Development of a Plastic Surgery Supply Cart: Patient Outcomes and Quality of Care

A Resident-Led Quality Improvement Project in a Community Based Hospital Emergency Department - The Benefits of Simplified Plan-Do-Study-Act/Patient-Safety Quality Improvement Projects Regardless of Staffing Levels

Introduction

An emergency department (ED) resident believed ED patients, who needed a simple laceration repair, would be better served if the ED used a laceration cart for supplies, as opposed to the hunt-and-gather method for collecting needed supplies. To address this issue, a two-step Plan-Do-Study-Act/Patient-Safety quality improvement (PDSA/PS QI) project was initiated, with the intent that the project could be completed in a timely manner regardless of staffing levels. The primary purpose of the project was two-fold: 1) to explore the possible time-to-repair benefits of using a laceration repair supply cart in the emergency department and 2) to determine the feasibility of conducting a simple multi-cycle PDSA/PS QI project in a potential staffing-shortage environment.

Methods

A prospective study using a simple 2-cycle PDSA/PS QI procedure was initiated. During cycle 1, baseline data, to determine the time to complete simple-laceration repairs using a hunt-and-gather supply process, was collected in the form of sign-out/return sheets located next to a laceration repair kit. Cycle 2 introduced the use of a simple-laceration supply cart in the ED, with data collected in the form of a sign-out/return sheet located on the supply cart. Data analysis included a two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test to assess the effectiveness of the suture cart implementation.

Results

Pre-intervention. Twelve valid cases were recorded on the sign-out/return sheets. The baseline time range to complete a simple laceration repair varied from 26 minutes to 151 minutes, with an average of 68.3 minutes (SD=40.8).Post-intervention. Twenty-nine valid cases were recorded on the revised sign-out/return sheet. The time to complete a simple laceration repair, using the supply cart, varied from 10 minutes to 116 minutes, with a mean of 36.9 minutes (SD=25.0), a statistically significant average decrease (p = 0.005) of 31.4 minutes.

Conclusion

The use of a suture repair cart in the ED reduced the time required for physicians to perform a simple laceration repair. A minimal 2-cycle PDSA/PS QI process allowed residents and staff to participate in a quality-improvement project, even in a potential staffing-shortage environment.

Ultrasound-Guided Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block Simulation Training in an Emergency Medicine Residency Program

Introduction Geriatric hip fractures present a difficult challenge in the emergency department (ED) to achieve adequate analgesia. Opioid-sparing ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca compartment blocks (UFIB) have been shown to be both safe and effective in treating pain from hip fractures. In this study, we investigated the teachability of UFIB to emergency medicine (EM) residents using simulation models and also assessed if UFIB training increases its utility in the ED. Methods We created a UFIB model to simulate the procedure in a controlled environment. Sixteen residents from Loma Linda Emergency Medicine Residency participated in a pre-workshop survey and hands-on UFIB workshop. Comfort level in performing UFIB and confidence level in needle finding skills during UFIB were analyzed, plotted, and represented graphically. Results Comfort level in performing UFIB increased by approximately 50% (p < 0.01). Success rates also increased by 460% (p<0.05) after the workshop. However, the UFIB continued to be underutilized as 44% of respondents expressed that there is a "lack of time" to perform UFIB during their shifts. Conclusion A single one-hour workshop increased comfort level in performing UFIB and helped residents successfully achieve better pain control in patients with hip fractures. However, residents continued to refrain from using UFIB because it is too time-consuming.

Implementation of a Resident-Designed Procedure Cart in a Busy Emergency Department

The authors present a description of the procedure cart they designed for their Emergency Department. This project was in response to the inefficiencies in having to gather supplies from various locations to get set up. A complete description including each of the drawer contents is provided to allow others to easily replicate a tool that saved the authors much time and frustration in daily practice.

Utilization Fraction of Reduction Mammoplasty Instrument Sets: Cost Savings and Efficiency Opportunities

PURPOSE

Healthcare spending will account for 20% of US gross domestic product by 2028. One strategy to address rising costs is evaluating the utilization fraction (UF) of surgical trays. Utilization fraction averages between 13% and 27% among surgical specialties, yet data from plastic surgery are lacking.

METHODS

This prospective observational study assessed UF of surgical instruments in all reduction mammoplasty performed at 2 sites in the same healthcare system over a 6-month period. Site 1 is a tertiary hospital and site 2, an outpatient surgical center. Utilization fraction was calculated as percent fraction of used, or if operating surgeons touched them, to opened instruments. A new surgical tray was created by removing instruments not used in 20% of cases. Reprocessing costs and savings were calculated using published reprocessing figures of $0.10 to $0.51 per instrument. Descriptive statistics and parametric variables reported as mean ± standard deviation. Unpaired Student t test was performed to determine statistical significance of findings ( P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Four plastic surgeons performed 37 procedures, 11 at site 1 and 26 at site 2. At site 1, 112 instruments are opened in one tray with 53 unique and 59 duplicates. At site 2, 155 instruments are opened in 2 trays with 58 unique, 20 shared, and 77 duplicates. Instrument user did not vary by site ( P = 0.446), with 19 ± 3 instruments and 17 ± 3 instruments used per case; however, UF varied significantly ( P < 0.0001) with average UF of 16.6% ± 2.8% and 11.5% ± 1.7% at sites 1 and 2, respectively. Estimated reprocessing costs per case are currently $11.20 to $57.12 at site 1 and $15.50 to $79.05 at site 2, with unused instruments accounting for $9.34 to 47.64 and $13.72 to $69.96, respectively. The new surgical tray includes 32 instruments, 18 unique and 14 duplicates, with estimated reprocessing cost of $3.20 to $16.32 per case. Adoption would reduce reprocessing costs by approximately $8.00 to $40.80 and $12.30 to $62.73 per case at sites 1 and 2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite studying a single, but common, plastic surgery procedure, our findings reveal consistency in excessive appropriation of instruments between sites with values similar to those in the literature. These findings exemplify a cost-saving opportunity at our institution and chance to optimize UF for other high-volume plastic surgery procedures.