The cost of operating room delays in an endourology center.
Journal
Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
ISSN: 1911-6470
Titre abrégé: Can Urol Assoc J
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101312644
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
04
02
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
6
2
2020
entrez:
5
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study sought to characterize delays and estimate resulting costs during nephrolithiasis surgery. Independent observers documented delays during ureteroscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) procedures. Fifty index cases over a period of three months was considered sufficient to observe the generalizable trends. Operating room staff, excluding the surgeons, were blinded. Time-related metrics and delays preventing case progression were recorded using a smartphone-accessible data-collection instrument. Delays were categorized as: 1) missing equipment; 2) missing personnel; 3) equipment malfunction; or 4) delay due to case complexity. The first two categories were regarded as preventable and the latter two non-preventable. Forty URS and 18 PCNL cases were included. There was a total of 56 delays in 35 (65%) cases. Twelve (67%) PCNLs and 23 (58%) URSs had delays (p=0.57). The mean cumulative delay per case was 3.5±3.2 minutes. Pre-start delays (n=17) were 4.5±3.5 minutes on average while intraoperative delays (n=39) were 3.1±2.9 minutes (p=0.167). Delays were evenly spread among the four categories. Thirty-one (55%) delays were preventable (mean 3.7±3.2 minutes) while 25 (45%) were non-preventable (mean 3.2±3.2 minutes) (p=0.58). This translates to $137 per case in preventable costs. Preventable operative delays are encountered frequently in nephrolithiasis surgery, translating to significant additional charges and costs. We demonstrate a rationale for the development of improved communication and workflow protocols to increase efficiency in endourological surgeries. Key limitations are the observational nature of the study and sample size.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32017697
pii: cuaj.6099
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.6099
pmc: PMC7337710
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
E304-E308Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
J Urol. 2009 Aug;182(2):586-90
pubmed: 19535106
J Endourol. 2017 Oct;31(10):1026-1031
pubmed: 28830223
J Clin Anesth. 2010 Jun;22(4):233-6
pubmed: 20522350
Ann Surg. 2012 Dec;256(6):925-33
pubmed: 22968074
ANZ J Surg. 2008 Sep;78(9):794-5
pubmed: 18844911
Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Feb;3(1):18-26
pubmed: 28720363
JAMA Surg. 2018 Apr 18;153(4):e176233
pubmed: 29490366
J Urol. 2018 May;199(5):1277-1282
pubmed: 29180300
Prog Urol. 2017 May;27(6):375-380
pubmed: 28434755
JAMA Surg. 2017 Mar 1;152(3):284-291
pubmed: 27926758
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2016 Dec;68(6):586-591
pubmed: 27364080
J Surg Res. 2014 May 1;188(1):21-9
pubmed: 24405613
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Apr;23(4):299-318
pubmed: 23922403
Health Serv Res. 2010 Dec;45(6 Pt 1):1783-95
pubmed: 20698899
Arch Surg. 2008 Jan;143(1):12-7; discussion 18
pubmed: 18209148