMBASE (via Ovid) (from 1985 to February 2014) and CINAHL (via EBSCO) (from 1985 to February 2014). We also searched trial registers, www.clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/en/), for ongoing trials. We also searched Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) via Ovid, which includes grey literature.
The search strategies for MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL are presented in Appendix 2. The search strategy did not include any outcomes and was not limited by study design or publication type. No language restrictions were imposed. On retrieval of studies we assessed any free text terms or MeSH terms for NPAs, and if we had not used them we would have included these in a modified search strategy.
Searching other resources
We identified other relevant systematic reviews in the search and undertook forward and backward citation tracking for key articles. We contacted study authors to ask if they knew of other relevant ongoing or unpublished studies. In September 2013 we searched the following clinical trials databases: ClinicalTrials.gov, the metaRegister for Controlled Trials, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
Data collection and analysis
Selection of studies
Results of the searches were collated and duplicates removed. All titles and abstracts were screened by two authors (Sharon R Lewis (SRL) and Amanda Nicholson (AN)) to remove studies that were very unlikely to be eligible. A pilot of 100 titles was performed before all titles were reviewed in order to clarify criteria for discarding articles at this stage. We planned to identify potentially eligible RCTs and NRS separately. If no abstract was available but the title was possibly relevant, the full text of the article was obtained. We anticipated that we would need to get more full texts for observational studies as abstracts may not contain sufficient detail to allow classification (Section 13.3.1.3) (Higgins 2011).
When all titles and abstracts were screened, the full texts of potentially relevant titles were reviewed by SRL and AN and the data were recorded on the study eligibility section of the data extraction form. We planned to have separate eligibility forms for RCTs and NRS (copies are included in Appendix 3). The NRS eligibility form used study design features rather than study design labels, based on the tools presented at the UK Contributors' Meeting 2012, which were then modified to suit our review needs. These features fall into four groups: Was there a relevant comparison? How were the groups formed? Were the features of the study described below carried out after the study was designed? On what variables was comparability of groups assessed? These were incorporated into the data extraction form (Appendix 3).
A pilot selection of 10 papers were read by SRL and AN and then the investigators met to compare results and modify the forms as required. SRL and AN then read all potentially relevant papers and met to compare results. We referred any differences that could not be resolved by discussion onto Andrew F Smith (AFS).
Data extraction and management
Data were extracted from eligible studies by SRL, AN and Phil Alderson (PA) using a paper‐based data extraction form (see Appendix 3). This form was reviewed after data from the first three papers had been entered, and modified as required. If duplicate publications from the same study were identified, we created a composite dataset from all the eligible publications.
The following items were included in the NRS data extraction form:
-
methods, to include risk of bias assessments (see below);
-
patient group, to include age, sex, relevant sociodemographics, case‐mix;
-
setting, e.g. rural or urban, country;
-
intervention, to include training, experience and the level of supervision, role and responsibilities of NPA;
-
comparison, to include training and experience of anaesthetist;
-
outcome, to include time points i. measured and ii. reported, unit of measurement;
-
analytic methods including Unit of analysis issues;
-
results, to include missing participants, subgroup analyses, both unadjusted and adjusted results.
If relevant information or data were not available in the paper, we attempted to contact the lead author to request the additional details. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and, if necessary, consultation with AFS.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
We anticipated that we would encounter a range of NRS designs. We based our risk of bias assessment for NRS on the specific NRS risk of bias tool presented at the UK Contributors' Meeting 2012 (incorporated into the data extraction form for NRS (Appendix 3)).
The direction and impact of bias across different NRS is dependent on individual study features and hence hugely variable and difficult to predict (Deeks 2003). In this review, selection bias and confounding by indication were of particular concern.
Risk of bias for each domain was judged as high, low or unclear, unless specified otherwise.
Allocation (selection bias).
As part of our assessment of study design we recorded the factors which determined participant allocation to the intervention or control group.
Blinding (performance and detection bias)
Accuracy with which the intervention or control group determined
We recorded whether the study personnel or participants were blinded to the allocation of participants and any other measures taken to ensure that the treatment of intervention and comparison groups were equivalent in all aspects other than anaesthetic provider. In addition we recorded the methods and data used to decide which patients belonged to the intervention or comparison group, with an estimate of the risk of inaccuracy scored as high, medium, low or unclear.
Accuracy with which outcomes assessed
For studies using routine hospital data there may be errors or omissions in recording outcomes, depending on coding practice within the hospital. Failure to rescue rates, which rely on the recording of a complication before death, have been shown to be very sensitive to the completeness of coding of these secondary diagnoses (McKee 1999). If the intervention and comparison groups were in different hospitals with different coding practices this may have a considerable influence on results. We assessed whether the outcome data were recorded with knowledge of the anaesthetic provider group (blinding) and also assessed the risk of inaccuracy of outcome data, scored as high, medium, low or unclear.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
This largely depends on the accuracy and completeness of outcome data. This relies in part on the accuracy with which outcomes are identified within the dataset, as discussed above, but also on the coverage of the outcome dataset. Important questions include whether all participants were correctly identified and linked to the outcome dataset.
Selective reporting
Registration of protocols and analysis plans is not as common for observational studies as for RCTs and there is scope for the study authors to present results only on outcomes found to be significantly associated with the intervention of interest. This is a particular risk when routine data are used which have considerable scope to study a range of different outcomes. We recorded whether the study authors had published analysis plans or protocols.
Other potential sources of bias
We considered the funding sources for each study and any resulting potential conflicts of interest.
Assessment of control for confounding factors
Important confounding factors for this research question are:
-
case‐mix and type of surgical procedure;
-
patient co‐morbidity;
-
type of anaesthetic given;
-
hospital characteristics.
All these variables are plausibly associated both with participant outcome and with the type of anaesthetic provider and so could account for any observed association between anaesthetic provider and participant outcome.
Using the data extraction form (Appendix 3) for each NRS we:
-
identified the relevant confounders described by the researcher;
-
identified the method for identifying relevant confounders as described by the researchers;
-
scored all confounders, including those not specified by the researchers for
-
the risk of imprecision in measurement of confounder, scored as high, medium, low or unclear,
-
the risk of imbalance in confounder between provider groups, scored as high, medium, low or unclear;
-
identified the method used for controlling for confounding at both the design and analysis stage;
-
judged the risk of incomplete adjustment during analysis as high, medium, low or unclear.
Measures of treatment effect
On the data extraction form we recorded all unadjusted and adjusted effect estimates for all eligible outcomes, with details of confounders included for each estimate. Regression coefficients or analysis of covariance would have been recorded for continuous variables.
In an attempt to control for confounding, we used adjusted rather than unadjusted effect estimates from NRS in the analysis and discussion of study findings. If multiple adjusted estimates were given we used the estimate that included the largest number of our pre‐determined key confounders.
Unit of analysis issues
The intervention or comparison group may be decided or assigned at a hospital level and this needed to be accounted for in any analysis, since these hospitals may differ in many respects other than anaesthetic provider. Incorrect analysis would result in residual confounding in the model or inaccurate confidence intervals. The use of multi‐level or hierarchical models or robust standard errors was recorded and if the appropriate analysis was not reported we planned to contact the authors.
Dealing with missing data
We contacted study authors to request missing outcome data or any other methodological details. Missing outcome data were likely to be more of an issue in RCTs or prospective cohort studies, where data are collected specifically for the study. If we had suitable data, we planned to undertake sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of the missing outcomes using, for example, worst case scenario, last observation carried forward and available case analysis.
Assessment of heterogeneity
We expected to find more heterogeneity between NRS than between RCTs, reflecting differences in study design and scope for bias, as well as intrinsic differences in the intervention (Sections 13.6.2.3 and 13.6.2.4) (Higgins 2011). It has been estimated that heterogeneity leads to uncertainty 5 to 10 times that of a 95% confidence interval (Deeks 2003). If we had comparable results for outcomes in different studies we planned to use a forest plot to display the most adjusted estimates from each study and to use Chi2 and I2 statistics to describe heterogeneity. Study characteristics that may be important include:
-
number of confounders included in models;
-
analysis technique used;
-
type of data collection.
Assessment of reporting biases
Reporting bias and missing studies are a more complex issue for NRS than for RCTs. Registration and publication of protocols for observational studies is not as widespread as for RCTs so it is not easy to identify the finite population of studies to be included. For this research question there is in fact an existential question concerning the definition of an eligible study. Since routine hospital databases are used in many studies, it could be argued that the pool of eligible studies would include all hospitals which utilize a range of anaesthetic providers and have electronic longitudinal health databases. It clearly would not be possible to access all these databases. It is not clear whether the size of a study or direction of effect are likely to be associated with likelihood of publication, given that many hospital studies are very large but of uncertain quality. These uncertainties undermine the use of a funnel plot.
We aimed to include a wide range of studies using a wide search and did not exclude any potentially eligible articles without reference to the full text.
Data synthesis
We did not pool estimates of effects from NRS studies(Sections 13.6.2.3 and 13.6.2.4) (Higgins 2011).
If we had comparable effect estimates we would have displayed the most adjusted results from each study in a forest plot but without a pooled estimate. As the results from studies were too disparate to display together in a forest plot we have used narrative synthesis to summarize the direction, size and consistency of effects across studies.
Results
Description of studies
Summary details of each study are in Characteristics of included studies.
Results of the search
There were 11,985 studies identified from electronic searches, 161 studies from forward citation searching and a further 33 from backward citation searching. No studies were identified from clinical trial databases. Having removed duplicates, a total of 8102 unique titles and abstracts were considered and then a further 169 full texts assessed for eligibility. We were unable to obtain full texts for five studies and these are listed in Studies awaiting classification. We performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment on six studies. For the search flow diagram, see Figure 1.
Study flow diagram.
Included studies
Study design
We found no eligible RCTs. All six studies included in the review were non‐randomized. Five studies were retrospective cohort studies using routinely collected hospital or administrative data from participants in the USA (Dulisse 2010; Needleman 2009; Pine 2003; Silber 2000a; Simonson 2007). One of these US studies also included a controlled before and after component presenting results in certain states before and after they opted out from the requirement that NPA be supervised (Dulisse 2010). These studies were large, all with more than 100,000 participants, and the total number of participants across all five studies was over 1.5 million. The sixth study was a smaller cohort study, with 330 participants, based in emergency medical care after the 2008 hurricanes in Haiti (Rosseel 2010).
Study population
Two studies were restricted to obstetric patients (Needleman 2009; Simonson 2007) but the other studies included a range of surgical procedures (Dulisse 2010; Pine 2003; Silber 2000a) and Rosseel 2010 focused on emergency surgery only. Three studies used US Medicare data to determine anaesthetic provider and so the study population was aged over 65 years (Dulisse 2010; Pine 2003; Silber 2000a). Pine 2003 studied elective cases for selected operations (carotid endarterectomy, cholecystectomy, herniorrhaphy, hysterectomy, knee replacement, laminectomy, mastectomy or prostatectomy). These were selected so that the study population would be homogenous. Dulisse 2010 excluded day surgery cases because of uncertainty in measuring mortality or complications in these patients.
Intervention and comparison groups
Five studies reported data for NPAs working independently (Dulisse 2010; Needleman 2009; Pine 2003; Rosseel 2010; Simonson 2007). Dulisse 2010, Needleman 2009, Simonson 2007 and Pine 2003 reported a comparison group of a physician anaesthetist working independently.
The studies varied in the definition of an NPA working under supervision or in a team. Dulisse 2010 had a comparison group of an NPA working as part of an anaesthetic team and Pine 2003 had a comparison group of the anaesthetic being administered by a 'team' which included a physician anaesthetist and NPA but it was not stated who exactly administered the anaesthetic. Needleman 2009 had three comparison groups of NPAs working in a team or being supervised: ANES ‐ CRNA I if a physician anaesthetist was required at all planned caesarean sections; ANES ‐ CRNA II if the physician anaesthetist was not required at all planned caesarean sections; and MIXED in which the team varied depending on location. In Rosseel 2010 the physician anaesthetist supervised the NPA in the control group. We considered all of these comparisons as a single group of NPA working under supervision or in a team. Silber 2000a had intervention and comparison groups of undirected and directed NPA using Medicare definitions (Medicare Policy 2005). The undirected group included cases where anaesthesia was delivered by the NPA alone or supervised rather than directed by a physician anaesthetist or directed by a non‐anaesthetist physician. Unbilled cases were also included in this group. The comparison directed group combined cases in which the physician anaesthetists had personally performed the anaesthetic and cases in which the NPA performed the case under physician anaesthetist direction. We kept this study as a separate comparison group.
Time period of study
The five studies based in the US used data collected prior to 2005 with the earliest study period being 1991 to 1994 (Silber 2000a) and the latest 1995 to 2005 (Dulisse 2010). For Rosseel 2010 the study period was for 12 weeks in the autumn of 2008.
Outcomes reported
All studies reported mortality. Some studies specified inpatient mortality (Dulisse 2010; Pine 2003). In other studies the time period was not specified but as the data were collected from discharge data we assumed it was in‐hospital mortality (Needleman 2009; Simonson 2007). Silber 2000a reported mortality within 30 days of admission.
Failure to rescue (defined as 30 day death rate in those in whom either a complication developed or who died without a complication being recorded) was reported separately only by Silber 2000a but was included in the list of anaesthesia‐related complications reported by Dulisse 2010.
Four studies reported complications (Dulisse 2010; Needleman 2009; Silber 2000a; Simonson 2007) which were often presented in amalgamated groups and it was therefore not possible to extract data on serious airways complications as we had originally planned. We have used the modified outcome of anaesthesia‐related complications. If study authors divided complications into anaesthesia‐related complications (such as International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9 668.0 codes for complications from labour anaesthesia in Needleman 2009 and Simonson 2007) or more general complications we used the data on anaesthetic‐related complications. The definition of complications used in Simonson 2007 added other ICD codes from the list of patient safety indicators from the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Dulisse 2010 used a list of seven relevant patient safety indicators to define complications, including failure to rescue. Silber 2000a presented data on a single group of postoperative complications which were not all anaesthesia‐related.
No studies reported data on any of our secondary outcomes of length of stay, cost or patient satisfaction.
Excluded studies
There were eight studies that were given particular consideration before exclusion, as listed in Characteristics of excluded studies. Four of these studies did not report data for NPAs working independently (Charuluxananan 2008; Hoffmann 2002; Leonard 2012; Maaløe 2000). In two studies it was unclear whether the NPA was working unsupervised. We successfully contacted the authors of these studies, one of whom was able to confirm that they were supervised (Faponle 2004) and the other was unable to confirm due to the length of time since the report was published (Fleming 1992). One study provided no analysis of data by provider type (Charuluxananan 2005) and Abouleish 2004 did not have any surgical patients.
Other reasons for exclusion included that the reports or abstracts had the wrong study design; had the wrong comparison groups; or were letters, commentaries or editorials with no primary data reported.
Studies awaiting assessment
We considered the full texts of two studies for which we were unable to make a decision regarding eligibility without further information. We attempted to make contact with the author of Carpentier 2000 to establish whether the NPA was working unsupervised as well as the author of Gadir 2007 to establish denominator values for all the data presented. We are still awaiting responses. We were unable to access the full texts of five further studies and have attempted contact with the authors to request copies. See Studies awaiting classification.
Risk of bias in included studies
Risk of bias assessments were completed for all studies. It was intended that a number scoring system (1 to 5) be used for judgements but in practice this was completed using judgements of high, medium or low.
Allocation
All studies were non‐randomized with the allocation to the intervention group based on location differences or healthcare decision makers or participant preference. All studies were therefore at high risk of allocation and selection bias. There was evidence of differences in case‐mix and co‐morbidity between the intervention and comparison groups. See the 'Assessment of control for confounding factors' section.
Blinding
Performance bias
In NRS, blinding of participants and personnel to the allocation of participants is often impossible. None of the included studies were blinded and no specific measures were taken to make sure that the care of the intervention and comparison groups were equivalent in all aspects other than anaesthetic provider. These studies are therefore at high risk of performance bias. Differences in the hospital facilities are an important potential source of bias, which is discussed in the section 'Assessment of control for confounding factors'.
Accuracy with which intervention or control group determined
The use of routine data for research purposes raises an issue about the accuracy of the data used. Three studies based in the US used Medicare part B (billing data) to assign participants to the intervention and comparison groups (Dulisse 2010; Pine 2003; Silber 2000a ). It can be difficult to be confident about whether, for example, a physician anaesthetist was actually administering the anaesthetic and the studies dealt with this uncertainty in different ways. Dulisse 2010 assigned cases as NPA alone or physician anaesthetist alone if there was a claim for only one anaesthetic provider. Participants were assigned to NPA team anaesthesia if there was a modifier on either the physician anaesthetist or NPA claim indicating supervision or direction of the NPA. In addition, cases with no part B form were assigned to NPA team anaesthesia if the procedure took place in a 'pass‐through' hospital. It is unclear how accurate this assumption is or how many cases were involved so we assessed the risk of inaccuracy as medium. Pine 2003 excluded all cases with missing or ambiguous provider codes and we assessed this study as low risk of inaccuracy. Silber 2000a classified the intervention groups as undirected or directed and the undirected group included a large number of unbilled cases but sensitivity analyses with these cases removed gave the same results. Participants with multiple anaesthetics in one single admission were classed as undirected if during any one day of admission there had been no directed anaesthesia procedures. This may have the effect of assigning complex high risk cases as undirected. We assessed this study as at medium risk of inaccuracy.
In the other two US studies, both looking at obstetric patients (Needleman 2009; Simonson 2007), the intervention or comparison group was assigned at hospital level based on surveys about usual anaesthetic personnel at the hospital. This raises unit of analysis issues if the intervention group has been assigned at the level of a hospital but individual patient outcomes are analysed. We judged both these studies as at a medium risk of inaccuracy.
Rosseel 2010 gave no details of how the data on provider were collected and we assessed this study as at unclear risk of inaccuracy.
Accuracy with which outcomes assessed
Detection bias and the accuracy with which outcomes were determined were judged for each outcome measure.
We assumed that recording of mortality would be complete and unaffected by allocation group. Detection bias was therefore judged to be at low risk of bias for this outcome. All‐cause mortality was not reported so it was not possible to identify deaths related to anaesthetic complications.
Complication recording was less clear and usually relied on coding of discharge data. There were several issues that may lead to inaccuracy. Differentiation of complications from existing co‐morbid conditions may be difficult. The accuracy with which outcomes were determined in Silber 2000a was assessed as unclear for both failure to rescue and complications as new complications were differentiated from existing co‐morbidities only on the basis of timing of the code (co‐morbid conditions coded in the three months prior to admission). Dulisse 2010 gave few details of the data source used to assess complications and was assessed as at unclear risk. It was likely that there are differences in coding practices between hospitals, which is a potential source of bias especially in studies in which the anaesthetic provider was assigned at hospital level. We thought that the recording of complications in Needleman 2009 was at high risk of inaccuracy and bias given that anaesthetic provider status was assigned at hospital level and there was the possibility that the coding of discharge data may vary between hospitals.
Incomplete outcome data
The risk of incomplete outcome data in retrospective cohort studies was in part determined by the accuracy of the data used, as discussed above. A further concern was the coverage of the dataset. These studies reported on large numbers of participants and used different sources of data. None of the studies reported details of how records of the same participant from different administrative databases were linked. Few details were given of the number of missing records or failure to link records. Given the high volume of participants, it seemed implausible that a fully coded discharge abstract or data record was identified for each participant. We assessed all the retrospective cohort studies as at unclear risk of attrition bias. With a study population of 330 in one surgical unit, Rosseel 2010 was assessed as at low risk.
Selective reporting
No a priori protocols or analysis plans were available during a search of clinicaltrials.gov for all studies. There was an unclear potential for reporting bias due the number of possible codes which authors could select for outcome data and analysis.
Other potential sources of bias
Both Dulisse 2010 and Needleman 2009 received funding from the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) and this was considered a high risk of bias for these studies. Neither Pine 2003 nor Simonson 2007 received funding for their studies and they were therefore considered at low risk of bias. Rosseel 2010 provided an evaluation of a training programme established by Mèdecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and as all the authors worked for MSF it was assumed that it was at high risk of bias. Silber 2000a stated that the study had been largely self‐funded but that background methodology work had been supported by grants from AHRQ and The American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA). It was unclear whether the support from the American Board of Anesthesiology could have biased the study.
Assessment of control for confounding factors
The table of confounders (Appendix 4) summarizes our assessment of the measures taken by study authors to control for potential confounding factors.
Case‐mix
Two of the included studies were restricted to caesarean sections (Needleman 2009; Simonson 2007) and were assessed as at low risk of imprecision and imbalance. Three other studies (Dulisse 2010; Pine 2003; Silber 2000a) included adjustment for differences in case‐mix in the statistical models. These data were based on Medicare databases and were assessed as at low risk of imprecision. There were often large differences in case‐mix between the physician anaesthetist and NPA cases with more complex cases such as cardiovascular surgery more likely to be physician anaesthetist‐only or team anaesthesia than NPA‐only so we assessed the studies as at high risk of imbalance. Rosseel 2010 reported large differences in case‐mix between provider groups but with one death only in the dataset the authors did not adjust the results.
Co‐morbidity
Pre‐existing conditions which affected the risk of a participant suffering a complication after surgery were considered by five studies (Dulisse 2010; Needleman 2009; Pine 2003; Silber 2000a; Simonson 2007). These data were based on coded data in the discharge summary or in the Medicare or hospital database. None of the studies used other data sources such as free text in hospital notes or independent data collection. The major concern was the completeness of these coded data for underlying conditions or risk factors and the differentiation of existing co‐morbidity and new complications. No studies included smoking as a patient characteristic. Dulisse 2010 included only age, sex and race, and no other individual data, and we judged this study to be at high risk of imprecision. Silber 2000a adjusted for 27 coded patient characteristics but only if these codes were used in the three months before admission. We considered that many underlying conditions would not be coded in this way and therefore assessed this study as at high risk of imprecision. Pine 2003 used codes for principal and secondary diagnoses to assess co‐morbidity. These authors referred to a more complete database to assess which conditions were most likely to be pre‐existing and which were new complications and we assessed this study to be at medium risk of imprecision.
Needleman 2009 and Simonson 2007 used a list of obstetric co‐morbidities and both were assessed as at medium risk of imprecision. Needleman 2010 revised their analysis to include more codes for obesity and hypertension following the commentary by Neuman 2010.
Silber 2000a and Simonson 2007 reported important differences in co‐morbidity between the intervention and comparison groups with NPA‐only cases more likely to be emergency admissions. Dulisse 2010 reported only minor differences in race but used a restricted definition of co‐morbidity. Needleman 2009, Pine 2003 and Rosseel 2010 did not report on co‐morbidity in the different groups.
Type of anaesthetic given
No studies considered this as a confounder. This meant that different provider groups may have used different types of anaesthesia, for example, a spinal rather than a general anaesthetic for a certain surgical procedure, but this could not be assessed.
Hospital characteristics
Four studies considered this confounder (Needleman 2009; Pine 2003; Silber 2000a; Simonson 2007). The data were based on American Hospital Annual Surveys (AHA) (Needleman 2009; Pine 2003; Silber 2000a) or the study authors' own hospital survey, or both (Needleman 2009; Simonson 2007). None of these survey data were independently verified but the studies differed in the number of characteristics included. Studies using AHA included a range of items assessing location, staffing, teaching status and technological sophistication and we assessed these as at medium risk of imprecision. Simonson used a more limited, variable set including only size, urban or rural location and teaching status and we assessed this study as at high risk of imprecision. All these studies reported important imbalances, with NPA‐only cases more likely to be based in rural, smaller hospitals with fewer facilities, and were judged as at high risk of imbalance.
Dulisse 2010 analysed data from many different hospitals across the USA but did not adjust for hospital characteristics.
Rosseel 2010 was based in a single surgical centre.
Analysis method
Multivariate logistic regression models were used in five studies (Dulisse 2010; Needleman 2009; Pine 2003; Silber 2000a; Simonson 2007). Rosseel 2010 reported one death only and did not present adjusted results. Dulisse 2010, Pine 2003 and Silber 2000a gave methods for model building and we assessed these studies to be at low risk of errors due to adjustment in analyses. Pine 2003 presented indirectly standardized mortality rates for the different anaesthetic provider groups. Expected mortality rates were calculated using procedure‐specific, stepwise logistic regression models. Needleman 2009 gave no strategy for model building and did not report unadjusted rates or numbers of events or denominators to assess model fit and was assessed as at medium risk of errors due to adjustment in analyses. In Simonson 2007 the rationale for the selection of variables into the final model was not clear. The final model included variables for other labour complications including maternal distress, shock, hypotension and cardiac arrest. We thought that these variables were potentially measures of anaesthetic outcome, or on the causal pathway to anaesthetic complications or mortality, and so they should not have been included in the model. We assessed this study as at high risk of incomplete adjustment in analyses. Simonson 2007 used an appropriate hierarchical model to account for the clustering of intervention data in their analysis and Needleman 2009 adjusted standard errors for clustering within hospitals.
Effects of interventions
Comparison 1: NPA working independently versus physician anaesthetist working independently
Four studies investigated this comparison, two on general surgical patients (Dulisse 2010; Pine 2003) and two on women having caesarean sections (Needleman 2009; Simonson 2007).
Mortality
All four studies reported mortality in the intervention and comparison groups. Needleman 2009 and Simonson 2007 failed to find a difference in the risk of death in women undergoing caesarean section with anaesthetic given to participants by NPAs working independently compared with those given anaesthetic by physician anaesthetist alone. In Pine 2003 there were no significant differences in mortality between the provider groups in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses. Dulisse 2010 reported adjusted results using anaesthesia by a physician anaesthetist working independently in non‐opt out states as the reference group. The risk of mortality was lower in cases given anaesthesia by NPAs working independently in both non‐opt out and opt‐out states. This difference was statistically significant within non‐opt out states but it was not possible to assess the statistical significance between provider groups in opt‐out states. This study did not, however, adjust for hospital characteristics. See Analysis 1.1 (Table 1).
| Study ID | Study population | Unadjusted results | Adjusted results | Confounders included | ||||
|
|
| Effect measure | NPA alone | Physician anaesthetist alone | Effect measure | NPA alone | Physician anaesthetist alone |
|
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Risk difference (1/10,000) compared to physician anaesthetist alone | ‐1.45 | 0 | Odds ratio (reference = physician anaesthetist alone) | 0.556 | 1 | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Events/ total (Risk /10,000) | 4/33,236 (1.20) | 13/101,570 (1.28) | / | / | / | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Surgical |
|
|
| Odds ratio (reference = physician anaesthetist alone in non opt out states) |
|
|
| |
| Non opt out |
| / | / | / | 0.899* | 1 | Case‐mix and co‐morbidity | |
| Opt out ‐before |
|
|
|
| 0.651* | 0.797* | ||
| Opt out‐after |
|
|
|
| 0.689* | 0.788* | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Surgical | / | / | / | Events/total (Risk/10,000) SMR – standardised to whole study population | 13/101,570 (46) 1.031 | 604/134,335 (45) 1.039 | Case‐mix, co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
* significant difference reported by study authors P = 0.05
Complications
Three studies reported the risk of anaesthesia‐related complications (Dulisse 2010; Needleman 2009; Simonson 2007). Needleman 2009 and Simonson 2007 failed to find a difference in the risk of complications in women undergoing caesarean section with anaesthetic given by NPAs working independently compared with those given anaesthesia by physician anaesthetists alone. Dulisse 2010, using the cases given anaesthesia by a physician anaesthetist working independently in non‐opt out states as the reference group, failed to find a difference in risk of complications between groups in non‐opt out states. In opt‐out states the pattern varied with odds ratios lower for NPA alone than physician anaesthetists alone before opt‐out but higher after opt‐out, but it was not possible to test these differences statistically. See Analysis 1.2 (Table 2).
| Study ID | Study population | Unadjusted results | Adjusted results | Confounders included | ||||
|
|
| Effect measure | NPA alone | Physician anaesthetist alone | Effect measure | NPA alone | Physician anaesthetist alone |
|
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Rate difference (1/10,000) compared to physician anaesthetist alone | ‐6.0 | 0 | Odds ratio (reference = physician anaesthetist alone) | 0.732 | 1 | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Events/total (Risk /10,000) | 192/33,236 (57.8) | 773/101,570 (76.1) | Odds ratio (reference = physician anaesthetist alone) | 1.046 (95% CI 0.649‐1.685) | 1 | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
| Surgical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Non‐opt out |
| / | / | / | Odds ratio (reference = physician anaesthetist alone in non‐opt out states) | 0.992 | 1 | Case‐mix and co‐morbidity |
| Opt out ‐ before |
|
|
|
| 0.798* | 0.824* | ||
| Opt out ‐ after |
|
|
|
| 0.927 | 0.818* | ||
* significant difference reported by study authors P = 0.05
CI (confidence interval)
Comparison 2: NPA working independently versus NPA working in a team which is supervised or directed by a physician anaesthetist
Four studies investigated this comparison, three in general surgical patients (Dulisse 2010; Pine 2003; Rosseel 2010) and one in women having caesarean sections (Needleman 2009). Two studies (Dulisse 2010; Needleman 2009) had several comparison groups and results were presented using the physician anaesthetist working independently as the reference group. This meant that it was not possible to assess the statistical significance of the differences between NPA working independently and NPA working under supervision or in a team, but the relative size of the odds ratios gave an indication of whether mortality or complication risk was higher or lower.
Mortality
In Needleman 2009 the risk of mortality was lower in the NPA‐only group than in the NPA supervised or team group. In Dulisse 2010 the pattern varied with the mortality risk lower in the NPA‐only group in non‐opt out states and opt‐out states before opt‐out but higher in opt‐out states after opt‐out. In Pine 2003 the mortality risk was higher in the NPA‐only group than in the NPA supervised or team group but no statistical testing of any of these differences was presented. Rosseel 2010 reported one death only in a study of 330 participants and so no difference in mortality risk was detected. See Analysis 2.1 (Table 3).
| Study ID | Study population | Comparison group | Unadjusted results | Adjusted results | Confounders included | ||||
|
|
|
| Effect measure | NPA alone | NPA supervised | Effect measure | NPA alone | NPA supervised |
|
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Physician anaesthetist present at all c‐sections | Rate difference (1/10,000) compared to Physician anaesthetist only | ‐1.45 | ‐0.54 | Odds ratio (reference = Physician anaesthetist alone) | 0.556 | 0.708 | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
|
| Physician anaesthetist not present at all c‐sections | ‐1.45 | ‐0.61 | 0.556 | 0.716 |
| |||
| Surgical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Non opt out |
| Team | / | / | / | Odds ratio (reference = Physician anaesthetist alone in non opt out states) | 0.899* | 0.959* | Case‐mix and co‐morbidity |
| Opt out ‐ before |
| Team |
|
|
| 0.651* | 0.708* | ||
| Opt out ‐ after |
| Team |
|
|
| 0.689* | 0.565* | ||
| Surgical | Team | Events/total (Risk /10,000) SMR – standardised to whole study population | 151/33,151 (46) 1.031 | 796/236,708 (34) 0.967 | Case‐mix, co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | ||||
| Surgical | Physician anaesthetist supervision | Events/ total
| 0/168 | 1/162 | / | / | / | / | |
* significant difference reported by study authors P = 0.05
Complications
Results presented in Dulisse 2010 and Needleman 2009 were similar to those for mortality, with the risk complications generally lower in the NPA‐only group than in the NPA supervised or team group, but no statistical testing was reported. See Analysis 2.2 (Table 4).
| Study ID | Study population | Comparison group | Unadjusted results | Adjusted results | Confounders included | ||||
|
|
|
| Effect measure | NPA alone | NPA supervised | Effect measure | NPA alone | NPA supervised |
|
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Physician anaesthetist present at all caesareans | Rate difference (1/10,000) compared to Physician anaesthetist only | ‐6.0 | ‐11.0 | Odds ratio (reference = Physician anaesthetist alone) | 0.732 | 0.832 | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
|
| Physician anaesthetist not present at all caesareans | ‐6.0 | ‐2.0 | 0.732 | 0.922 |
| |||
| Surgical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Non opt out |
| Team | / | / | / | Odds ratio (reference = Physician anaesthetist alone in non opt out states) | 0.992 | 1.67* | Case‐mix, co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics |
| Opt out ‐before |
| Team |
|
|
| 0.798* | 0.927 | ||
| Opt out‐after |
| Team |
|
|
| 0.927 | 0.903 | ||
* significant difference reported by study authors P = 0.05
Comparison 3: undirected NPA versus directed NPA
Silber 2000a presented data for this comparison, in which the intervention undirected group included cases where anaesthesia was delivered by NPA alone, or a NPA was supervised rather than directed by a physician anaesthetist, or a NPA was directed by a non‐anaesthetist physician. The comparison‐directed group combined cases in which the physician anaesthetists had personally performed the anaesthetic and cases in which the NPA performed the case under physician anaesthetist direction.
There was some evidence that the risk of mortality and failure to rescue was higher in the undirected NPA group, with adjusted odds ratios (OR) of 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.15) and 1.10 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.18), respectively. In adjusted analyses there was no evidence of an increased risk of postoperative complications in the undirected group. However, the unadjusted ORs were higher for mortality (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.44), failure to rescue (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.24) and complications (OR 1.31 95% CI 1.28 to 1.45). Adjustment for differences in case‐mix, co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics accounted for much of the observed increased risk in outcomes. We assessed that co‐morbidity had a high risk of imprecision and the remaining increased effect seen may have been due to residual confounding. See Analyses 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 (Table 5).
| Study ID | Study population | Unadjusted results | Adjusted results | Confounders included | ||||
|
|
| Effect measure | Undirected NPA | Directed NPA | Effect measure | Undirected NPA | Directed NPA |
|
| Surgical | Odds ratio (reference – directed NPA) | 1.35 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.44) | 1 | Odds ratio (reference – directed NPA) | 1.08 (95% CI 1.00‐1.15) | 1 | Case‐mix, co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
CI (Confidence Interval)
Discussion
Summary of main results
This review included six non‐randomized studies (NRS) evaluating clinical outcomes when physician anaesthetists are compared with non‐physicians, either working alone or in teams of various combinations. Overall, while some studies have shown small and inconsistent differences in some outcomes, the quality and nature of the evidence are insufficient to draw firm conclusions about relative benefits and risks of the different models of anaesthetic provision. Perioperative risk is composed of three elements, the patient’s pre‐existing condition (for instance, the risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents (Smith 1997)), the operation performed, and the perioperative care received, of which anaesthetic care is only one part. The included studies have not been able to successfully separate anaesthetic care from other risk factors.
Overall completeness and applicability of evidence
The included studies were mainly from the United States (US) and used routinely‐collected administrative data. Only one study was carried out in the developing world. We found none from countries with advanced healthcare systems outside the US. Within the US, the data presented may not be representative as they may be skewed to the more deprived. Further, only billed cases were included, which raises the possibility of a systematic bias in the coverage of the data.
It is important to be aware of potential biases in the studies themselves. In the US, there are tensions between the official positions of the two professional organisations of the two main groups of anaesthesia providers, physician anaesthesiologists and registered nurse anaesthetists (Kane 2004). Some of the studies included in this review were funded, at least in part, by those professional organisations and were published in their own journals. Whilst this does not invalidate the results, it is unlikely that one group would publish work which weakened its own political position. The nature and small number of the studies included made it impossible to apply the usual methods used to detect publication bias (for instance, funnel plots) and this has to remain a possible source of bias.
Quality of the evidence
All studies were non‐randomized and so are at considerable risk of bias due to the effects of confounding and selection bias. Further, as different studies took different approaches to definitions and adjustment, it was not possible to compare them directly. It was also problematic trying to fully control for differences in hospital characteristics, and especially for patient co‐morbidity, using these routinely‐collected data. It is open to speculation in which direction such confounding factors might be operating; in general, common sense would dictate that the skill levels of anaesthetic providers would be matched, where possible, to the complexity and riskiness of the patient’s condition and the surgical procedure. As Needleman notes (p465), "The model of anaesthetic provision may be a proxy for other clinical resource variables usually left unmeasured in typically used databases" (Needleman 2009). Finally, no study assessed cost, length of hospital stay or the patient’s perspective as an outcome.
Potential biases in the review process
We conducted a comprehensive search for material, including what is sometimes termed ‘grey’ literature (non‐peer reviewed reports etc.). However, we did not access the grey literature database National Technical Information Service (NTIS), which may have potentially included more American literature.
We considered each eligible study with three independent reviewers and took time to understand the complexities of the American healthcare insurance system on which most of the studies were based. We sought advice from American peers, where necessary, and requested additional information from study authors who mostly responded promptly to our requests. Despite this, it is possible that our lack of intimate understanding of the American healthcare insurance system may have biased our interpretation of the included studies.
Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews
The only other review in this area which we are aware of is that of Smith (one of the authors on the present review) and colleagues from 2004 (Smith 2004). The present review has identified four studies published since 2004, and also excluded two studies which the 2004 review included. In addition, we used more recently developed, more sophisticated techniques for assessing risk of bias in non‐randomized studies. There is little difference in the conclusions between the two reviews.
Study flow diagram.
| Study ID | Study population | Unadjusted results | Adjusted results | Confounders included | ||||
|
|
| Effect measure | NPA alone | Physician anaesthetist alone | Effect measure | NPA alone | Physician anaesthetist alone |
|
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Risk difference (1/10,000) compared to physician anaesthetist alone | ‐1.45 | 0 | Odds ratio (reference = physician anaesthetist alone) | 0.556 | 1 | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Events/ total (Risk /10,000) | 4/33,236 (1.20) | 13/101,570 (1.28) | / | / | / | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Surgical |
|
|
| Odds ratio (reference = physician anaesthetist alone in non opt out states) |
|
|
| |
| Non opt out |
| / | / | / | 0.899* | 1 | Case‐mix and co‐morbidity | |
| Opt out ‐before |
|
|
|
| 0.651* | 0.797* | ||
| Opt out‐after |
|
|
|
| 0.689* | 0.788* | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Surgical | / | / | / | Events/total (Risk/10,000) SMR – standardised to whole study population | 13/101,570 (46) 1.031 | 604/134,335 (45) 1.039 | Case‐mix, co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
| * significant difference reported by study authors P = 0.05 | ||||||||
| Study ID | Study population | Unadjusted results | Adjusted results | Confounders included | ||||
|
|
| Effect measure | NPA alone | Physician anaesthetist alone | Effect measure | NPA alone | Physician anaesthetist alone |
|
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Rate difference (1/10,000) compared to physician anaesthetist alone | ‐6.0 | 0 | Odds ratio (reference = physician anaesthetist alone) | 0.732 | 1 | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Events/total (Risk /10,000) | 192/33,236 (57.8) | 773/101,570 (76.1) | Odds ratio (reference = physician anaesthetist alone) | 1.046 (95% CI 0.649‐1.685) | 1 | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
| Surgical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Non‐opt out |
| / | / | / | Odds ratio (reference = physician anaesthetist alone in non‐opt out states) | 0.992 | 1 | Case‐mix and co‐morbidity |
| Opt out ‐ before |
|
|
|
| 0.798* | 0.824* | ||
| Opt out ‐ after |
|
|
|
| 0.927 | 0.818* | ||
| * significant difference reported by study authors P = 0.05 CI (confidence interval) | ||||||||
| Study ID | Study population | Comparison group | Unadjusted results | Adjusted results | Confounders included | ||||
|
|
|
| Effect measure | NPA alone | NPA supervised | Effect measure | NPA alone | NPA supervised |
|
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Physician anaesthetist present at all c‐sections | Rate difference (1/10,000) compared to Physician anaesthetist only | ‐1.45 | ‐0.54 | Odds ratio (reference = Physician anaesthetist alone) | 0.556 | 0.708 | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
|
| Physician anaesthetist not present at all c‐sections | ‐1.45 | ‐0.61 | 0.556 | 0.716 |
| |||
| Surgical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Non opt out |
| Team | / | / | / | Odds ratio (reference = Physician anaesthetist alone in non opt out states) | 0.899* | 0.959* | Case‐mix and co‐morbidity |
| Opt out ‐ before |
| Team |
|
|
| 0.651* | 0.708* | ||
| Opt out ‐ after |
| Team |
|
|
| 0.689* | 0.565* | ||
| Surgical | Team | Events/total (Risk /10,000) SMR – standardised to whole study population | 151/33,151 (46) 1.031 | 796/236,708 (34) 0.967 | Case‐mix, co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | ||||
| Surgical | Physician anaesthetist supervision | Events/ total
| 0/168 | 1/162 | / | / | / | / | |
| * significant difference reported by study authors P = 0.05 | |||||||||
| Study ID | Study population | Comparison group | Unadjusted results | Adjusted results | Confounders included | ||||
|
|
|
| Effect measure | NPA alone | NPA supervised | Effect measure | NPA alone | NPA supervised |
|
| Obstetric patients, caesareans | Physician anaesthetist present at all caesareans | Rate difference (1/10,000) compared to Physician anaesthetist only | ‐6.0 | ‐11.0 | Odds ratio (reference = Physician anaesthetist alone) | 0.732 | 0.832 | Co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
|
| Physician anaesthetist not present at all caesareans | ‐6.0 | ‐2.0 | 0.732 | 0.922 |
| |||
| Surgical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Non opt out |
| Team | / | / | / | Odds ratio (reference = Physician anaesthetist alone in non opt out states) | 0.992 | 1.67* | Case‐mix, co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics |
| Opt out ‐before |
| Team |
|
|
| 0.798* | 0.927 | ||
| Opt out‐after |
| Team |
|
|
| 0.927 | 0.903 | ||
| * significant difference reported by study authors P = 0.05 | |||||||||
| Study ID | Study population | Unadjusted results | Adjusted results | Confounders included | ||||
|
|
| Effect measure | Undirected NPA | Directed NPA | Effect measure | Undirected NPA | Directed NPA |
|
| Surgical | Odds ratio (reference – directed NPA) | 1.35 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.44) | 1 | Odds ratio (reference – directed NPA) | 1.08 (95% CI 1.00‐1.15) | 1 | Case‐mix, co‐morbidity and hospital characteristics | |
| CI (Confidence Interval) | ||||||||
