Christopher P Childers1,2,3, Amy Showen2, Teryl Nuckols4, Melinda Maggard-Gibbons1,2. 1. Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. 2. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Department of Health Policy & Management Research, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the risks and benefits of interventions designed to reduce intraoperative costs. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Episode-based payments shift financial risk from insurers onto hospitals and providers. The operating room (OR) is a resource dense environment and there is growing interest in identifying ways to reduce intraoperative costs while maintaining patient safety. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL for articles published between 2001 and March 2017 that assessed interventions designed to reduce intraoperative costs. We grouped interventions into 6 categories: standardization of instruments, switching to reusable instruments or removing instruments from trays, wound closure comparisons, cost feedback to surgeons, head-to-head instrument trials, and timely arrival of surgeon to the OR. RESULTS: Of 43 included studies, 12 were randomized trials and 31 were observational studies. Gross cost estimates ranged from -$413 (losses) to $3154 (savings) per operation, with only 2 studies reporting losses; however, studies had significant methodologic limitations related to cost data. Studies evaluating standardization and cost feedback were the most robust with estimated cost savings between $38 and $732/case, with no change in OR time, length of stay, or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all studies assessing interventions to reduce intraoperative costs have demonstrated cost savings with no apparent increase in adverse effects. Methodologic limitations, especially related to cost data, weaken the reliability of these estimates for most intervention categories. However, hospitals seeking to reduce costs may be able to do so safely by standardizing operative instruments or providing cost feedback to surgeons.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the risks and benefits of interventions designed to reduce intraoperative costs. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Episode-based payments shift financial risk from insurers onto hospitals and providers. The operating room (OR) is a resource dense environment and there is growing interest in identifying ways to reduce intraoperative costs while maintaining patient safety. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL for articles published between 2001 and March 2017 that assessed interventions designed to reduce intraoperative costs. We grouped interventions into 6 categories: standardization of instruments, switching to reusable instruments or removing instruments from trays, wound closure comparisons, cost feedback to surgeons, head-to-head instrument trials, and timely arrival of surgeon to the OR. RESULTS: Of 43 included studies, 12 were randomized trials and 31 were observational studies. Gross cost estimates ranged from -$413 (losses) to $3154 (savings) per operation, with only 2 studies reporting losses; however, studies had significant methodologic limitations related to cost data. Studies evaluating standardization and cost feedback were the most robust with estimated cost savings between $38 and $732/case, with no change in OR time, length of stay, or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all studies assessing interventions to reduce intraoperative costs have demonstrated cost savings with no apparent increase in adverse effects. Methodologic limitations, especially related to cost data, weaken the reliability of these estimates for most intervention categories. However, hospitals seeking to reduce costs may be able to do so safely by standardizing operative instruments or providing cost feedback to surgeons.
Authors: Beiqun Zhao; Christopher P Childers; Ron D Hays; Susan L Ettner; Rodrigo F Alban; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Bryan M Clary Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Beiqun Zhao; Griffin A Tyree; Timothy C Lin; Florin Vaida; Blake J Stock; Thomas A Hamelin; Bryan M Clary Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Christopher C Stahl; Shreyans Udani; Patrick B Schwartz; Taylor Aiken; Alexandra W Acher; James R Barrett; Jacob A Greenberg; Daniel E Abbott Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: David Scheinker; Matt Hollingsworth; Anna Brody; Carey Phelps; William Bryant; Francesca Pei; Kristin Petersen; Alekhya Reddy; James Wall Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Christopher P Childers; Susan L Ettner; Ron D Hays; Gerald Kominski; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Rodrigo F Alban Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Hanna E Koppatz; Jukka I Harju; Jukka E Sirén; Panu J Mentula; Tom M Scheinin; Ville J Sallinen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 4.584