ArticleFrontiers in medicine2017
Timeliness of Operating Room Case Planning and Time Utilization: Influence of First and To-Follow Cases.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health economic analysis of organizational models for breast cancer surgery: a bottom-up micro-costing and cost-minimization approach.Health economics review · 2026Article
- Article
- Influence of a surgeon's exposure to operating room turnover delays on patient outcomes.BJS open · 2024Observational
- Efficiency of Operating Room Processes for Elective Cataract Surgeries Done by Residents in a National University Hospital.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resource and cost constraints in hospitals demand thorough planning of operating room schedules. Ideally, exact start times and durations are known in advance for each case. However, aside from the first case's start, most factors are hard to predict. While the role of the start of the first case for optimal room utilization has been shown before, data for to-follow cases are lacking. The present study therefore aimed to analyze all elective surgery cases of a university hospital within 1 year in search of visible patterns. A total of 14,014 cases scheduled on 254 regular working days at a university hospital between September 2015 and August 2016 underwent screening. After eliminating 112 emergencies during regular working hours, 13,547 elective daytime cases were analyzed, out of which 4,346 ranked first, 3,723 second, and 5,478 third or higher in the daily schedule. Also, 36% of cases changed start times from the day before to 7:00 a.m., with half of these (52%) resulting in a delay of more than 15 min. After 7:00 a.m., 87% of cases started more than 10 min off schedule, with 26% being early and 74% late. Timeliness was 15 ± 72 min (mean ± SD) for first, 21 ± 84 min for second, and 25 ± 93 min for all to-follow cases, compared to preoperative day planning, and 21 ± 45, 23 ± 61, and 19 ± 74 min compared to 7:00 a.m. status. Start time deviations were also related to procedure duration, with cases of 61-90 min duration being most reliable (deviation 9.8 ± 67 min compared to 7:00 a.m.), regardless of order. In consequence, cases following after 61-90 min long cases had the shortest deviations of incision time from schedule (16 ± 66 min). Taken together, start times for elective surgery cases deviate substantially from schedule, with first and second cases falling into the highest mean deviation category. Second cases had the largest deviations from scheduled times compared to first and all to-follow cases. While planned vs. actual start times differ among specialties, cases of 61-90 min duration had the most reliable start times, with neither shorter nor longer cases seeming to improve timeliness of start times.
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.