MD employs CRNA - MD gets in major trouble when the gas goes wrong...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It's very convenient... yearly checkup. closer to home.
Case settled for $1,775,000
CRNA contributed $975,000
Surgeon (insured) contributed $800,000.

morale of the story: don't hire idiots to be on your team


So, how well can you know about the full skill and abilities and competencies about a practitioner if you are in another specialty and you know that these CRNAS have not even had the fundamental medical and residency core-training that you have had--those physicians that are NOT anesthesiologists, let alone the PGM training BC anesthesiologists have had?

Bottom line, these are cost-cutting set-ups that put patients at risk. Americans have become used to a higher standard of care, and now, due to insurance cuts and people wanting to cut overhead for profit, people are put at risk. B/c, even if the CRNA was the incompetent agent that he was, in the more expensive hospital setting, there would have been back-up from BC anesthesiologist/s. Honestly, I'd be scared to have procedures completed in such shops. Are anesthesiologists speaking for the competence of these CRNAs by appropriate standards and firsthand knowledge? What is the depth and breadth of that knowledge and how is it comprehensively authenticated in terms of the highest quality standards?
 
,

Overall, there seems to be too much energy devoted on these forums to worrying about ancillary providers. They are not going to be your problem in practice. When you get into practice, you will succeed based on your own skills and abilities. The nurse practitioners, midwives, PAs, homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropracters, and faith healers will not be your real competition. Don't worry about them. You don't want patients who will go to them anyway.

Also, in most cases, it's DOCTORS who hire the lower paid ancillary providers, to increase their own income, and not have to share it with a partner.

For those of us in Private practice, not insulated by the hospital, it's the wild west and competitive. Patients don't have any idea what's what. Just yesterday, I was asked by a patient if psychiatrists go to medical school. While board certification is the norm for psychiatrists, besides the obvious difference in educations THAT WE KNOW, board certification is rare in psychology. Psychologists are getting prescribing rights in 3 states, and they are direct competitors.
In Louisiana, urgent care centers are owned and staffed by nurses, vs PA's, vs physicians. The general public does not care. It's everywhere. It's all about cutting costs for patients and offering extended hours.
 
Last edited:
While there may be some very competent CRNAs, they are not physicians and should not be treated as such. If one wants to be a physician, no problem, go to med school.

While there are competent CRNAs who are very good at their job, as a patient, there is no way to know which ones they are. CRNAs don't take the MCAT, go to med school, take step 1, step 2, step 3, go to resdiency etc. So there is no way to know what you are getting. This is your life that you are playing russian rullet with.

Personally, I don't want an independent CRNA anywhere near my family and I during any surgery. I want an anesthesiologist who has not cut corners to provide anesthesia. When asked, most of America feels the way that I do.

It is the CRNA and nursing lobby who is calling them equivalent to physicians.
Even on this thread, some people are referring to the hoops we jump.
They aren't hoops. They are education, depth and breadth of knowledge.
The nursing and midlevel lobbies minimize our educations to inflate theirs in the eyes of the public.
Us docs are too busy seeing patients, dodging lawsuits, meeting press gainey, doing MOC to argue.
 
So, how well can you know about the full skill and abilities and competencies about a practitioner if you are in another specialty and you know that these CRNAS have not even had the fundamental medical and residency core-training that you have had--those physicians that are NOT anesthesiologists, let alone the PGM training BC anesthesiologists have had?

Bottom line, these are cost-cutting set-ups that put patients at risk. Americans have become used to a higher standard of care, and now, due to insurance cuts and people wanting to cut overhead for profit, people are put at risk. B/c, even if the CRNA was the incompetent agent that he was, in the more expensive hospital setting, there would have been back-up from BC anesthesiologist/s. Honestly, I'd be scared to have procedures completed in such shops. Are anesthesiologists speaking for the competence of these CRNAs by appropriate standards and firsthand knowledge? What is the depth and breadth of that knowledge and how is it comprehensively authenticated in terms of the highest quality standards?

in this case I think the ophthalmologist should have picked a better team.
Did he know that the CRNA hasn't intubated someone in 5 years?
did he have exp in urgent care?
what was his resume like? etc etc

maybe hire someone who knows ACLS and intubation?
 
in this case I think the ophthalmologist should have picked a better team.
Did he know that the CRNA hasn't intubated someone in 5 years?
did he have exp in urgent care?
what was his resume like? etc etc

maybe hire someone who knows ACLS and intubation?

Doesn't matter if the provider is arrogant enough to physically fight with the paramedic.
Can you imagine if a physician did this?
 
Sad case. Part of it is that this was an incompetent CRNA. Who does anesthesia but is unable to intubate a patient on command? 5 years between intubations seems excessive.

Ideally, CRNAs have a MD Anesthesiologist on back-up at all times during these procedures. The issue is the cost to the outpatient surgery center. They have to decide whether the costs saved are worth the lawsuits that will occur from time to time due to these issues, and whether patients are still willing to go to these procedure centers.
 
Are surgeons ultimately responsible when using CRNAs as anesthesia providers? If so, that is scary! Now I understand why that spine surgeon where I worked never wanted to use CRNAs... I thought the guy was an dingus; I guess he was protecting himself.
 
Are surgeons ultimately responsible when using CRNAs as anesthesia providers? If so, that is scary! Now I understand why that spine surgeon where I worked never wanted to use CRNAs... I thought the guy was an dingus; I guess he was protecting himself.

Yes, in states where CRNAs are not allowed to practice independently (33 of the 50 states), the MD in the room whether it be a surgeon pr anesthesiologist is responsible for the actions of the CRNA. Even in states where they are allowed to practice independently, the MD in the room will likely be named in the law suit because lawyers will always go after the deepest pockets and nurses will always claim that they are "just a nurse" when **** hits the fan.
 
Sad case. Part of it is that this was an incompetent CRNA. Who does anesthesia but is unable to intubate a patient on command? 5 years between intubations seems excessive.

Ideally, CRNAs have a MD Anesthesiologist on back-up at all times during these procedures. The issue is the cost to the outpatient surgery center. They have to decide whether the costs saved are worth the lawsuits that will occur from time to time due to these issues, and whether patients are still willing to go to these procedure centers.

The point here is not that the CRNA was an incompetent CRNA. The point is that ALL CRNAs are incompetent when compared to an MD. When **** hits the fan, the MD is responsible and if no anesthesiologist is present, that means the surgeon.
 
The point here is not that the CRNA was an incompetent CRNA. The point is that ALL CRNAs are incompetent when compared to an MD. When **** hits the fan, the MD is responsible and if no anesthesiologist is present, that means the surgeon.

I understand that's what every MDA believes. I'm not saying that I disagree, but that I don't believe that this CRNA is the norm for all CRNAs out there. Not intubating in over 5 years? Maybe my world view is tiny, but how many CRNAs can state the same?
 
I understand that's what every MDA believes. I'm not saying that I disagree, but that I don't believe that this CRNA is the norm for all CRNAs out there. Not intubating in over 5 years? Maybe my world view is tiny, but how many CRNAs can state the same?

First off, what the hell is an MDA? I haven't heard of that degree. I know there is an MBA but I'm pretty sure you go to business school for that one and don't provide anesthesia.

Second, I don't believe this is the norm for all CRNAs either. I agree with this. But again, this is not the point. Not every CRNA is a terrible provider and many are sufficient for uncomplicated cases when **** has not hit the fan. The problem is, you never know when things are going to go wrong even for the most straight forward cases in the healthiest patients. When things go very wrong and you or your family are the ones on the table in a life or death situation, you sure as hell do not want a CRNA making the critical minute to minute decisions.
 
Last edited:
Case settled for $1,775,000
CRNA contributed $975,000
Surgeon (insured) contributed $800,000.

morale of the story: don't hire idiots to be on your team
Pardon my ignorance, but where did the CRNA get a million dollars from?!
 
I understand that's what every MDA believes. I'm not saying that I disagree, but that I don't believe that this CRNA is the norm for all CRNAs out there. Not intubating in over 5 years? Maybe my world view is tiny, but how many CRNAs can state the same?

You should be embarrased to even say MDA. Are surgeons referred to as MDS or something? Why use a bastardization invented by nurses in an attempt to blur the lines between doctors and nurses?
 
You should be embarrased to even say MDA. Are surgeons referred to as MDS or something? Why use a bastardization invented by nurses in an attempt to blur the lines between doctors and nurses?

WTF, lol? MDA is used by multiple attendings on the Anesthesia forum on SDN. Hell, one of the most vocal Anesthesiology attendings on that forum is a guy named BLADEMDA. Multiple threads in that forum talk about how MDAs > CRNAs. It's not some CRNA-formed phrase (at least as far as I know) to belittle Anesthesiologists. It's just shorter to type 'MDA' than 'Anesthesiologists'.

Where is this outrage coming from? Why the accusation that this is some 'bastardization invented by nurse'? Give me a reference or calm the hell down.
An odd amount of vitriol from a normally reasonable SDN regular.

First off, what the hell is an MDA? I haven't heard of that degree. I know there is an MBA but I'm pretty sure you go to business school for that one and don't provide anesthesia.

Second, I don't believe this is the norm for all CRNAs either. I agree with this. But again, this is not the point. Not every CRNA is a terrible provider and many are sufficient for uncomplicated cases when **** has not hit the fan. The problem is, you never know when things are going to go wrong even for the most straight forward cases in the healthiest patients. When things go very wrong and you or your family are the ones on the table in a life or death situation, you sure as hell do not want a CRNA making the critical minute to minute decisions.

Look above for your first paragraph.

As to your second paragraph, I personally agree with everything you are saying. I am just saying that THIS case is NOT the prime example of supporting that argument.

I would say the same thing if this was a gas attending (is that better? Or am I forced to type out Anesthesiologist every ****ing time I reference someone with an MD who administers anesthesia?) who hadn't intubated anybody in 5 years who took a job that involved possibly intubating someone (excluding pain management and other anesthesia-trained attendings who aren't in the OR anymore).
 
WTF, lol? MDA is used by multiple attendings on the Anesthesia forum on SDN. Hell, one of the most vocal Anesthesiology attendings on that forum is a guy named BLADEMDA. Multiple threads in that forum talk about how MDAs > CRNAs. It's not some CRNA-formed phrase (at least as far as I know) to belittle Anesthesiologists. It's just shorter to type 'MDA' than 'Anesthesiologists'.

Where is this outrage coming from? Why the accusation that this is some 'bastardization invented by nurse'? Give me a reference or calm the hell down.
An odd amount of vitriol from a normally reasonable SDN regular.



Look above for your first paragraph.

As to your second paragraph, I personally agree with everything you are saying. I am just saying that THIS case is NOT the prime example of supporting that argument.

I would say the same thing if this was a gas attending (is that better? Or am I forced to type out Anesthesiologist every ******* time I reference someone with an MD who administers anesthesia?) who hadn't intubated anybody in 5 years who took a job that involved possibly intubating someone (excluding pain management and other anesthesia-trained attendings who aren't in the OR anymore).

MD is fine, as that is in fact what anesthesiologists are 😉
 
MD is fine, as that is in fact what anesthesiologists are 😉

You serious? What if I'm differentiating between various MDs? I can call a Gastroenterologist GI, a Hematologist-Oncologist heme-onc, a Cardiologist cards'. What is the appropriate short form for Anesthesiologists on an online forum like this? It's not like I'm going into an OR and referencing to an attending as a MDA.
 
You serious? What if I'm differentiating between various MDs? I can call a Gastroenterologist GI, a Hematologist-Oncologist heme-onc, a Cardiologist cards'. What is the appropriate short form for Anesthesiologists on an online forum like this? It's not like I'm going into an OR and referencing to an attending as a MDA.

Gas doc is also acceptable.
 
WTF, lol? MDA is used by multiple attendings on the Anesthesia forum on SDN. Hell, one of the most vocal Anesthesiology attendings on that forum is a guy named BLADEMDA. Multiple threads in that forum talk about how MDAs > CRNAs. It's not some CRNA-formed phrase (at least as far as I know) to belittle Anesthesiologists. It's just shorter to type 'MDA' than 'Anesthesiologists'.

A bunch do it facetiously. And quite a few posters who are attendings have voiced their disdain for the initialism in that forum.
 
Gas doc is also acceptable.

Fine, whatever.

A bunch do it facetiously. And quite a few posters who are attendings have voiced their disdain for the initialism in that forum.

Part of me is curious about the hatred, but most of me honestly couldn't care less. Fine, 'gas' from now on is how I will refer to Anesthesiologists on this forum. Seems dumb and extremely non-specific, but you people can decide what you want to be called.
 
Fine, whatever.



Part of me is curious about the hatred, but most of me honestly couldn't care less. Fine, 'gas' from now on is how I will refer to Anesthesiologists on this forum. Seems dumb and extremely non-specific, but you people can decide what you want to be called.
Have you decided what specialty you will try to get into?
 
Fine, whatever.



Part of me is curious about the hatred, but most of me honestly couldn't care less. Fine, 'gas' from now on is how I will refer to Anesthesiologists on this forum. Seems dumb and extremely non-specific, but you people can decide what you want to be called.

They're a sensitive bunch, here.
 
Fine, whatever.



Part of me is curious about the hatred, but most of me honestly couldn't care less. Fine, 'gas' from now on is how I will refer to Anesthesiologists on this forum. Seems dumb and extremely non-specific, but you people can decide what you want to be called.

There is no hatred. Simply, MDA is a term used by militant CRNAs to devalue physician anesthesiologists and confuse the public making it seem like MDA and CRNA are some form of equivalent degrees for anesthesia providers. Hence why it is a disrespectful way to refer to anesthesiologists and many tend to cringe when they hear or read the term. Anesthesiologists have an MD which they have earned just like every other physician.
 
Fine, whatever.



Part of me is curious about the hatred, but most of me honestly couldn't care less. Fine, 'gas' from now on is how I will refer to Anesthesiologists on this forum. Seems dumb and extremely non-specific, but you people can decide what you want to be called.

I also don't think it's a huge deal. Just wanted to let you know as I see how you could easily pick that up from that forum.
 
Fine, whatever.



Part of me is curious about the hatred, but most of me honestly couldn't care less. Fine, 'gas' from now on is how I will refer to Anesthesiologists on this forum. Seems dumb and extremely non-specific, but you people can decide what you want to be called.

Take a look at allnurses.com. They use the term mda to make it look like crna. This is an attempt to pretend that nursing training and physician training is the same. They are not. It's the same thing when people say "provider" when talking about doctors, nps and pas when the three are not equivalent. Are you attending medical school to be treated as interchangeable with a nurse when you went through much more in school and have a much greater fount of knowledge? Also MDA leaves out DOs by default. It's lazy and obnoxious as it was intended to be.
 
This group that prefers and uses "Gas" would like us to know that "MDA" does not do enough to encapsulate thier degree, training, nor seperate them from the CRNAs. Classic.
 
in this case I think the ophthalmologist should have picked a better team.
Did he know that the CRNA hasn't intubated someone in 5 years?
did he have exp in urgent care?
what was his resume like? etc etc

maybe hire someone who knows ACLS and intubation?

Unquestionably correct, and I previously acknowledged that fact. It still doesn't change the overriding issues whereby those in mid-level practice are seeking, in reality, equivalence with physicians, without the same length and quality of training and vetting, in general. It doesn't change the fact that the ophthalmologist was pulled into the legal pit. And as I have stated from the outset, that is unlikely to change so long as physicians either choose or are forced to work under the mid-level, independence model--b/c OVERALL, council will pull anyone with, again, big enough pockets into the suit.

Its a false belief to pretend that when the crap hits the fan during a procedure or whatever, the midlevel, with her/his licensure as an independent practitioner, will take full responsibility or be given the expectation of full accountability-even as it was where the physician performing the procedure was included in the "hit." He ways sued even thouh he is not certified in anesthesiology--but he is a licensed physician--doctor of medicine and the other provider is not.

I am somehow failing to make it clear that the physician working directly with a midlevel provider (I'm not changing that term, b/c it is what it is, sorry if that bothers someone.) will still be held to a higher standard of practice, b/c of her/his education, licensure, etc--the expectation of leadership and control in application of medicine is higher for a physician than a midlevel or less. So, it's a no win deal. When something goes wrong outside of the less tightly controlled, non-hospital setting, who will be ultimately accountable or at least be included in the accountability? It's kind of a minefield then for physicians to work with mid-levels away from a controlled hospital setting and w/o BC anesthesiology or appropriate specialty- physician support and back-up.

For Pete's sake, the patient and staff are already at a disadvantage, being away from the back-up and support of a hospital setting--where there are more people and experts to help when the crap hits the fan.

We are so spoiled in this country with the abundance of "routine" procedures, that we forget how quickly it is that patients can start swirling the bowl. People don't really get that whether it is scientifically derived or not, Murphy's Law happens.

:cigar:
The following article was excerpted from The Desert Wings
March 3, 1978

[Murphy's Law ("If anything can go wrong, it will") was born at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949 at North Base.

It was named after Capt. Edward A. Murphy, an engineer working on Air Force Project MX981, (a project) designed to see how much sudden deceleration a person can stand in a crash.

One day, after finding that a transducer was wired wrong, he cursed the technician responsible and said, "If there is any way to do it wrong, he'll find it."

The contractor's project manager kept a list of "laws" and added this one, which he called Murphy's Law.

Actually, what he did was take an old law that had been around for years in a more basic form and give it a name.

Shortly afterwards, the Air Force doctor (Dr. John Paul Stapp) who rode a sled on the deceleration track to a stop, pulling 40 Gs, gave a press conference. He said that their good safety record on the project was due to a firm belief in Murphy's Law and in the necessity to try and circumvent it.
Aerospace manufacturers picked it up and used it widely in their ads during the next few months, and soon it was being quoted in many news and magazine articles. Murphy's Law was born.

The Northrop project manager, George E. Nichols, had a few laws of his own. Nichols' Fourth Law says, "Avoid any action with an unacceptable outcome."

The doctor, well-known Col. John P. Stapp, had a paradox: Stapp's Ironical Paradox, which says, "The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle."

Nichols is still around. At NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, he's the quality control manager for the Viking project to send an unmanned spacecraft to Mars. ]
http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-true.html
 
Last edited:
Relevance? I'm a MS4 who is in the middle of interview season, so yes?
I am not sure that was relevant, but the majority of people who go thru med school training won't be happy if they turn their specialty into something that can supposely be done in two years after a BSN. In addition, these people are claiming they do an equal or even better job than you...
 
Last edited:
because gas isn't an acronym that can be compared to CRNA, is this really a difficult concept to understand

Oh ok. The vastness of my ignorance in not knowing that Gas wasn't an acronym. 🙄 I'm in your debt.
 
Last edited:
A bunch do it facetiously. And quite a few posters who are attendings have voiced their disdain for the initialism in that forum.
Correct. Most Anesthesiologists don't use that term. Insurance companies might, but that doesn't make it correct. I guarantee you blade doesn't use that term off the forum. You can always PM him. Though he might block PMs as I imagine he generates a lot of CRNA hate.
We don't use "gas" either, and I don't answer to "hey anesthesia".
Though I suppose you could say, "the Gas doc is a freaking genius, he did the NY times crossword in ink while the GI guys scoped away, literally toiling in a pile of stool."
 
Last edited:
Are surgeons ultimately responsible when using CRNAs as anesthesia providers? If so, that is scary! Now I understand why that spine surgeon where I worked never wanted to use CRNAs... I thought the guy was an dingus; I guess he was protecting himself.
Yes we absolutely are responsible which is why I refuse to work with them. I've got enough stuff to do. Your spine surgeon works in a high risk specialty, with a highly litigious patient population; I'm not at all surprised that he refused to work with CRNAs.

It may come as a surprise to others, but you don't always know who is administering the anesthesia in your cases. Smaller hospitals, smaller anesthesia groups or at an academic medical center, you may. But in a larger hospital staffed by a larger group, it may be someone different each time.

I had the experience several years ago with a large anesthesia group asking me if I "minded" if CRNA X was "in the room". Apparently "in the room" meant "administering your anesthesia". I stupidly assumed the former and it was only when half-way through the case I said something to the anesthesiologist only to see that he wasn't in the room and CRNA X was alone up there. Still I naively assumed it was a "one time" thing. Once I realized it was not, I spoke with their scheduler and expressed my dissatisfaction at having a CRNA and requested physician only anesthesia. It has not been a problem since.

But honestly I could see how a surgeon wouldn't know who the anesthesia provider was; someone introduces themself as "Jane Doe, I'm anesthesia" (since physicians don't tend to introduce themselves to each other with Dr"), and perhaps you don't see their name tag, you might very well assume that Doe is a Dr and not a CRNA. I always look carefully now when I meet someone new (although fortunately, I usually use a very small group of physician only anesthesiologists).

Yes, in states where CRNAs are not allowed to practice independently (33 of the 50 states), the MD in the room whether it be a surgeon pr anesthesiologist is responsible for the actions of the CRNA. Even in states where they are allowed to practice independently, the MD in the room will likely be named in the law suit because lawyers will always go after the deepest pockets and nurses will always claim that they are "just a nurse" when **** hits the fan.

Oh so painfully true.

It is worthwhile to note for med students and premeds; YOU will almost always be named in a lawsuit even if you had nothing to do with the problem. Your name is somehow, somewhere associated with the patient? The plaintiff's attorney will see to it that the deepest pockets are named in the suit, and that will be you and the hospital, not the nurse/PT/other midlevel.
 
Yes we absolutely are responsible which is why I refuse to work with them. I've got enough stuff to do. Your spine surgeon works in a high risk specialty, with a highly litigious patient population; I'm not at all surprised that he refused to work with CRNAs.

It may come as a surprise to others, but you don't always know who is administering the anesthesia in your cases. Smaller hospitals, smaller anesthesia groups or at an academic medical center, you may. But in a larger hospital staffed by a larger group, it may be someone different each time.

I had the experience several years ago with a large anesthesia group asking me if I "minded" if CRNA X was "in the room". Apparently "in the room" meant "administering your anesthesia". I stupidly assumed the former and it was only when half-way through the case I said something to the anesthesiologist only to see that he wasn't in the room and CRNA X was alone up there. Still I naively assumed it was a "one time" thing. Once I realized it was not, I spoke with their scheduler and expressed my dissatisfaction at having a CRNA and requested physician only anesthesia. It has not been a problem since.

But honestly I could see how a surgeon wouldn't know who the anesthesia provider was; someone introduces themself as "Jane Doe, I'm anesthesia" (since physicians don't tend to introduce themselves to each other with Dr"), and perhaps you don't see their name tag, you might very well assume that Doe is a Dr and not a CRNA. I always look carefully now when I meet someone new (although fortunately, I usually use a very small group of physician only anesthesiologists).



Oh so painfully true.

It is worthwhile to note for med students and premeds; YOU will almost always be named in a lawsuit even if you had nothing to do with the problem. Your name is somehow, somewhere associated with the patient? The plaintiff's attorney will see to it that the deepest pockets are named in the suit, and that will be you and the hospital, not the nurse/PT/other midlevel.

At Penn State Hershey they use CRNA's.
And if you are named in a suit and you get it dropped, is it still on NPDB? I think it is....
 
At Penn State Hershey they use CRNA's.

That would be something that happened after my residency there. In general, in AMCs with anesthesia residencies you don't see that, but clearly it happens. I am not sure of the politics behind that (although I suspect its part of the same culture there that education is less important than service) but I would be frustrated as a resident to be training in that environment.

And if you are named in a suit and you get it dropped, is it still on NPDB? I think it is....

Nope. I speak from personal experience on this matter.

If you lose the suit or settle, it will appear (and with no option for you to explain why you settled; many will settle even if they don't meet the criteria for malpractice). My malpractice company could not/would not inform me of the disadvantages of settling: besides the obvious (it wasn't malpractice), even if you pay the plaintiff $5 it will be reported on NPDB. My attorney was the one who provided the information and advice that settling is a last resort to avoid a trial in which you will likely lose.

If you are named and it gets "dropped" (or dismissed with prejudice), it will not appear on the NPDB.
 
There is a difference between using CRNAs that are part of an Anesthesia Care Team supervised by an Anesthesiologist and using a CRNA that is independent without the support and back up of an Anesthesiologist.
Also be aware that some places have CRNAs and Anesthesiologists working independently side by side. If something goes wrong there the Anesthesiologists won't be coming to help, they'll be busy working in their own ORs.
 
There is a difference between using CRNAs that are part of an Anesthesia Care Team supervised by an Anesthesiologist and using a CRNA that is independent without the support and back up of an Anesthesiologist.
Also be aware that some places have CRNAs and Anesthesiologists working independently side by side. If something goes wrong there the Anesthesiologists won't be coming to help, they'll be busy working in their own ORs.
But there is no difference to me as the surgeon when I'm named in a lawsuit as somehow being involved or as the supervising physician.

My sense here is that the latter is what is occurring: the CRNAS is "supervised" by someone who is in another room, not the OR lounge.

Regardless, I want a physician administering my anesthesia.
 
You would have to determine how the group is set up. It's hard to argue you are supervising the CRNA when they are being supervised and directed by an anesthesiologist who is covering 2 or 3 other rooms.
MD only practices are a dying breed and will likely disappear completely in a single payer or single fee system where the anesthesia reimbursement will get crushed.
 
But there is no difference to me as the surgeon when I'm named in a lawsuit as somehow being involved or as the supervising physician.

My sense here is that the latter is what is occurring: the CRNAS is "supervised" by someone who is in another room, not the OR lounge.

Regardless, I want a physician administering my anesthesia.

hearing you guys talk about your PP experiences is like dirty talk to me

should make a PP sub forum
 
You would have to determine how the group is set up.

I am fortunate to work in a community where I have a choice between groups with all physicians and a large group that will provide me only physicians upon request. As I've posted here before, there is a hospital close to my office which is staffed with CRNAs. I won't operate there.

It's hard to argue you are supervising the CRNA when they are being supervised and directed by an anesthesiologist who is covering 2 or 3 other rooms.

Forgive my ignorance but how can they be truly supervised if the anesthesiologist is not only not in the room, but is covering 2 or 3 other rooms? I know I'm not alone in just not "getting it". I've had the unfortunate experience is seeing how long it takes to get some action from a CRNA and the OR staff when something went wrong. Patients just don't have that luxury of time.

MD only practices are a dying breed and will likely disappear completely in a single payer or single fee system where the anesthesia reimbursement will get crushed.

I understand and I'm willing to change if and when I have to but right now, I have a choice and I make sure my patients know they are getting the best of care from me and their anesthesiologist.
 
If your patient is in the ICU and self extubates and arrests, is it your fault or will people be looking at the management of the ICU attending that is supervising 20 CC nurses on the floor?
When you are supervising residents and fellows who is responsible for their mistakes?
If the surgical resident botches the closure while you are out dictating and taking to the family and seeing the next patient, is the anesthesiologist responsible because he was the only attending in the room?
The attending physician is responsible for the actions of the people he/she is supervising. That is very different from a CRNA practicing independently. That is where you may be at risk of being the one who should be "supervising" or monitoring the actions of the CRNA.
We will see what the case law has to say as time goes on and this becomes more common.
 
Last edited:
If your patient is in the ICU and self extubates and arrests, is it your fault or will people be looking at the management of the ICU attending that is supervising 20 CC nurses on the floor?

Ultimately it is my responsibility. My patient, my responsibility

When you are supervising residents and fellows who is responsible for their mistakes?

I am, of course. I didn't think that was even an argument.

If the surgical resident botches the closure while you are out dictating and taking to the family and seeing the next patient, is the anesthesiologist responsible because he was the only attending in the room?

Not in my mind, but the courts may see differently, as they have with defining surgeons as supervisors of CRNAs.

The attending physician is responsible for the actions of the people he/she is supervising. That is very different from a CRNA practicing independently. That is where you may be at risk of being the one who should be "supervising" or monitoring the actions of the CRNA.
We will see what the case law has to say as time goes on and this becomes more common.

Yes I understand what you're saying. Fortunately, I work in a state where independent CRNA practice is not yet allowed but the states on all sides of me do so I'm watching closely.

However, I'm looking at it from the point that it doesn't matter whether or not the CRNA is supervised by an anesthesiologist because you can bet that the surgeon will be named in the lawsuit. The surgeon may end up being dropped but not before a significant emotional, financial, professional and time related toll. I'd like to reduce that possibility as much as possible.

And as I've said frequently before, I also see refusing to use CRNAs as a measure of support for my anesthesiologist colleagues; I prefer to work with them and make that preference known. Whether that changes in the future and what the courts decide about supervision remains to be seen.
 
Top