Mohammad R Jajja1, Daniel Maxwell2, Salila S Hashmi2, Rebecca S Meltzer3, Edward Lin2, John F Sweeney2, Juan M Sarmiento4. 1. Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: jsarmie@emory.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With current emphasis on improving cost-quality relationship in medicine, it is imperative to evaluate cost-value relationships for surgical procedures. Previously the authors demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes for minimally invasive right hepatectomy (MIRH) and open right hepatectomy (ORH). MIRH had significantly higher intraoperative cost, though overall costs were similar. METHODS: MIRH was decoded into its component critical steps using value stream mapping, analyzing each associated cost. MIRH technique was prospectively modified, targeting high cost steps and outcomes were re-examined. Records were reviewed for elective MIRH before (pre-MIRH n = 50), after (post MIRH n = 25) intervention and ORH (n = 98), between January 1, 2008 and November 30, 2016. RESULTS: Average overall cost was significantly lower for post-standardization MIRH (post-MIRH $21 768, pre-MIRH $28 066, ORH $33 020; p < 0.001). Average intraoperative blood loss was reduced with MIRH (167, 292 and 509 mL p < 0.001). Operative times were shorter (147, 190 and 229 min p < 0.001) and LOS was reduced for MIRH (3, 4, 7 days p < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Using a common quality improvement tool, the authors established a model for cost effective clinical care. These tools allow surgeons to overcome personal or traditional biases such as stapler choices, but most importantly eliminate non-value added interventions for patients.
BACKGROUND: With current emphasis on improving cost-quality relationship in medicine, it is imperative to evaluate cost-value relationships for surgical procedures. Previously the authors demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes for minimally invasive right hepatectomy (MIRH) and open right hepatectomy (ORH). MIRH had significantly higher intraoperative cost, though overall costs were similar. METHODS: MIRH was decoded into its component critical steps using value stream mapping, analyzing each associated cost. MIRH technique was prospectively modified, targeting high cost steps and outcomes were re-examined. Records were reviewed for elective MIRH before (pre-MIRH n = 50), after (post MIRH n = 25) intervention and ORH (n = 98), between January 1, 2008 and November 30, 2016. RESULTS: Average overall cost was significantly lower for post-standardization MIRH (post-MIRH $21 768, pre-MIRH $28 066, ORH $33 020; p < 0.001). Average intraoperative blood loss was reduced with MIRH (167, 292 and 509 mL p < 0.001). Operative times were shorter (147, 190 and 229 min p < 0.001) and LOS was reduced for MIRH (3, 4, 7 days p < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Using a common quality improvement tool, the authors established a model for cost effective clinical care. These tools allow surgeons to overcome personal or traditional biases such as stapler choices, but most importantly eliminate non-value added interventions for patients.