I wouldn't because working side by side with them you will be expected to supervise them anyway only you will not be immediately available to bail them out and you know nothing about thier patients and do not have a physician/patient relationship. It is really a dumb model for all involved.
Wrong again.*
I've worked in this model in two very different places - the military, and at a rural California hospital.
In terms of hassle, stress, and liability, it is
far preferable to supervision or direction, whether the CRNAs are employed by your group or the hospital.
The worst I can say about it is that sick patients get triaged to the physicians, so the CRNAs get the low hanging fruit and easier days. But it's nice to not be responsible for anything they do. It's 180 degrees in a better direction than supervising/directing where your signature is on the chart somewhere and you're responsible for what another person does when your back is turned.
When things go wrong in their rooms, if you respond, your liability isn't any greater or lesser than if you were responding to a code elsewhere in the hospital. You're not magically bootstrapped into responsibility for the entire case.
And finally ... in arrangements like this, where a surgeon has a CRNA on Monday and an anesthesiologist on Tuesday, they tend to notice and appreciate us.
* Completely independent CRNA practice
is a dumb model, I think we all agree on that. But given the facts that the people have voted, the politicians have legislated, and the CRNAs have independent-ized ... the best outcome for
us is exactly that "side-by-side" model where they do their cases and we do ours. With some aggressive scheduling triage to keep the sentinel events down to a tolerable level, it's the smartest model of the choices left.