» Articles » PMID: 28685307

Analysis to Establish Differences in Efficiency Metrics Between Operating Room and Non-Operating Room Anesthesia Cases

Overview
Journal J Med Syst
Date 2017 Jul 8
PMID 28685307
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

While a number of studies have examined efficiency metrics in the operating rooms (ORs), there are few studies addressing non-operating room anesthesia (NORA) metrics. The standards established in the realm of OR studies may not apply to ongoing investigations of NORA efficiency. We hypothesize that there are significant differences in these commonly used metrics. Using retrospective data from a single tertiary care hospital in the 2015 calendar year, we measured turnover times, cancellation rates, first case start delays, and scheduling error (actual time minus scheduled time) for the OR and NORA settings. On average, TOTs for NORA cases were approximately 50% shorter than OR cases (16.21 min vs. 37.18 min), but had a larger variation (11.02 min vs. 8.12 min). NORA cases were 64% as likely to be cancelled compared to OR cases. In contrast, NORA cases had an average first case start delay that was two times greater than that of OR cases (24.45 min vs. 10.58 min), along with over double the standard deviation (11.97 min vs. 5.90 min). Case times for NORA settings tended to be overestimated (-4.07 min versus -2.12 min), but showed less variation (8.61 min vs. 17.92 min). In short, there are significant differences in common efficiency metrics between OR and NORA cases. Future studies should elucidate and validate appropriate efficiency benchmarks for the NORA setting.

Citing Articles

Changing Anesthesia Block Allocations Improves Endoscopy Suite Efficiency.

Tsai M, Hall M, Cardinal M, Breidenstein M, Abajian M, Zubarik R J Med Syst. 2019; 44(1):1.

PMID: 31741075 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-019-1451-x.


[Nonoperating room anesthesia].

Kramer J, Malsy M, Sinner B, Graf B Anaesthesist. 2019; 68(9):594-606.

PMID: 31375866 DOI: 10.1007/s00101-019-00633-4.

References
1.
Hamilton W, Parks N . Patient-specific instrumentation does not shorten surgical time: a prospective, randomized trial. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(7):1508-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.029. View

2.
Wachtel R, Dexter F . Review article: review of behavioral operations experimental studies of newsvendor problems for operating room management. Anesth Analg. 2010; 110(6):1698-710. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181dac90a. View

3.
Gabriel R, Wu A, Huang C, Dutton R, Urman R . National incidences and predictors of inefficiencies in perioperative care. J Clin Anesth. 2016; 31:238-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.01.007. View

4.
Epstein R, Dexter F . Influence of supervision ratios by anesthesiologists on first-case starts and critical portions of anesthetics. Anesthesiology. 2012; 116(3):683-91. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318246ec24. View

5.
Gholson J, Shah A, Gao Y, Noiseux N . Morbid Obesity and Congestive Heart Failure Increase Operative Time and Room Time in Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 31(4):771-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.032. View