Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17726589›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2007

[Utilization rates and turnover times as indicators of OR workflow efficiency].

M Schuster, L L Wicha, M Fiege, A E Goetz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. [Modern OR management in tertiary care hospitals].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Correspondence (reply): In reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2013
    Article
  7. Analysis of surgical intervention populations using generic surgical process models.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M SchusterKlinik für Anästhesiologie und operative Intensivmedizin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Campus Mitte/Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin. martin.schuster@charite.de
L L Wicha
M Fiege
A E Goetz
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEUniversität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many hospitals operating room (OR) utilization rates and turnover times (the time from the end of the previous surgical procedure to the beginning of the next) are used as indicators of OR workflow inefficiency. However, there have been no detailed studies to determine whether these indicators really provide an adequate picture of avoidable wasting of time in the OR.

methodsAll relevant OR processes in a busy surgical suite with nine ORs were studied in detail over an 8-week period. Productive OR processes, and also reasons for unused times, were recorded by independent observers at 5-minute intervals; they were able to code for 10 different productive activities and 20 different reasons for unused time. Unused time in the OR, the OR utilization rate and the average perioperative turnover times were calculated for each day and a correlation analysis was performed.

resultsIn all, 3,501 OR hours and 790 surgical cases were studied. Productive processes accounted for 85.7% of the total OR time; the unused times were times with no scheduled cases (7.7%) and waiting times that arose for many different reasons (6.6%). Correlation analysis showed that there was no close correlation between waiting time and OR utilization (Spearman's r(s) 0.104 and r(s) 0.233). The correlations between total unused time (r(s) 0.718 and r(s) 0.745) and time with no scheduled cases (r(s) 0.706 and r(s) 0.620) and utilization were more robust, but for any given OR utilization rate the range of corresponding unused time or time without scheduled cases per day was considerable. The correlation between waiting time and perioperative turnover times was negligible (r(s) 0.185 and r(s) 0.175). When different definitions of utilization rate or perioperative turnover were used the results obtained were virtually identical.

conclusionsUtilization rate and perioperative turnover time cannot be used as indicators of OR workflow efficiency, since they cannot identify the days during which avoidable waiting times occur. If the aim is to identify underused OR time and factors that hamper workflow efficiency, waiting times and times without scheduled cases need to be recorded directly and separately.

Indexed as

Efficiency, OrganizationalAdultAgedAnesthesiaAppointments and SchedulesData Interpretation, StatisticalEfficiencyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperating RoomsSurgical Procedures, Operative

Identifiers

PMID17726589
OpenAlexW1521815401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.