Annals of plastic surgery · 2021
Data Analysis of Plastic Surgery Instrument Trays Yields Significant Cost Savings and Efficiency Gains.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wood Benjamin C, Konchan Sarah, Gay Samuel, Rath Sandeep, Deshpande Vinayak, Knowles Martyn
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Inpatient surgery costs have risen 30% over the past 5 years, and the operating room accounts for up to 60% of total hospital operational expense. On average, only 13.0% to 21.9% of instruments opened for a case are used, contributing to significant avoidable reprocessing, repurchase, and labor expense.
METHODS: A comprehensive review of 40 major instrument trays at UNC Rex Hospital was conducted using a technology service (OpFlow; Operative Flow Technologies, Raleigh, NC). Among the full scope of the project, the general plastics tray and breast reconstruction tray were evaluated for the plastic surgery service line over a 3-month period. Intraoperative data collection was performed on the exact instruments used across a standard breadth of cases. Data analytics were conducted stratifying instrument usage concordance among surgeons by tray and procedure type. After a surgeon-led review of the proposed new tray configurations, the optimized versions were implemented via a methodical change management process.
RESULTS: A total of 183 plastic surgery cases were evaluated across 17 primary surgeons. On average, the instrument usage per tray was 15.8% for the general plastics tray and 23.5% for the breast reconstruction tray. After stakeholder review, 32 (45.1%) of 71 instruments were removed from the general plastics tray and 40 (36.7%) of 109 were removed from the breast reconstruction tray, resulting in a total reduction of 2652 instruments. This resulted in a decrease of 81,696 instrument sterilization cycles annually. The removal of the instruments yielded an estimated cost avoidance of US $163,800 for instrument repurchase and US $69,441 in annual resterilization savings. The instrument volume reduction is projected to save 383.5 hours of sterile processing personnel time in tray assembly annually.
CONCLUSIONS: An analytics-driven method applying empirical data on actual case-based instrument usage has implications for better efficiency, improved quality, and cost avoidance related to instrument repurchase and sterile processing. Given increasing cost constraints and the transition to value-based care models, leveraging a technology-based solution enables meaningful change in the sterile processing department as a source for cost reduction and quality of care improvement.
METHODS: A comprehensive review of 40 major instrument trays at UNC Rex Hospital was conducted using a technology service (OpFlow; Operative Flow Technologies, Raleigh, NC). Among the full scope of the project, the general plastics tray and breast reconstruction tray were evaluated for the plastic surgery service line over a 3-month period. Intraoperative data collection was performed on the exact instruments used across a standard breadth of cases. Data analytics were conducted stratifying instrument usage concordance among surgeons by tray and procedure type. After a surgeon-led review of the proposed new tray configurations, the optimized versions were implemented via a methodical change management process.
RESULTS: A total of 183 plastic surgery cases were evaluated across 17 primary surgeons. On average, the instrument usage per tray was 15.8% for the general plastics tray and 23.5% for the breast reconstruction tray. After stakeholder review, 32 (45.1%) of 71 instruments were removed from the general plastics tray and 40 (36.7%) of 109 were removed from the breast reconstruction tray, resulting in a total reduction of 2652 instruments. This resulted in a decrease of 81,696 instrument sterilization cycles annually. The removal of the instruments yielded an estimated cost avoidance of US $163,800 for instrument repurchase and US $69,441 in annual resterilization savings. The instrument volume reduction is projected to save 383.5 hours of sterile processing personnel time in tray assembly annually.
CONCLUSIONS: An analytics-driven method applying empirical data on actual case-based instrument usage has implications for better efficiency, improved quality, and cost avoidance related to instrument repurchase and sterile processing. Given increasing cost constraints and the transition to value-based care models, leveraging a technology-based solution enables meaningful change in the sterile processing department as a source for cost reduction and quality of care improvement.