Residency Training in Anesthesiology

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
IMO, adding more years would be the death of our field as we know it. Avoiding 5-6 year residencies is why many residents go into anesthesiology. You would see a catastrophic drop off in the number of applicants and thus graduates, opening the market to alternative anesthesia personnel.

I love anesthesiology, but if you told me 5-6 years with a year of critical care in medical school, I would have bolted to another field.

:thumbup:

IMHO, the problem is not one of todays anesthesiologists being inadequately trained. Indeed, I have heard many on this forum (and elsewhere) say that they feel over-qualified for their current positions. And now I am being told that even doing a year of peds is not a guarantee that you will get a job in peds since CRNAs can do the same thing (except in the sickest of kids).

The problem as I see it is one of midlevel creep, an overly militant AANA, and an ASA which is content to sit on their asses and smoke cigars while the occupation they are supposed to represent circles the drain. This has resulted in CRNAs advancing by leaps and bounds while MDAs have to continually take cuts to their job responsibilities, pay, and job security.

Is more training supposed to solve this problem?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I wanted to agree with this post, but I can't. We are already substantially more well trained than our CRNA counterparts and many residencies have 4-6 months of ICU incorporated into them as is. The point is not to stay in training longer but to market our current skill set in a way that is ACTUALLY recognized by hospital administrators.
 
I definitely think that the CCM + spec board in 5 years is an excellent plan. I'm not sure what the value would be with adding on a 6th year for IM boards... although I'm guessing you would be stronger in management of things like diabetes/HTN/etc. Do you really think that this is necessary, though? Do you think that would make you look that much better to bean counters?

I'm seriously looking into CCM and Cardiac because I want to be able to take care of the sickest patients possible. I guess I want to be a terminator anesthesiologist, as Blade put it. With that, I will obviously be in post graduate training for 6 years... and I'm 34 now... and just now graduating med school in a couple of months. It would be nice to knock a year off of that.

Along those lines, two of the things I looked at in residency selection were:
1) How much flexibility they offered during the CA2 and (more so) CA3 years to allow me to get the case types I want.
2) How much does the program depend on the residents for work? I wanted to be able to cherry pick cases, so I'm not stuck doing eyeballs (or whatever) in my last month as a CA3.

I'm extremely happy with where I ended up, but if there was a place that offered the 5 year plan that Blade outlined above - I would have taken that into consideration.

If a 34 year old guy can embrace my proposal/changes then so can everyone else. Despite the resistance to change the specialty must evolve or stagnate and possibly die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I wanted to agree with this post, but I can't. We are already substantially more well trained than our CRNA counterparts and many residencies have 4-6 months of ICU incorporated into them as is. The point is not to stay in training longer but to market our current skill set in a way that is ACTUALLY recognized by hospital administrators.


How can they recognize your skill set in the hospital without Board Certification? The idea is to create a perioperative Physician able to compete in the ACO model of the future. Your current skill set (4 years) is viewed by the AANA as equivalent to theirs (soon to be 36 months-DNAP). You deserve Board Certification in more than Anesthesiology to effectively compete for jobs under a new paradigm.
 
Cut the pgy 1 year to 6 months of surgery/IM/peds. Than 2.5 years of anesthesia, end with one year specialty training.
 
Age shouldn't really matter when it comes to optimizing your skill set for your career. If I knew I were guaranteed to be able to be boarded in multiple specialties/subspecialties I would consider a longer residency period for anesthesiology. It looks as though I'm headed that route anyway.

I can see the other side of the argument as well, that our current training already trains good periop physicians.

But there does seem to be a need for something more that the ASA and certainly the AMA won't or halfheartedly addresses.

Also, what is this MDA? ;)
 
I actually like Blade's proposal. It's what I plan to do with my future. Then again, I'm a MD/PhD student who just matched into a combined peds/anesthesia residency, so I like training.
 
I understand the line of thinking here Blade, but it actually irritates me quite a bit that this is getting even cursory thought. To say residents (you know, DOCTORS) need MORE training to prove their worth is essentially granting the CRNAs equivalency by saying we are currently equal. I think it's defeatist.

Our problem is not one of skillset/knowledge/certification deficiencies, I mean CRNAs as already noted do Peds, OB, Cards, etc without any..... Our problem is of our perception to bean counters, and the fact WE created the very monster we are currently battling and therefore appear as hypocrites now that we want to limit them etc.

My humble, early in training opinion is we need to fight back with their tactics. Better PR (or propaganda if we truly want to fight fire with fire), STOP training them to do specialty cases/procedures etc. True, I know nothing of the inner workings/pressures of the hospital board room/admin or the production pressures etc of trying to run a group with the finances as currently in the market. But the way I see it is if we cede this and require more years/training to an already blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain or ability to do basic arithmetic superior level of training we are giving up. And admin/bean counters will continue taking the extra mile in exchange for that inch.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I agree with decreasing residency spots.

I strongly disagree with the more training argument.

Of course an extra two years of training will make you a better anesthesiologist. The argument by the CRNAs is that we are OVER trained and that they can do the same job with the "same outcomes" for cheaper. So your answer is MORE training? We are already a country mile ahead of them in years if education.

And you KNOW how administration thinks. It goes something like this:

Dr Blade MD enters the office of administrator Nurse Jackie RN, BSN, DNP, CEO, MBA, OD, R2D2, ATM, BDSM,etc.

Blade: Hello, my name is BladeMD. I am a quadruple board certified anesthesiologist. Let me tell you exactly why you should give my group of quadruple board certified anesthesiologists the anesthesia contract. Yada yada perioperative, ICU, yada yada.....

Nurse Jackie: (thinking to herself- who the F cares. I think I can skate by with a bunch of CRNAs since I hear they have the same outcome. I'll get some 89 yr old anesthesiologist to supervise all of them and save a boatload. I don't give a **** about perioperative medicine. We already have ICU physicians. I don't care how many board certifications you have because you STILL aren't bringing money or patients into my hospital. Zzzzzz... Will this overpriced CRNA just shut up already...)
"Well thank you for coming in Dr Blade. Your group sounds wonderful. I'll allow you to all be hospital employees for $1000 per day. That is what the Crna group is asking for and they have the "same outcomes."

You KNOW it is all about the money to them and spending an extra two year will NOT stop them from replacing you with the "cheaper" option. That's just how they work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
If a 34 year old guy can embrace my proposal/changes then so can everyone else. Despite the resistance to change the specialty must evolve or stagnate and possibly die.

There are ways to change without changing the very make-up of the specialty. If we really do think our training is superior to cRNAs, and in my opinion it is, there is no reason to propagate resolutions to increase our training. I would never advocate changing the face of our specialty based on outsider perception moreso than reality. Some anesthesiologists have advocated getting involved in hospital administrations by being directors of ORs, establashing sedation/transfusion protocols, etc. and using our extensive perioperative knowledge and background to establish standards of care within hospitals, offices, and surgery centers. I think there are many avenues for that in medicine.

I think what you are suggesting would transform the specialty as we know it. It's fine for people on here already on fellowship/PhD tracks to say that they would buy into your idea, but it's a completely different notion for the majority of the rest of us who did not enter anesthesia to be the doctor that you are painting in your picture. The complete lack of infrastructure in supporting that many fellows is a testament to how much overkill that would induce. Do you really think we have enough patient load on a national level for all anesthesia residents to do what attributes to two separate fellowships?

I'm all about change, but what we need to do is sit down and have an honest conversation at a national level within our specialty. You say that we must evolve or possibly die, but I think what you're suggesting is going a step further and just holding a gun to the specialty's head and pulling the trigger. I would not have gone into the specialty if it was under the pretense of what you want it to evolve into, and I love anesthesiology. I know many like me as well. Remember, the road to hell was paved with good intentions.
 
Doggy style
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
There are some interesting points brought up on this thread. I obviously like Blade's idea since that is already what I'm planning on doing, and it would cut a year off of my training... but I imagine that the majority of people entering anesthesia don't like the idea of critical care (rounding on patients, etc), and they wouldn't be agreeable to being "forced" into that extra critical care time. When I said that I agreed with Blade's idea, I didn't mean to imply that anesthesiologists aren't well educated now, by the way.

Doggy Style
 
Most doctors don't need to become better trained in medicine. They need to become better trained in business and politics.

If that would happen, maybe we could avoid constantly taking it doggy style.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Most doctors don't need to become better trained in medicine. They need to become better trained in business and politics.

If that would happen, maybe we could avoid constantly taking it doggy style.
It's irrelevant because you'll never get the chance to use any business skills when your predecessors sell out and the business decisions are made by whatever mba controls enough investment dollars.
 
It's irrelevant because you'll never get the chance to use any business skills when your predecessors sell out and the business decisions are made by whatever mba controls enough investment dollars.

And then said generation of predecessors tells you that the generation below them just needs more arduous training to compensate for the market forces. Even though, alas, we can all agree that are training is superior to our perceived competition already.

;)
 
Too much time in training. Remember anesthesia used to be a 2 year residency back in 1980s (plus one year of internship) back in the mid 1980s.

If you really wanted an CC type of training. Just integrate it the four years. Get rid of the prelim year. Some peeps mess around at cushy prelim programs.

Make it 3 months icu first year. 2 months second year. 2 months third year. And 5 months ICU fourth year. That's 12 months there. Start the clinical base anesthesia year at month 12 intern year.

There are so many things you can do.

Oh. Just a side questions. If the base CRNA salary is $150k-175k excluding overtime, night differential and calls. What's the difference in pay when you extract the pay over a 50-60 hour week most MDs who work full time for AMCs making 300-350k.

That would put the CRNA income close to the $275k range. Right?

Everyone is concerned about income. Yet crnas aren't going to work for less than $130k full 40 hour week. Why? Most icu nurses make close to $100k these days. A few I know make $120k with some overtime. There comes a breaking point here folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And then said generation of predecessors tells you that the generation below them just needs more arduous training to compensate for the market forces. Even though, alas, we can all agree that are training is superior to our perceived competition already.

;)

Don't count on it. Lots of training programs have skimped on education and training of residents in the name of economy in recent years.
I grant you that most recent grads on average are far more current in the literature than their "old guys", but that ain't the same as being better trained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Too much time in training. Remember anesthesia used to be a 2 year residency back in 1980s (plus one year of internship) back in the mid 1980s.

If you really wanted an CC type of training. Just integrate it the four years. Get rid of the prelim year. Some peeps mess around at cushy prelim programs.

Make it 3 months icu first year. 2 months second year. 2 months third year. And 5 months ICU fourth year. That's 12 months there. Start the clinical base anesthesia year at month 12 intern year.

There are so many things you can do.

Oh. Just a side questions. If the base CRNA salary is $150k-175k excluding overtime, night differential and calls. What's the difference in pay when you extract the pay over a 50-60 hour week most MDs who work full time for AMCs making 300-350k.

That would put the CRNA income close to the $275k range. Right?

Everyone is concerned about income. Yet crnas aren't going to work for less than $130k full 40 hour week. Why? Most icu nurses make close to $100k these days. A few I know make $120k with some overtime. There comes a breaking point here folks.

You are assuming that CRNA incomes can't drop. The CRNA training programs are still pumping them out like sausages. I hear plenty of fresh CRNA grads bitch about having to leave the area to find work.
 
Too much time in training. Remember anesthesia used to be a 2 year residency back in 1980s (plus one year of internship) back in the mid 1980s.

If you really wanted an CC type of training. Just integrate it the four years. Get rid of the prelim year. Some peeps mess around at cushy prelim programs.

Make it 3 months icu first year. 2 months second year. 2 months third year. And 5 months ICU fourth year. That's 12 months there. Start the clinical base anesthesia year at month 12 intern year.

There are so many things you can do.

Oh. Just a side questions. If the base CRNA salary is $150k-175k excluding overtime, night differential and calls. What's the difference in pay when you extract the pay over a 50-60 hour week most MDs who work full time for AMCs making 300-350k.

That would put the CRNA income close to the $275k range. Right?

Everyone is concerned about income. Yet crnas aren't going to work for less than $130k full 40 hour week. Why? Most icu nurses make close to $100k these days. A few I know make $120k with some overtime. There comes a breaking point here folks.

I'm not in medical/AA/CRNA school yet, but the situation you described is essentially what's happening in the area of the southeast I live in. There is an AMC that has contracts with all of the hospitals (and other facilities) here, and their CEO happens to be a CRNA, along with a number of their regional anesthesia directors, etc. They like to brag about only hiring CRNAs and claim to hire as few anesthesiologists as they can get away with, and they require all of their CRNAs to take one call shift per week. From what I've heard, they've cut back on this a little bit as of late, but as far as I know, they're still paying their CRNAs time-and-a-half pay whenever they work their call shifts. When you factor in the alleged $140k base salary I've been told they offer new grads along with the OT pay, the money definitely adds up. At several of their facilities (an ophthalmology clinic, an endo clinic, and an outpatient surgicenter), they have apparently eliminated the anesthesiologists altogether, and from what I've been told by a few CRNAs I know, it's not so much that the AMC has an issue with paying anesthesiologist-level salaries -- it's just that they feel more empowered and self-righteous by paying those same (or almost as high) salaries to their pseudo-independent CRNAs.

But here's another issue that a lot of anesthesiologists don't seem to be thinking about. I have talked to several CRNAs and anesthesiologists who are friends with my parents, and a few of the anesthesiologists actually work for the local AMC. And guess what? They actually SUPPORT the changes the CRNAs have made! When I talked to them, they praised CRNAs for being "more flexible" to use than AAs, and they actually advised me to become a CRNA instead of an AA because I'd be easier to utilize as a CRNA than an AA (in their opinion). Of course, keep in mind that these anesthesiologists answer to a "boss" who happens to be a CRNA, so the whole dilemma is really bizarre to me. They are literally in favor of a practice model that reduces the amount and significance of their influence/input as anesthesiologists and which could, at some point in the future, result in them being replaced entirely by CRNAs (locally, at least). It really confuses me to hear them talk about how the 1:8 supervision model is "better" to them, because it effectively reduces the need for anesthesiologists by 50%, as compared to the 1:4 ACT model. Who in the hell (regardless of which field they work in -- healthcare or otherwise) campaigns to have their own job replaced?

So yes, even though CRNAs who push for more lax supervision ratios (1:8, 1:12, whatever) are part of the problem, I would think that anesthesiologists who have made the decision to appease CRNAs (almost with this ultra-liberal, guilt-ridden attitude of "well ya know, they were doing anesthesia before we ever did...") are part of it as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You are assuming that CRNA incomes can't drop. The CRNA training programs are still pumping them out like sausages. I hear plenty of fresh CRNA grads bitch about having to leave the area to find work.

Than icu nursing incomes will have to drop.

The nursing lobby is a lot stronger than the medical lobby.

If the spread between icu nursing and CRNA income becomes inconsequential you will lose a lot of motive. Why would nurse spend 3 years with practically no income to become CRNA making no more money and incur $70-100k in debt.
 
i am going to call out blade and his tactics. look your tactics are not working and are only causing confusion. why dont you post about how you have been meeting with state or your national representatives and have spent hours on the phone pleading the case of anesthesiologists. how you are extensively intertwined in the asa and your state anesthesia society and have been diligently working with them and formulating a plan of attack. would you do that instead of these continual doomsday posts? these doomsday posts are counterproductive and annoying. i think you like the sound of your voice, like a barking chihuahua that you just want to tell to shut the f up. put you energy into pushing people on here to get involved in the asa political division, in their state anesthesia society and donate money and time to the cause. if your not doing that and reporting back to us, shut the h up, i for one am not interested in your conjecture and theories on how to better our field. i appreciate action not talk. everyone on here needs to take ACTION
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I agree with decreasing residency spots.

I strongly disagree with the more training argument.

Of course an extra two years of training will make you a better anesthesiologist. The argument by the CRNAs is that we are OVER trained and that they can do the same job with the "same outcomes" for cheaper. So your answer is MORE training? We are already a country mile ahead of them in years if education.

And you KNOW how administration thinks. It goes something like this:

Dr Blade MD enters the office of administrator Nurse Jackie RN, BSN, DNP, CEO, MBA, OD, R2D2, ATM, BDSM,etc.

Blade: Hello, my name is BladeMD. I am a quadruple board certified anesthesiologist. Let me tell you exactly why you should give my group of quadruple board certified anesthesiologists the anesthesia contract. Yada yada perioperative, ICU, yada yada.....

Nurse Jackie: (thinking to herself- who the F cares. I think I can skate by with a bunch of CRNAs since I hear they have the same outcome. I'll get some 89 yr old anesthesiologist to supervise all of them and save a boatload. I don't give a **** about perioperative medicine. We already have ICU physicians. I don't care how many board certifications you have because you STILL aren't bringing money or patients into my hospital. Zzzzzz... Will this overpriced CRNA just shut up already...)
"Well thank you for coming in Dr Blade. Your group sounds wonderful. I'll allow you to all be hospital employees for $1000 per day. That is what the Crna group is asking for and they have the "same outcomes."

You KNOW it is all about the money to them and spending an extra two year will NOT stop them from replacing you with the "cheaper" option. That's just how they work.

You post is based on current reimbursement methods and not the future ACO model. Think about the cross-coverage the Dual/Triple Boarded Anesthesiologists can offer the CEO. Instead of hiring 6 full time ICU docs the CEO hires 3 and has the Anesthesiologists cross cover at night. Second, the CRNAs still need supervision by an Anesthesiologist if the acuity is high. While CRNAs can handle surgi center level cases they are ill-equipped for the high acuity ASA 4 case in the O.R.
Third, Advanced subspecialty certification in Cardiac or Peds helps deal with the problems CRNAs can't or won't handle alone.

As for outcome data the hospital will quickly find out that utilizing a second tier provider comes at a price. Any money saved will quickly vanish secondary to more lawsuits and lost cases from unhappy surgeons. The cheaper option isn't always cheaper and my life experiences bear that statement out as true.

This thread is about changing Residency training to offer the new graduate enhanced Board Certifications without increasing the length of training by much time.
For those who can't understand the concept of "more bang for your buck" simply ignore the thread. If Residency programs can't offer the type of training a Med Student needs for a first rate experience in all areas they should reduce the size of the program or close it altogether.
 
You post is based on current reimbursement methods and not the future ACO model. Think about the cross-coverage the Dual/Triple Boarded Anesthesiologists can offer the CEO. Instead of hiring 6 full time ICU docs the CEO hires 3 and has the Anesthesiologists cross cover at night. Second, the CRNAs still need supervision by an Anesthesiologist if the acuity is high. While CRNAs can handle surgi center level cases they are ill-equipped for the high acuity ASA 4 case in the O.R.
Third, Advanced subspecialty certification in Cardiac or Peds helps deal with the problems CRNAs can't or won't handle alone.

As for outcome data the hospital will quickly find out that utilizing a second tier provider comes at a price. Any money saved will quickly vanish secondary to more lawsuits and lost cases from unhappy surgeons. The cheaper option isn't always cheaper and my life experiences bear that statement out as true.

This thread is about changing Residency training to offer the new graduate enhanced Board Certifications without increasing the length of training by much time.
For those who can't understand the concept of "more bang for your buck" simply ignore the thread. If Residency programs can't offer the type of training a Med Student needs for a first rate experience in all areas they should reduce the size of the program or close it altogether.
I completely understand the concept of "bang for your buck" which is why I completely disagree with adding two more years and trying to jam out why into the ICUs, which are already covered by ICU docs. For what? Increasing the duration of your indentured servitude by 66% for a 0% pay raise and IMO no added job security is the absolute opposite of "bang for your buck." And it will also cost you two years of attending salary! I have never heard of the problem related to a shortage of ICU docs which would require anesthesiologists to cover.
 
I completely understand the concept of "bang for your buck" which is why I completely disagree with adding two more years and trying to jam out why into the ICUs, which are already covered by ICU docs. For what? Increasing the duration of your indentured servitude by 66% for a 0% pay raise and IMO no added job security is the absolute opposite of "bang for your buck." And it will also cost you two years of attending salary! I have never heard of the problem related to a shortage of ICU docs which would require anesthesiologists to cover.

Please read the thread again. I proposed 2 tracks: A 5 year track and 6 year track.

The 5 year track offers the following:

1. Anesthesiology
2. Critical Care
3. Subspecialty Certification

Currently, the Residency plus Fellowship is 5 years so my proposal does not alter length of training but offers 3 Board Certifications instead of 2. The 6 year track is for people like STEP213 who would qualify for 4 Board Certifications after the 6 year track.
 
I completely understand the concept of "bang for your buck" which is why I completely disagree with adding two more years and trying to jam out why into the ICUs, which are already covered by ICU docs. For what? Increasing the duration of your indentured servitude by 66% for a 0% pay raise and IMO no added job security is the absolute opposite of "bang for your buck." And it will also cost you two years of attending salary! I have never heard of the problem related to a shortage of ICU docs which would require anesthesiologists to cover.


Our population is aging and health status is moving from ASA 3 to ASA 4 more routinely. The Critical Care Certification allows the ACO employed Anesthesiologist to pitch in when he/she is on call by cross covering the ICU. This saves the ACO money because the organization needs to hire fewer full time ICU docs for day coverage. Alternatively, the ACO could hire Anesthesiologists and Surgeons (Dual Boarded) for 100% coverage of the Surgical ICU.
 
Too much time in training. Remember anesthesia used to be a 2 year residency back in 1980s (plus one year of internship) back in the mid 1980s.

If you really wanted an CC type of training. Just integrate it the four years. Get rid of the prelim year. Some peeps mess around at cushy prelim programs.

Make it 3 months icu first year. 2 months second year. 2 months third year. And 5 months ICU fourth year. That's 12 months there. Start the clinical base anesthesia year at month 12 intern year.

There are so many things you can do.

Oh. Just a side questions. If the base CRNA salary is $150k-175k excluding overtime, night differential and calls. What's the difference in pay when you extract the pay over a 50-60 hour week most MDs who work full time for AMCs making 300-350k.

That would put the CRNA income close to the $275k range. Right?

Everyone is concerned about income. Yet crnas aren't going to work for less than $130k full 40 hour week. Why? Most icu nurses make close to $100k these days. A few I know make $120k with some overtime. There comes a breaking point here folks.

People always forgot onethi
i am going to call out blade and his tactics. look your tactics are not working and are only causing confusion. why dont you post about how you have been meeting with state or your national representatives and have spent hours on the phone pleading the case of anesthesiologists. how you are extensively intertwined in the asa and your state anesthesia society and have been diligently working with them and formulating a plan of attack. would you do that instead of these continual doomsday posts? these doomsday posts are counterproductive and annoying. i think you like the sound of your voice, like a barking chihuahua that you just want to tell to shut the f up. put you energy into pushing people on here to get involved in the asa political division, in their state anesthesia society and donate money and time to the cause. if your not doing that and reporting back to us, shut the h up, i for one am not interested in your conjecture and theories on how to better our field. i appreciate action not talk. everyone on here needs to take ACTION


Possibly very valid, although we dont know what his involvement is politically. He might be very active. Also, his posts may insipre others to take political action. But otherwise very good points, we should all do a better job of getting involved, donating to our PACs etc.
 
Finishing a six year program only to have to sit for 4 certification exams (plus likely a TEE exam) sounds like a disaster. That plan needs more work Blade.
 
Easier plan. A- Keep track of how frequently you have to help crnas. B- Publish not very scientific study of inferiority of crna care that is at least as well designed as a nursing propaganda piece. C- hand study to congressional staffers and the AARP.
 
Don't count on it. Lots of training programs have skimped on education and training of residents in the name of economy in recent years.
I grant you that most recent grads on average are far more current in the literature than their "old guys", but that ain't the same as being better trained.

You are free to say that, so long as we both aknowledge that you have a very subjective and unsubstantiated claim. In today's residency programs, the ACGME actually mandates criterion for case minimums in all spectrums of anesthesia and dedicated time for didactics. Not only that, but more and more tests, in-training exams, and board certfications are required than ever before. Right now, they are implenting an exam starting for this year's CA-1s to take a "mid-residency" certification to advance. I don't agree with what a lot of the ACGME does, but we are a long ways away from a 3 year residency without any formal way to document and police proper caseload training. So please, let's not play this "my generation is the best generation" game.
 
Finishing a six year program only to have to sit for 4 certification exams (plus likely a TEE exam) sounds like a disaster. That plan needs more work Blade.


Currently, anesthesiology is 4 years long. In Canada the training is 5 years. Are we inferior to Canadians? Why Shouldn't we incorporate a fellowship year plus Critical Care into a 5 year program? Even if we stay with the current 4 year time frame by re-working the PGY-1 every Resident could be Critical Care Board Eligible after 4 years.

The weaker programs need to close to decrease positions so every resident gets the Critical Care Training plus Subspecialty training in one place.
 
IMO, adding more years would be the death of our field as we know it. Avoiding 5-6 year residencies is why many residents go into anesthesiology. You would see a catastrophic drop off in the number of applicants and thus graduates, opening the market to alternative anesthesia personnel.

I love anesthesiology, but if you told me 5-6 years with a year of critical care in medical school, I would have bolted to another field.

There is no future in stool sitting slim. The future lies in supervising a midlevel provider while you do Perioperative medicine. Don't like it? Choose another field. Employers won't want overpriced stool sitters for much longer so Residents need to prepare for their future.

I truly hope the all "MD" groups can hold out for another 10 years but that primarily depends on the hospital subsidy situation at the local level.
 
There is no future in stool sitting slim. The future lies in supervising a midlevel provider while you do Perioperative medicine. Don't like it? Choose another field. Employers won't want overpriced stool sitters for much longer so Residents need to prepare for their future.

I truly hope the all "MD" groups can hold out for another 10 years but that primarily depends on the hospital subsidy situation at the local level.

I have too much respect for what I do to than to call anesthesiologists "stool sitters". Just like I wouldn't call an anesthesiologist involved in supervising a "coffee drinker". Have you considered that you may be part of the problem and not the solution?
 
I have too much respect for what I do to than to call anesthesiologists "stool sitters". Just like I wouldn't call an anesthesiologist involved in supervising a "coffee drinker". Have you considered that you may be part of the problem and not the solution?

You are entitled to your opinion. The fact remains AMCs and Hospitals want cost-effective, safe anesthesia care which CRNAs provide every day under supervision/medical direction. Hence, an AMC or employer is likely to cut costs by going with as many midlevel providers as they can get away with. So, your real issue is with the AMC/Employee model which 80% of residents will face in 2019. This means "all MD" isn't a likely scenario for the future
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nurse Anesthesia • Safe Anesthesia
YvbJLeDOo1qeqBjQdxNizBZuNmCkWV8FuadJ5LODoKMCzbUL2-WPqc5PF15nPlKLe0gDQW2GHnglCH_ZglVP1x13sg=s0-d-e1-ft

Which ones are the
anesthesiologists and
which are the nurse
anesthetists?

CAN'T TELL?
It's just as hard to tell the difference between their anesthesia education, the way they administer anesthesia, and their safety records.
Rpv45_djEVwGazRBhukAgnhRy0gFYLUWxBxA1HnN1F08WcH6UsoFXyLRO-OEAIw7dvrmwJGL_GfalTZ47BFgXHdLtDy2=s0-d-e1-ft
 
You are entitled to your opinion. The fact remains AMCs and Hospitals want cost-effective, safe anesthesia care which CRNAs provide every day under supervision/medical direction. Hence, an AMC or employer is likely to cut costs by going with as many midlevel providers as they can get away with. So, your real issue is with the AMC/Employee model which 80% of residents will face in 2019. This means "all MD" isn't a likely scenario for the future

The notion that cRNAs are cheaper providers is propaganda and has been shown as such in multiple studies.
 
The notion that cRNAs are cheaper providers is propaganda and has been shown as such in multiple studies.

No **** but it's propaganda that the administrators believe. Have quadruple board cert? Guess what. Those AANA adds will be the same and they will STILL argue that we are over educated and unnecessary.

Personally, I just don't feel like two extra years of being a slave to some academic attending with a personality disorder is useful. There will be more ASA 4s. Big f'ing deal! If that scares you after a full anesthesia residency then you went to the wrong program to begin with.

And I'm sorry but when you start comparing things to Canada or Europe you just have to ask yourself how strong your argument is.

I agree with less stool sitting. But two more years of academic slave work will NOT make anyone better prepared to supervise 8 rooms.
 
You post is based on current reimbursement methods and not the future ACO model. Think about the cross-coverage the Dual/Triple Boarded Anesthesiologists can offer the CEO. Instead of hiring 6 full time ICU docs the CEO hires 3 and has the Anesthesiologists cross cover at night. Second, the CRNAs still need supervision by an Anesthesiologist if the acuity is high. While CRNAs can handle surgi center level cases they are ill-equipped for the high acuity ASA 4 case in the O.R.
Third, Advanced subspecialty certification in Cardiac or Peds helps deal with the problems CRNAs can't or won't handle alone.

As for outcome data the hospital will quickly find out that utilizing a second tier provider comes at a price. Any money saved will quickly vanish secondary to more lawsuits and lost cases from unhappy surgeons. The cheaper option isn't always cheaper and my life experiences bear that statement out as true.

This thread is about changing Residency training to offer the new graduate enhanced Board Certifications without increasing the length of training by much time.
For those who can't understand the concept of "more bang for your buck" simply ignore the thread. If Residency programs can't offer the type of training a Med Student needs for a first rate experience in all areas they should reduce the size of the program or close it altogether.
Also, I'm sure you've dealt with administration enough to know that they don't think in terms of future costs like potential future lawsuits. They think in terms of the current budget year and how something will look in a PowerPoint presentation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Also, I'm sure you've dealt with administration enough to know that they don't think in terms of future costs like potential future lawsuits. They think in terms of the current budget year and how something will look in a PowerPoint presentation.


Yes. The administration cares about money $$$ and surgeons' complaints. A multi boarded Anesthesiologist can save money by reducing consults and Perioperative complications while maintaining high surgical satisfaction among the staff.

Why do you keep saying my proposal is for 6 years when I have outlined both a 5 year and 6 year residency? Is the possibility of being triple boarded not worth 5 years of training?

Doctors like Step213 would be the direct beneficiaries of changing the residency. Anesthesiology needs to pull itself up as a specialty for long term survival. The fact that a few Anesthesiologists want to maintain the status quo is par for the course. Change isn't easy but sometimes it is necessary for continued success.

We can't win the game against the AANA without changing the rules of the game. While I agree with holding the line against their propaganda based Organization for as long as possible the specialty needs a long term plan. A viable option for the future must involve more than doing simple cases in the O.R. I believe my proposal for the new Perioperative physician is the way we change the rules of the game.

I hope the new generation of Anesthesiologists like step213 continue to push the specialty in that direction
 
Last edited:
So rather than fight CRNAs over the fact that anesthesiologists are more qualified and better trained than them, we're supposed to just throw in the towel and say we need a few more years of training? All to satisfy some hospital administrator?

Doesn't make much sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Here's a question for all of you:

Why in the hell do we allow "nurse managers" and "nurse VP, CEO, etc" to even exist? Those who have management experience should be the ones holding these positions. Heck, allow a doctor to hold these positions (but, then one may argue conflict of interest....) then where's the argument for such against these nurses??

I, for one, am tired of psychotic attendings who cry and bitch over every little thing a resident does that isn't exactly what they ****ing do, and then make a giant stink about it. Not only do we residents have to deal with surgeons, every type of perioperative nurse, attendings (half of which, as YGP noted, have some sort of personality disorder), etc. but we are easy prey to getting bitched about constantly - especially if you have an off day with such an attending. The best thing is that these attendings laser beam on outta the OR to gossip or drink coffee or bs around with a CRNA or PACU RN or a secretary, rather than teaching something new. Some do, but some don't. It's funny that the ones who don't teach are the ones who have the personality disorders and are the biggest complainers. If I knew of all the shenanigans beforehand, I'd probably considered a different specialty. Quite frankly, I'm ready to be done with it. I love the specialty but, it's not worth me spending an extra year to gain certification in 2-3 extra subspecialties (including TEE) just to end up having to take 3 board exams (and PAYING for them) when I'm done. Then every 10 years I have to recert in all 3 plus the TEE recert. Kidding me??

I probably could take the exams and do ok on them. However, who is gonna fund me and every other broke resident to take all these exams?? It's easy to say it when you're no longer a part of the process. You have made your money. You are pretty much just making whatever on top to pad all you've made and saved.

It's like those conspiracy theorists who believe the Feds are plundering and saving the economy and then taking on the savior role to the public, expecting the public to do whatever they request, because it's in their best interest. Our past has plundered our future, and now we're to engage ourselves in further training to distinguish ourselves to the Nurse/MBA CEOs of hospitals to show our value with the upcoming ACO. Wonderful. Good thing I'll be done before this comes to fruition.

How about this Blade, and you know I like you - I actually agree with a lot of what you say - but this is going overboard. It's a good thing I'm looking to escape anesthesiology altogether. I wouldn't mind moonlighting in a surgicenter if I'm able, if I'm able to do my own cases. If I have to supervise, then I'll look for a gig where I supervise a few rooms. There's small centers out there. No big deal. I don't want to live in an over-saturated city or work in one. I like small towns and don't mind rural if it funds my F-U account. I'll take my ESCAPE cabin and my 100 acres and call it the day, explore the world and enjoy my life. I only have one life. I don't owe anyone anything, except those who helped me be where I am today. I'm not perfect, far from it, and I've certainly made my fair share of mistakes in life - but I've grown from them - so that is not to say I'm perfect and my word is gospel, but what you're saying shouldn't be made gospel either.

Heck, I get emails all the time of ASA 1-3 caseloads doing no chest cases (hearts, thoracic) all the time while taking q4 call supervising 3-4 CRNAs while having 8 weeks vacation all the time and making > 300K, and I'm not even done yet. Those gigs exist. No, not all of them are AMC-based, either. Some are partnership based and others aren't. Quite frankly, even if I make 350K with no partnership possibilities, at this point I'll be just fine with it, because I aim to find a job that I'll like. Anything is better than this thing called residency.

It's about being a major voice to the hospital administration. You have to show them you're not just a face. You can be triple boarded but if you don't have people skills and you're a push-over then it won't matter. The nurses are a loud bunch. If they have to stay late with a patient in the PACU, they're up in arms contacting heads of surgery and administration, anesthesia, etc. Anesthesiologists? They're more likely to lay back and not say anything. Half the time, they can't even get the SICU to admit a hemodynamically tenuous patient and instead we have to keep them longer in the PACU and then turf to a intermediate-step down unit where nurses are often times overseeing multiple tenuous patients at once. That's not good care. These patients then inevitably end up in the ICU due to further decompensation when a night float intern isn't able to properly care for these semi-critical patients and nurses are too busy shooting the **** or sleeping at nights. This stuff happens, folks. It's all about stepping up, being calm at all times, and not making an ass of yourselves clowning around the hallways or the cafeteria or office/lounge with all that free time y'all got with all those coffee breaks or monitoring stock options and then crying the sky is falling because nobody sees your worth. It's about making a push to ensure everyone understands your worth and what you can bring to the table. Nobody cares if you are IM, anesthesia, pedi/pain/cardiac, ICU boarded --- what are you gonna do with that?? Admit surgical patients? The surgeons would never allow that. So, what, help out the hospitalists and admit some of those medicine admissions?? Don't worry you won't be reimbursed extra for that with the bundled-payment plan because you're still anesthesia. Take care of patients in the OR and then round on these patients in the ICU? What's the point of a closed unit where patients are being overseen by an ICU attending? Cardiac? Are you gonna oversee CVICU patients?? Good luck with that - the cardiac NPs and surgeons will never allow that to occur. Let's say one does pain -- is one even going to ever use a lot of that extra training? This only potentially benefits those who want to do ICU after residency. The IM (or lack of it) and combination of anesthesia/cardiac/CCM/TEE certification (which, I imagine, would be the ideal goal if you're gonna go biggest bang for the buck) would likely benefit those who want to do CCM. Then again, where's the potential job market? IM and surgery have that market cornered - you can do academics or be lucky and find a gig like seinfeld, but it ain't easy. There's a thing called diminishing returns.

Like I mentioned before, there are combined CCM/cardiac trained anesthesiologists out there. I know of them. They were told when taking a job - choose cardiac OR ICU. Can't do both. So what was the point of doing CCM (or Cardiac) now? If you have no debt, great, pop off however many number of years you want because you'll be in your low-to-mid 30s being paid with no debt to pay back, go for it. Most of us aren't MD/PhDs, however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Speaking of which, others might already know about this one, but I only recently saw this post from a nurse who went to med school, became a doctor, and now is an anesthesiologist at BIDM:
With me so far? So to be able to take care of patients you really need practical experience, an apprenticeship, an internship, a residency, or some kind of structured training. You need to see and treat a whole bunch of people. You need to know your anatomy and physiology and disease processes etc. but you probably don’t need to know where the nucleus ceruleus is. Who knows anatomy and physiology? Any motivated college student might. Doctors do. Nurses do. So if I can take a nurse, who has a college degree and maybe a masters and knows her anatomy and physiology, and give her a residency, how is her ability to diagnose and treat any less valid than the doctors?
And this is how we get those wonderful midlevels that don't give pain meds to the splinting post-op patient because "the O2 saturation is low". (How about the O2 sat is low because the friggin' patient is in pain?) "Knowing" anatomy and physiology is far away from actually understanding disease processes in detail.

I am not drinking the Koolaid, but I think the quote says more about her knowledge level than about physician extenders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Speaking of which, others might already know about this one, but I only recently saw this post from a nurse who went to med school, became a doctor, and now is an anesthesiologist at BIDM:



She also says:

Voila. This from a nurse turned anesthesiologist.... at... wait for it.... a Harvard program, BIDMC.

If you have doctors saying a nurse just needs more bedside training, or clinical experience, to be as good as them - then no matter how many years one tacks on to training, it doesn't matter a single bit. They win, we lose.

Not to say I believe this, because I don't, but it goes hand in hand with my post above -- jackass physicians who throw their whole profession under the bus and don't bother helping the future have a thriving career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I should say I'm not vouching for her claims. I don't know enough either way since I'm no anesthesiologist. But the fact is she represents at least some people's thinking in all this. Whether we agree or disagree, the perception is out there, at least among some people. And one of the problems in all this is these sorts of (true or false or mixed) perceptions. Or so it seems to me.

The perception is certainly out there. Especially when it comes to surgeons, nurses, hospital management, CEOs, etc.... and apparently some physicians. When your own throws their own under the bus, there's no recovering from that. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top