• D Martin-Sheridan and P Wing.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Albany Medical College, New York, USA.
• AANA J. 1996 Dec 1;64(6):528-34.

AbstractThe June 1996 article in Anesthesia and Analgesia by Abenstein and Warner entitled "Anesthesia Providers, Patient Outcomes, and Costs" presents important information about anesthesia services, but it contains a number of errors and questionable interpretations that could lead to inappropriate programs and policies. Among the most important points of fact we clarify in our paper are: 1. Three organizations that accredit, certify, and govern nurse anesthetists are organized in similar fashion to three comparable bodies governing anesthesiologists. There is no justification for the implication that the AANA somehow controls the accreditation and certification of CRNAs. 2. The conclusion that anesthesiologistled care teams are the preferred model for all anesthesia services and settings because of improved patient outcomes is overly simplistic and is not borne out in the literature. 3. The attribution of reduced mortality from anesthesia over the past 40 years to the increase in numbers of anesthesiologists is not justified. Many other factors, including new anesthetic agents and improved patient monitoring, also are important. 4. The use of a hypothetical example related to Medicare reimbursement in New York to justify the implication that CRNA-delivered services are more costly than anesthesiologist-delivered services is misleading and not borne out in the literature. We hope that planners and policy makers will read the article by Abenstein and Warner with extreme caution. Taking some of their statements and conclusions seriously could lead to policies and programs that are not focused in science.

13 keywords...

hide…