PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of a proposed reorganization of surgical and anesthesia care to balance patient volume and safety. METHODS: Discrete-event simulation methods were used to compare current surgical practice with a new modular system in which patient care is handed off between 2 anesthesiologists. A health care system's perspective, using hospital and professional costs, was chosen for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes were patient throughput, flow time, wait time, and resource use. Sensitivity analyses were performed on staffing levels, mortality rates, process times, and scheduled patient volume. RESULTS: The new strategy was more effective (average 4.41 patients/d [median = 5] v. 4.29 [median = 4]) and had similar costs (average cost/ patient/d = 5327 dollars v. 5289 dollars) to the current strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness of 318 dollars/additional patient treated/d. Surgical mortality rate must be >4% or hand-off delay >15 min before the new strategy is no longer more effective. CONCLUSION: The proposed system is more cost-effective relative to current practice over a wide range of mortality rates, hand-off times, and scheduled patient volumes.
PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of a proposed reorganization of surgical and anesthesia care to balance patient volume and safety. METHODS: Discrete-event simulation methods were used to compare current surgical practice with a new modular system in which patient care is handed off between 2 anesthesiologists. A health care system's perspective, using hospital and professional costs, was chosen for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes were patient throughput, flow time, wait time, and resource use. Sensitivity analyses were performed on staffing levels, mortality rates, process times, and scheduled patient volume. RESULTS: The new strategy was more effective (average 4.41 patients/d [median = 5] v. 4.29 [median = 4]) and had similar costs (average cost/ patient/d = 5327 dollars v. 5289 dollars) to the current strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness of 318 dollars/additional patient treated/d. Surgical mortality rate must be >4% or hand-off delay >15 min before the new strategy is no longer more effective. CONCLUSION: The proposed system is more cost-effective relative to current practice over a wide range of mortality rates, hand-off times, and scheduled patient volumes.
Authors: Franklin Dexter; Melinda Davis; Christoph B Egger Halbeis; Christoph E Halbeis; Riita Marjamaa; Jean Marty; Catherine McIntosh; Yoshinori Nakata; Kokila N Thenuwara; Tomohiro Sawa; Michael Vigoda Journal: J Anesth Date: 2006 Impact factor: 2.078
Authors: James E Stahl; Heather McGowan; Ellen DiResta; Charlotte A Gaydos; Catherine Klapperich; John Parrish; Brenda Korte Journal: Point Care Date: 2015-03