Average monthly anesthesia hours per anesthesiologist increased in 2 years
WHITE, BLUE, PINK THE COLOR OF YOUR COLLAR DOES NOT MATTER WE ARE ALL PROLETARIANS NOW
기자명 Kwak Sung-sun
Published 2024.07.26
Copy url(으)로 기사보내기 이메일(으)로 기사보내기 다른 공유 찾기 기사스크랩하기
The average monthly anesthesia time for one anesthesiologist has increased by nearly four hours in two years, and the average monthly anesthesia time for anesthesiologists at special hospitals was about 20 hours longer than that of tertiary general hospitals.
The Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) released the “Third Anesthesia Adequacy Evaluation” results on Friday.
The third round of anesthesia appropriateness assessments showed an increase in Grade 1 institutions and a decrease in Grade 5 institutions compared to the second round. (Credit: Getty Images)
The agency has conducted anesthesia adequacy assessments since 2018 to improve medical quality in anesthesia and lay the foundation for the safety management of anesthesia patients. As the need for anesthesia safety management in small- and medium-sized hospitals was raised, the evaluation target was expanded to specialized hospitals in the second evaluation and all hospitals in this third evaluation.
The result showed the average monthly anesthesia time per anesthesiologist was 153.4 hours, an increase of 3.6 hours from 149.8 hours in the second evaluation. Special hospitals showed the highest average monthly anesthesia time per anesthesiologist at 203.5 hours. That compared with 178.6 hours in tertiary general hospitals and 127.4 hours in general hospitals.
Regarding the enhanced indicator of “availability of a recovery room,” 282 hospitals, 67.8 percent of the total, met the standard.
Rates of pre-anesthesia patient assessments, nausea and vomiting in the recovery room, and pain scoring were similar to the secondary assessment.
Pre-anesthesia patient assessment rates averaged 96.6 percent, and rates of nausea and vomiting and pain scoring in the recovery room averaged 96.4 percent, an increase of 1.2 percentage points from 95.2 percent at the second assessment.
Besides, the share of patients maintaining normal body temperature (35.5℃ or higher) during and after anesthesia improved from the second evaluation in all types of hospitals, tertiary general hospitals, general hospitals, and special hospitals. In particular, the share at special hospitals improved by 22.7 percentage points from 65.2 percent to 87.9 percent in the third evaluation.
The overall score averaged 89.7 points, an improvement of 2.3 points from the second evaluation. By type, general hospitals improved by 3.0 points and special hospitals by 2.5 points.
The anesthesia appropriateness assessment was divided into 1-5 grades based on the overall score to make it easier for the public to understand, and the share of Grade 1 institutions was 54.9 percent, an increase of 3.7 percentage points from the second assessment. In contrast, that of Grade 5 institutions decreased by 2.7 percentage points.
There were 219 Grade 1 institutions, distributed relatively evenly across all regions, including 62 in the Gyeongsang region, 56 in the Gyeonggi-Incheon region, and 46 in the Seoul region.
The overall hospital-level composite score averaged 48.5 points, lower than other categories. Considering it was the first assessment of hospital-level institutions, HIRA released only the national results.
“The results of the anesthesia appropriateness assessment have improved overall, and we are positive about the efforts of special hospitals to improve anesthesia patient safety management,” said Jeon Mi-joo, head of the HIRA’s Evaluation Operation Office.
To improve the quality of medical care in hospitals that have been expanded to the third round of the assessment, HIRA will improve evaluation criteria and indicators, considering each type of hospital and actively support hospital-specific quality improvement activities, Jeon added.
The agency has conducted anesthesia adequacy assessments since 2018 to improve medical quality in anesthesia and lay the foundation for the safety management of anesthesia patients. As the need for anesthesia safety management in small- and medium-sized hospitals was raised, the evaluation target was expanded to specialized hospitals in the second evaluation and all hospitals in this third evaluation.
The result showed the average monthly anesthesia time per anesthesiologist was 153.4 hours, an increase of 3.6 hours from 149.8 hours in the second evaluation. Special hospitals showed the highest average monthly anesthesia time per anesthesiologist at 203.5 hours. That compared with 178.6 hours in tertiary general hospitals and 127.4 hours in general hospitals.
Regarding the enhanced indicator of “availability of a recovery room,” 282 hospitals, 67.8 percent of the total, met the standard.
Rates of pre-anesthesia patient assessments, nausea and vomiting in the recovery room, and pain scoring were similar to the secondary assessment.
Pre-anesthesia patient assessment rates averaged 96.6 percent, and rates of nausea and vomiting and pain scoring in the recovery room averaged 96.4 percent, an increase of 1.2 percentage points from 95.2 percent at the second assessment.
Besides, the share of patients maintaining normal body temperature (35.5℃ or higher) during and after anesthesia improved from the second evaluation in all types of hospitals, tertiary general hospitals, general hospitals, and special hospitals. In particular, the share at special hospitals improved by 22.7 percentage points from 65.2 percent to 87.9 percent in the third evaluation.
The overall score averaged 89.7 points, an improvement of 2.3 points from the second evaluation. By type, general hospitals improved by 3.0 points and special hospitals by 2.5 points.
The anesthesia appropriateness assessment was divided into 1-5 grades based on the overall score to make it easier for the public to understand, and the share of Grade 1 institutions was 54.9 percent, an increase of 3.7 percentage points from the second assessment. In contrast, that of Grade 5 institutions decreased by 2.7 percentage points.
There were 219 Grade 1 institutions, distributed relatively evenly across all regions, including 62 in the Gyeongsang region, 56 in the Gyeonggi-Incheon region, and 46 in the Seoul region.
The overall hospital-level composite score averaged 48.5 points, lower than other categories. Considering it was the first assessment of hospital-level institutions, HIRA released only the national results.
“The results of the anesthesia appropriateness assessment have improved overall, and we are positive about the efforts of special hospitals to improve anesthesia patient safety management,” said Jeon Mi-joo, head of the HIRA’s Evaluation Operation Office.
To improve the quality of medical care in hospitals that have been expanded to the third round of the assessment, HIRA will improve evaluation criteria and indicators, considering each type of hospital and actively support hospital-specific quality improvement activities, Jeon added.
No comments:
Post a Comment