Compared efficiency of trauma versus scheduled orthopaedic surgery operating rooms in a university hospital

The provision of a trauma bed in theatre recovery and its impact on trauma theatre efficiency: experience from a high-volume trauma unit

INTRODUCTION

Inefficiencies in the trauma setting are well known and have been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic among other factors, resulting in national guidance to aid improvements in resource utilisation. This study introduced a novel surgeon-led intervention, a trauma bed in recovery, with the aim of improving trauma theatre efficiency.

METHODS

This quality improvement project was conducted using a Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) methodology and comprised multiple cycles to assess theatre performance. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach with relevant stakeholder input enabled intervention implementation, aimed at facilitating 'golden patient' arrival in the anaesthetic room as early as possible. The primary outcome was the time at which the first patient entered the anaesthetic room, and the secondary outcome was the number of cases performed each day.

RESULTS

The study period was 1 year and encompassed three PDSA cycles. The intervention achieved its primary outcome by PDSA cycle 1 and its secondary outcome by PDSA cycle 2, demonstrating statistically significantly improved results (p < 0.001). A subanalysis assessed the specific impact of the intervention, and demonstrated a significant improvement in both outcomes when the intervention was used as intended (p < 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

A ringfenced trauma bed significantly improved theatre start times and thereby theatre efficiency. This is a simple, pragmatic intervention that benefitted the MDT trauma team while also demonstrating a sustained impact. Given that National Health Service efficiency is at the forefront of national healthcare discourse, we recommend that this intervention is implemented in other trauma units to help provide a solution to this longstanding issue.

Influence of a surgeon's exposure to operating room turnover delays on patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

A surgeon's daily performance may be affected by operating room organizational factors, potentially impacting patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the link between a surgeon's exposure to delays in starting scheduled operations and patient outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted from 1 November 2020 to 31 December 2021, across 14 surgical departments in four university hospitals, covering various surgical disciplines. All elective surgeries by 45 attending surgeons were analysed, assessing delays in starting operations and inter-procedural wait times exceeding 1 or 2 h. The primary outcome was major adverse events within 30 days post-surgery. Mixed-effect logistic regression accounted for operation clustering within surgeons, estimating adjusted relative risks and outcome rate differences using marginal standardization.

RESULTS

Among 8844 elective operations, 4.0% started more than 1 h late, associated with an increased rate of adverse events (21.6% versus 14.4%, P = 0.039). Waiting time surpassing 1 h between procedures occurred in 71.4% of operations and was also associated with a higher frequency of adverse events (13.9% versus 5.3%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delayed operations were associated with an elevated risk of major adverse events (adjusted relative risk 1.37 (95% c.i. 1.06 to 1.85)). The standardized rate of major adverse events was 12.1%, compared with 8.9% (absolute difference of 3.3% (95% c.i. 0.6% to 5.6%)), when a surgeon experienced a delay in operating room scheduling or waiting time between two procedures exceeding 1 h, as opposed to not experiencing such delays.

CONCLUSION

A surgeon's exposure to delay before starting elective procedures was associated with an increased occurrence of major adverse events. Optimizing operating room turnover to prevent delayed operations and waiting time is critical for patient safety.

Does spinal anesthesia for total hip or knee arthroplasty entail longer operating room occupancy compared to general anesthesia? Case-control study of 337 spinal versus 243 general anesthesias

BACKGROUND

Treatment protocols, including anesthesia, are constantly progressing to improve rapid early postoperative recovery in lower-limb arthroplasty. To the best of our knowledge, however, no studies compared general versus spinal anesthesia (GA vs. SA) in the surgical pathway of patients undergoing total knee or hip arthroplasty (TKA, THA). Better knowledge of the processes should improve efficacy in theater and optimize surgical planning. The present study comparing GA and SA in the operating room aimed to assess (1) theater occupancy times, and (2) times for each step in a surgery day according to type of anesthesia.

HYPOTHESIS

SA leads to longer theater occupancy than GA in TKA and THA.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective case-control study analyzed data for the period January 2019 to December 2020 in 303 TKAs (100 GA, 203 SA) and 277 THAs (143 GA, 134 SA), comparing times for all perioperative steps and particularly theater occupancy.

RESULTS

In TKA, occupancy did not differ between GA and SA: 98±16min versus 98±14min respectively; Δ=0min (p=0.78). In THA, occupancy was shorter with SA than GA: 117±23min versus 123±26min respectively; Δ=-6min (p=0.02). In THA, time to perform SA was longer than induction of GA: 28±13min versus 23±12min respectively; Δ=+5min (p<0.001). In TKA, time to leaving the operating room was shorter with SA than GA: 8±5min versus 14±7min respectively; Δ=-6min (p<0.001).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

SA did not involve longer mean theater occupancy than GA for TKA, and reduced it by 6minutes for THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; case-control study.

Operating room organization and surgical performance: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Organizational factors may influence surgical outcomes, regardless of extensively studied factors such as patient preoperative risk and surgical complexity. This study was designed to explore how operating room organization determines surgical performance and to identify gaps in the literature that necessitate further investigation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines to identify original studies in Pubmed and Scopus from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2019. Studies evaluating the association between five determinants (team composition, stability, teamwork, work scheduling, disturbing elements) and three outcomes (operative time, patient safety, costs) were included. Methodology was assessed based on criteria such as multicentric investigation, accurate population description, and study design.

RESULTS

Out of 2625 studies, 76 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 34 (44.7%) investigated surgical team composition, 15 (19.7%) team stability, 11 (14.5%) teamwork, 9 (11.8%) scheduling, and 7 (9.2%) examined the occurrence of disturbing elements in the operating room. The participation of surgical residents appeared to impact patient outcomes. Employing specialized and stable teams in dedicated operating rooms showed improvements in outcomes. Optimization of teamwork reduced operative time, while poor teamwork increased morbidity and costs. Disturbances and communication failures in the operating room negatively affected operative time and surgical safety.

CONCLUSION

While limited, existing scientific evidence suggests that operating room staffing and environment significantly influences patient outcomes. Prioritizing further research on these organizational drivers is key to enhancing surgical performance.