ArticleJournal of medical systems2017
Analysis to Establish Differences in Efficiency Metrics Between Operating Room and Non-Operating Room Anesthesia Cases.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Performance Frontiers To Evaluate Non-OR Anesthesia (NORA) Efficiency.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Changing Anesthesia Block Allocations Improves Endoscopy Suite Efficiency.Journal of medical systems · 2019Article
- [Nonoperating room anesthesia].Der Anaesthesist · 2019Review
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
While a number of studies have examined efficiency metrics in the operating rooms (ORs), there are few studies addressing non-operating room anesthesia (NORA) metrics. The standards established in the realm of OR studies may not apply to ongoing investigations of NORA efficiency. We hypothesize that there are significant differences in these commonly used metrics. Using retrospective data from a single tertiary care hospital in the 2015 calendar year, we measured turnover times, cancellation rates, first case start delays, and scheduling error (actual time minus scheduled time) for the OR and NORA settings. On average, TOTs for NORA cases were approximately 50% shorter than OR cases (16.21 min vs. 37.18 min), but had a larger variation (11.02 min vs. 8.12 min). NORA cases were 64% as likely to be cancelled compared to OR cases. In contrast, NORA cases had an average first case start delay that was two times greater than that of OR cases (24.45 min vs. 10.58 min), along with over double the standard deviation (11.97 min vs. 5.90 min). Case times for NORA settings tended to be overestimated (-4.07 min versus -2.12 min), but showed less variation (8.61 min vs. 17.92 min). In short, there are significant differences in common efficiency metrics between OR and NORA cases. Future studies should elucidate and validate appropriate efficiency benchmarks for the NORA setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28685307What 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.