Alexis L Boson, Evan Ross1, Daniel Popp, Christian Tapking2, Arianna Ramirez3, Ludwik Branski, Linda G Phillips, Steven E Wolf4. 1. From the Division of Plastic Surgery. 2. Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. School of Medicine, University of Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Medical Branch, Galveston, TX.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the cost of healthcare rises, it is imperative to assess value delivered to patients and impact on the economic viability of institutions. We aimed to characterize plastic surgery operative time management and identified areas for efficiency improvement. METHODS: Procedures from a US academic plastic surgery division from September 2017 to August 2018 were reviewed. Times were categorized into preparation (patient in room to incision), procedure (incision to closure), exit (closure to patient exiting room), and turnover (patient out of room to next patient in room). Median and interquartile ranges were calculated. Procedures were classified by relative value units (RVUs) for comparison of procedure complexities and resources. Components were plotted against RVUs; r2 values were calculated. RESULTS: We analyzed 522 cases; 69 were excluded for missing data, primary surgeon not a plastic surgeon, emergent cases, or burn procedures; a total of 453 cases were analyzed. Median and interquartile range (in minutes) for preparation was (34, 18 minutes; 23% of total), procedure (53, 75 minutes; 36% of total), exit (30, 27 minutes; 20% of total), and turnover (30, 26 minutes; 20% of total). Normalized to RVUs, preparation demonstrated the most variability (r2 = 0.19), followed by exit (r2 = 0.38), and procedure (r2 = 0.57). Average work RVUs per month was 678.1 ± 158.7. Average work RVUs per OR hour was 7.2. CONCLUSIONS: The largest component with greatest variability was preparation for surgery in the OR. Improved efficiency by decreasing variability increases the value of healthcare delivered to patients and OR throughput.
BACKGROUND: As the cost of healthcare rises, it is imperative to assess value delivered to patients and impact on the economic viability of institutions. We aimed to characterize plastic surgery operative time management and identified areas for efficiency improvement. METHODS: Procedures from a US academic plastic surgery division from September 2017 to August 2018 were reviewed. Times were categorized into preparation (patient in room to incision), procedure (incision to closure), exit (closure to patient exiting room), and turnover (patient out of room to next patient in room). Median and interquartile ranges were calculated. Procedures were classified by relative value units (RVUs) for comparison of procedure complexities and resources. Components were plotted against RVUs; r2 values were calculated. RESULTS: We analyzed 522 cases; 69 were excluded for missing data, primary surgeon not a plastic surgeon, emergent cases, or burn procedures; a total of 453 cases were analyzed. Median and interquartile range (in minutes) for preparation was (34, 18 minutes; 23% of total), procedure (53, 75 minutes; 36% of total), exit (30, 27 minutes; 20% of total), and turnover (30, 26 minutes; 20% of total). Normalized to RVUs, preparation demonstrated the most variability (r2 = 0.19), followed by exit (r2 = 0.38), and procedure (r2 = 0.57). Average work RVUs per month was 678.1 ± 158.7. Average work RVUs per OR hour was 7.2. CONCLUSIONS: The largest component with greatest variability was preparation for surgery in the OR. Improved efficiency by decreasing variability increases the value of healthcare delivered to patients and OR throughput.
Authors: Farrokh R Farrokhi; Maria Gunther; Barbara Williams; Christopher Craig Blackmore Journal: J Healthc Qual Date: 2015 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.095
Authors: Tarik D Madni; Jonathan B Imran; Audra T Clark; Brett A Arnoldo; Herb A Phelan; Steven E Wolf Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Jennifer L Perri; Robert M Zwolak; Philip P Goodney; Gretchen A Rutherford; Richard J Powell Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Tarik D Madni; Jonathan B Imran; Audra T Clark; Holly B Cunningham; Luis Taveras; Brett D Arnoldo; Herb A Phelan; Steven E Wolf Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 1.845