Home >Newsletters >June 1997
 
ASA NEWSLETTER
 
 
June 1997
Volume 61
Number 6
 

Practice Options:
Flying Without a Net: Office-Based Anesthesia in the '90s

Ervin Moss, M.D.


In this and following issues, the ASA NEWSLETTER will be publishing articles about some of the various practice options available to anesthesiologists today -- inside the operating room and in other venues.

Much is to be learned by anesthesiologists from Mary Schiavo's recently published book, Flying Blind, Flying Safe, which disclosed the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to inspect, police and enforce safety standards in the airline industry preceding the Value Jet tragedy one year ago. As former Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, Ms. Schiavo warned of antiquated equipment, poor maintenance, counterfeit parts, violation of codes and regulations, obsolete traffic control systems and perfunctory review of pilots' credentials. For her courage in exposing the failure of a government agency to ensure the safety of the flying public, she has been branded a whistle-blower!

The practice of anesthesiology has often been compared to the aviation industry. The anesthesia simulator is based on simulators used in pilot training and recertification. Passengers entrust their lives to a pilot and the airplane's equipment while patients entrust their lives to anesthesiologists and their equipment in the operating room. Both are usually unknown to passenger and patient. The pilot and anesthesiologist rely on training and continuing education. Both require preventive maintenance of their equipment, calibration of instruments and monitors, and repairs by others. The black box on an aircraft preceded the anesthesia automated record keeper. Yet the black box on TWA 800 was obsolete and failed to record the crucial last seconds.

What is the price of a human life or what is the price of the avoidance of any anesthetic death? Pan Am 103 lawsuits cost $1 billion to settle, but it would cost $5 billion to prevent another Pan Am 103! Enough said!

Yet there are those who argue against office standards using cost as the argument. In reality, the $2,500 pulse oximeter or the $15,000 refurbished anesthesia machine spread over years of use and thousands of patients make the per-patient cost insignificant.

Just as passengers are willing to board discount airlines under the misconception that if they are licensed they are safe, patients are willing to be operated on in offices under the assumption that some authority or some agency somewhere must be regulating and must be responsible for the quality of the surgery, the anesthesia and the staff. Sadly, except in a few states, this is not the case.

Physician entrepreneurs have recognized the loophole in most state regulations that fail to address the single operating room within an office. Accordingly, there has been a proliferation of locations in which surgery with anesthesia is performed without any credentialing, peer review, physical plant and equipment standards, or accountability.

Who would expect that 18 deaths in children from conscious sedation out of 55 occurred in MRI units? Thirty additional deaths in the series were in dental offices, according to Charles J. Coté, M.D., an advocate for anesthesia standards in office-based settings.

The "New Jersey Experience" in its attempt to regulate offices was detailed in the Winter 1996-97 issue of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation Newsletter. Since then, two more office deaths have occurred without publicity in New Jersey, and one that occurred in a dermatologist's office is under investigation. Once again, it takes a tragedy to bring action, and the state regulation titled "Surgical and Anesthesia Standards in Physicians' Offices," created by the New Jersey State Society of Anesthesiologists (NJSSA), is now promised for publication in the New Jersey Register in May with a hearing in June 1997.

The opposition's ranks have swelled and now include a prestigious attorney in the health care industry who accused the hospitals of being behind the regulation in order to force operations back into the hospital and who contend that enforcement of regulations will drive up the cost of health care. Even the Food and Drug Administration's requirement on anesthesia machine inspection at the start of each day and before each case has been targeted as being excessive. The reality is that an office operating room is a business, and the cost of doing business includes costs to properly construct, equip, maintain and staff the facility. If, after expenses, there is no profit, then the business should not exist!

Just as pilots have economic pressures to fly an unsafe plane if they want jobs, anesthesiologists are under economic pressure to accept work in offices that do not meet the conditions that they had worked under in hospitals. Before accepting an office position, the anesthesiologist should evaluate the physical plant, the anesthesia equipment, the monitors, the staffing, the scheduled surgery, the capability and reputation of the surgeon, protocols and policies at the facility. After doing so, ask yourself if you would want a member of your family to undergo surgery and anesthesia in that office? Better still, if possible, be involved in the design, equipping, staffing and writing of policies and procedures for the facility. An anesthetic is an anesthetic, no matter where it is administered. The benchmark should be the hospital, which is still the safest, albeit the most expensive, place to undergo surgery.

The existence of regulations as exemplified by the Federal Aviation Administration's performance does not in itself guarantee safety. FAA inspectors failed to inspect landing gear, oxygen systems and engine controls half the time during inspections. In 1995, Value Jet was denied a Defense Department contract and declared unsafe for Defense Department personnel, but the airline was approved for the general flying public.

National Fire Protection Association-99 (1996 edition) codes, if enforced, would assure patient safety related to our medical gas supply, yet only one state mandates its use. All new construction of office operating rooms should, at a minimum, meet the most recent NFPA Codes. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations addresses our gas sources; yet in a recent survey by the NJSSA, 89 percent of the doctors surveyed had never been questioned by the Joint Commission during an inspection about medical gases. Sixty-seven percent did not know where the main shut-off valve for oxygen in the hospital was located, and 48 percent did not have a protocol for the emergency loss of gases, which is a Joint Commission requirement.

If this is the state of affairs within our licensed hospitals, what can we expect to find in the office setting? Even when consultants are used, their advice is not always correct. One superbly constructed center was found to be short the required square feet of space when the second operating room was approved. Since it was located within an office building, expansion was not possible. A design consultant informed me that it was not uncommon to find office pipeline systems improperly designed, improperly installed, improperly brazed and lacking alarms and shut-off valves. An industry source advised me that the anesthesia machines classified as obsolete in the 1989 New Jersey Hospital Anesthesia Regulations are now being sold to offices in New Jersey for approximately $5,000.

If passed, the New Jersey Office Regulation will establish the same safety features in anesthesia machines as defined in the 1989 Hospital Anesthesia Regulation. That regulation found approximately 250 of the 500 anesthesia machines in use, dating back to the 1950s, obsolete by criteria set by the NJSSA. What can we expect to find in offices?

Physicians are traditionally antiregulation, and they often view all attempts at regulation as an invasion of their professional individuality. However, the regulations as proposed in New Jersey would establish a baseline for patient safety when surgery with anesthesia is performed in an office. Obviously, there is a need for an authority to set and enforce standards as evidenced by mortality in offices.

Fortunately, there is recognition by established credible hospital-based anesthesia groups of the market for their services in the office operating rooms. Most have moved with caution by investigating the risks, benefits and demands of the new venue. They are contributing their expertise to quality patient care and are improving the image of the often marginal anesthesia provider who in years past staffed the offices.

Finally, just as the FAA has been reorganized and the public made aware of its inadequacies, organized anesthesiology has begun to identify this weak link in patient safety that could diminish the safety record achieved over the last two decades. The Society for Office-Based Anesthesia was organized in the last year. The Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia, too, has identified the office as a new venue in ambulatory care. The practice of pain management and office anesthesia warrant attention by other ASA component societies. The NJSSA plans to create committees to address the issue of both pain and office-based anesthesia.

The NJSSA, long committed to patient safety, has voted to purchase an anesthesia patient simulator that can be used to update and retrain anesthesiologists whose practice may be limited to offices. The simulator will be programmed to teach advanced cardiac life support, which is now a requirement for office anesthesia in New Jersey.

Again, office-based anesthesia will explode in the next five years. Its risks should not be minimized. Experienced, well-trained anesthesiologists should encourage and, if necessary, demand that every reasonable safety factor be incorporated into the office operating room. The public expects and should receive no less!


Ervin Moss, M.D., practices part-time at several ambulatory care facilities in central New Jersey, including Ridgedale Surgery Center, SurgiCare of Central Jersey, Middlesex Surgery Center, and Springfield Eye Surgery and Laser Center. He is also Executive Medical Director of the New Jersey State Society of Anesthesiologists, Princeton Junction, New Jersey.
E-mail the author.

 


return to top


 


FEATURES

Litigation v. Liability: Striking a Balance

ARTICLES


DEPARTMENTS


The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views, policies or actions of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

NL Archives

Information for Authors