Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Separate Anesthesia Induction Rooms on Multidisciplinary Work Flow in Operating Rooms.

efficacy induction room operating room turn-over time

Journal

Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare
ISSN: 1178-2390
Titre abrégé: J Multidiscip Healthc
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101512691

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 24 12 2022
accepted: 15 03 2023
medline: 12 4 2023
entrez: 11 4 2023
pubmed: 12 4 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Operating suites are multidisciplinary units par excellence, and mostly they are the most expensive units in hospitals. Interdisciplinary workflow and efficiency are therefore crucial, which is influenced by floor plans varying from hospital to hospital. Most operating rooms are equipped with adjacent induction rooms, allowing preparation and anesthesia induction of the next patient, while the previous patient is still in the operating room. Parallelizing the working steps is thought to improve turn-over time, thus increasing throughput, number of cases and finally revenue. However, this assumption has never been challenged. We analyzed workflow during regular working hours in an operating suite equipped with a mixture of operating rooms (OR) with next door induction rooms and operating rooms without induction rooms. This allows a direct comparison of both structural elements for efficiency using utilization data over a 24-months period. Both settings were used for gynecological operations. Key result is that induction rooms do not improve perioperative workflow including turn-over time. Instead, ORs without adjacent induction rooms have a significantly shorter turn-over time and OR occupancy duration per case, although surgical time and staffing were similar. Adjacent induction rooms require extra space, funding, and high maintenance costs, but they do not speed up peri-operative processes. Modern anesthetic techniques allow for fast induction of and emergence from anesthesia. Induction rooms adjacent to the OR are no longer needed if general anesthesia without extended monitoring is used for the majority of cases.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37038453
doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S402590
pii: 402590
pmc: PMC10082595
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

899-903

Informations de copyright

© 2023 Schad et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Références

Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021 Oct 19;13:893-896
pubmed: 34707381
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2006 Apr;19(2):185-91
pubmed: 16552226
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2022 Aug;36(2):299-310
pubmed: 36116911
Chirurg. 2002 Feb;73(2):174-9
pubmed: 11974482
Health Care Manag Sci. 2009 Jun;12(2):142-6
pubmed: 19469453
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Jul 2;20(1):145
pubmed: 32616031

Auteurs

Stefan Schad (S)

Department of Anesthesiology, Varisano-Klinik, Bad Soden, Germany.
Department of Anesthesiology, Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.

Michael Booke (M)

Department of Anesthesiology, Varisano-Klinik, Bad Soden, Germany.

Serge C Thal (SC)

Department of Anesthesiology, Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.

Alexander Bentley (A)

Department of Anesthesiology, Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.

Hendrik Booke (H)

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Classifications MeSH