Observational studyBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014
Operating theatre time, where does it all go? A prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Operative times of 7 common Orthopaedic Trauma procedures: is there a difference between trainees and consultants?Orthopedic reviews · 2025Article
- PitRSDNet: Predicting intra-operative remaining surgery duration in endoscopic pituitary surgery.Healthcare technology letters · 2024Article
- Simplified supine modified park bench / lateral decubitus position using a shoulder pad and a Mayfield head clamp for neurosurgical approach to lesions located in the occipital lobe or the posterior fossa: technical note.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- [Influencing factors on operating times for metal bar removal after Nuss repair].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- A Comparison of Surgeon Estimated Times and Actual Operative Times in Pediatric Dental Rehabilitation under General Anesthesia. A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The Golden Patient Initiative: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2023Review
- Albumin in adult cardiac surgery: a narrative review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021Review
- Impact of endodontic case difficulty on operating time of single visit nonsurgical endodontic treatment under general anesthesia.BMC oral health · 2021Article
- Safety and Effectiveness of Orthopaedic Medical Staff in Providing Support in Combating the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Investigation from Wuhan, China.Orthopaedic surgery · 2021Article
- Due time driven surgery scheduling.Health care management science · 2017Article
- AN AUDIT OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL PROCEDURES UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHESIA AT THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL IBADAN, NIGERIA.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the accuracy of surgeons and anaesthetists in predicting the time it will take them to complete an operation or procedure and therefore explain some of the difficulties encountered in operating theatre scheduling.
designSingle centre, prospective observational study.
settingPlastic, orthopaedic, and general surgical operating theatres at a level 1 trauma centre serving a population of about 370,000.
participants92 operating theatre staff including surgical consultants, surgical registrars, anaesthetic consultants, and anaesthetic registrars.
interventionParticipants were asked how long they thought their procedure would take. These data were compared with actual time data recorded at the end of the case. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Absolute difference between predicted and actual time.
resultsGeneral surgeons underestimated the time required for the procedure by 31 minutes (95% confidence interval 7.6 to 54.4), meaning that procedures took, on average, 28.7% longer than predicted. Plastic surgeons underestimated by 5 minutes (-12.4 to 22.4), with procedures taking an average of 4.5% longer than predicted. Orthopaedic surgeons overestimated by 1 minute (-16.4 to 14.0), with procedures taking an average of 1.1% less time than predicted. Anaesthetists underestimated by 35 minutes (21.7 to 48.7), meaning that, on average, procedures took 167.5% longer than they predicted. The four specialty mean time overestimations or underestimations are significantly different from each other (P=0.01). The observed time differences between anaesthetists and both orthopaedic and plastic surgeons are significantly different (P<0.05), but the time difference between anaesthetists and general surgeons is not significantly different.
conclusionThe inability of clinicians to predict the necessary time for a procedure is a significant cause of delay in the operating theatre. This study suggests that anaesthetists are the most inaccurate and highlights the potential differences between specialties in what is considered part of the "anaesthesia time."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.