Bio

Clinical Focus


  • Mobile Health
  • Anesthesia
  • Anesthesia Information Management Systems
  • Claims Analysis
  • Informed Consent

Academic Appointments


Professional Education


  • Residency:Medical University of South Carolina (06/30/2010) SC
  • Board Certification: Anesthesia, American Board of Anesthesiology (2011)
  • Fellowship:Stanford Medical Center - Anesthesia (07/31/2011) CA
  • Medical Education:Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine (2005) IL
  • Internship:Medical University of South Carolina (06/30/2007) SC

Publications

Journal Articles


  • Game theory: Applications for surgeons and the operating room environment SURGERY McFadden, D. W., Tsai, M., Kadry, B., Souba, W. W. 2012; 152 (5): 915-922

    Abstract

    Game theory is an economic system of strategic behavior, often referred to as the "theory of social situations." Very little has been written in the medical literature about game theory or its applications, yet the practice of surgery and the operating room environment clearly involves multiple social situations with both cooperative and non-cooperative behaviors.A comprehensive review was performed of the medical literature on game theory and its medical applications. Definitive resources on the subject were also examined and applied to surgery and the operating room whenever possible.Applications of game theory and its proposed dilemmas abound in the practicing surgeon's world, especially in the operating room environment.The surgeon with a basic understanding of game theory principles is better prepared for understanding and navigating the complex Operating Room system and optimizing cooperative behaviors for the benefit all stakeholders.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.surg.2012.06.019

    View details for Web of Science ID 000310943900020

    View details for PubMedID 22862903

  • Anesthesia Information Management Systems: Past, Present, and Future of Anesthesia Records MOUNT SINAI JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Kadry, B., Feaster, W. W., Macario, A., Ehrenfeld, J. M. 2012; 79 (1): 154-165

    Abstract

    Documenting a patient's anesthetic in the medical record is quite different from summarizing an office visit, writing a surgical procedure note, or recording other clinical encounters. Some of the biggest differences are the frequent sampling of physiologic data, volume of data, and diversity of data collected. The goal of the anesthesia record is to accurately and comprehensively capture a patient's anesthetic experience in a succinct format. Having ready access to physiologic trends is essential to allowing anesthesiologists to make proper diagnoses and treatment decisions. Although the value provided by anesthesia information management systems and their functions may be different than other electronic health records, the real benefits of an anesthesia information management system depend on having it fully integrated with the other health information technologies. An anesthesia information management system is built around the electronic anesthesia record and incorporates anesthesia-relevant data pulled from disparate systems such as laboratory, billing, imaging, communication, pharmacy, and scheduling. The ability of an anesthesia information management system to collect data automatically enables anesthesiologists to reliably create an accurate record at all times, regardless of other concurrent demands. These systems also have the potential to convert large volumes of data into actionable information for outcomes research and quality-improvement initiatives. Developing a system to validate the data is crucial in conducting outcomes research using large datasets. Technology innovations outside of healthcare, such as multitouch interfaces, near-instant software response times, powerful but simple search capabilities, and intuitive designs, have raised the bar for users' expectations of health information technology.

    View details for DOI 10.1002/msj.21281

    View details for Web of Science ID 000299033500016

    View details for PubMedID 22238048

  • Analysis of 4999 Online Physician Ratings Indicates That Most Patients Give Physicians a Favorable Rating JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH Kadry, B., Chu, L. F., Kadry, B., Gammas, D., Macario, A. 2011; 13 (4)

    Abstract

    Many online physician-rating sites provide patients with information about physicians and allow patients to rate physicians. Understanding what information is available is important given that patients may use this information to choose a physician.The goals of this study were to (1) determine the most frequently visited physician-rating websites with user-generated content, (2) evaluate the available information on these websites, and (3) analyze 4999 individual online ratings of physicians.On October 1, 2010, using Google Trends we identified the 10 most frequently visited online physician-rating sites with user-generated content. We then studied each site to evaluate the available information (eg, board certification, years in practice), the types of rating scales (eg, 1-5, 1-4, 1-100), and dimensions of care (eg, recommend to a friend, waiting room time) used to rate physicians. We analyzed data from 4999 selected physician ratings without identifiers to assess how physicians are rated online.The 10 most commonly visited websites with user-generated content were HealthGrades.com, Vitals.com, Yelp.com, YP.com, RevolutionHealth.com, RateMD.com, Angieslist.com, Checkbook.org, Kudzu.com, and ZocDoc.com. A total of 35 different dimensions of care were rated by patients in the websites, with a median of 4.5 (mean 4.9, SD 2.8, range 1-9) questions per site. Depending on the scale used for each physician-rating website, the average rating was 77 out of 100 for sites using a 100-point scale (SD 11, median 76, range 33-100), 3.84 out of 5 (77%) for sites using a 5-point scale (SD 0.98, median 4, range 1-5), and 3.1 out of 4 (78%) for sites using a 4-point scale (SD 0.72, median 3, range 1-4). The percentage of reviews rated ?75 on a 100-point scale was 61.5% (246/400), ?4 on a 5-point scale was 57.74% (2078/3599), and ?3 on a 4-point scale was 74.0% (740/1000). The patient's single overall rating of the physician correlated with the other dimensions of care that were rated by patients for the same physician (Pearson correlation, r = .73, P < .001).Most patients give physicians a favorable rating on online physician-rating sites. A single overall rating to evaluate physicians may be sufficient to assess a patient's opinion of the physician. The optimal content and rating method that is useful to patients when visiting online physician-rating sites deserves further study. Conducting a qualitative analysis to compare the quantitative ratings would help validate the rating instruments used to evaluate physicians.

    View details for DOI 10.2196/jmir.1960

    View details for Web of Science ID 000299313300040

    View details for PubMedID 22088924

  • Challenges that limit meaningful use of health information technology CURRENT OPINION IN ANESTHESIOLOGY Kadry, B., Sanderson, I. C., Macario, A. 2010; 23 (2): 184-192

    Abstract

    Health information technology (HIT) is perceived as an essential component for addressing inefficiencies in healthcare. Without understanding the challenges that limit meaningful use of HIT, there is a high chance that institutions will convert complex paper-based systems to expensive digital chaos.Clinical information systems do not communicate with each other automatically because integration of existing data standards is lacking. Data standards for medical specialties need further development. Database architectures are often designed to support single clinical applications and are not easily modified to meet the enterprise-wide needs desired by all end-users. Despite the improvements in charge capture and better access to health information the realized savings and impact on patient throughput is not enough to cover the cost of the technology, maintenance, and support. HIT is necessary for improved quality of care but it increases the cost of doing business. Poor user interface and system design hinders clinical workflow and can result in wasted time, poor data collection, misleading data analysis, and potentially negative clinical outcomes. Healthcare organizations have little recourse if a vendor fails to deliver as intended once the vendor's system becomes embedded into the organization. Decisions on technology acquisitions and implementations are often made by individuals or groups that lack clinical informatics expertise.Government incentives to increase HIT will likely result in a more computerized clinical environment. Understanding the challenges can help avoid costly mistakes. The future looks promising but caution is warranted, as achievement of full benefits of HIT requires addressing significant challenges.

    View details for DOI 10.1097/ACO.0b013e328336ea0e

    View details for Web of Science ID 000275817300011

    View details for PubMedID 20084001

Stanford Medicine Resources: