ReviewBritish journal of anaesthesia2023
Getting operating theatre metrics right to underpin quality improvement: understanding limitations of NHS Model Hospital calculations.
Review in British journal of anaesthesia, 2023. 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.
- Dual-theatre high-intensity lists (HIT) for day-case minimally invasive parathyroidectomy: a prospective service evaluation.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Comment on "Advantages of robotic single-port hysterectomy compared to robotic multiport hysterectomy on clinical and aesthetic outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer".Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Modelling the economic constraints and consequences of anaesthesia associate expansion in the UK National Health Service: a narrative review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Model Hospital is an NHS online resource summarising performance data for, amongst other things, operating theatres categorised by NHS Trust and specialty. As an official source of information, it might be assumed that metrics, such as 'average late start time', 'average early finish time', and 'average late finish time', are calculated in a way to reflect performance in these domains, but this is not the case. These values are, respectively, only for those lists that start late, finish early, and finish late, with the number of lists in each category unreported. The Model Hospital reports utilisation appropriately as 'touch time' (the time delivering anaesthesia and surgery) but prefers a 'capped' measure, in which any touch time occurring in late finishes is ignored. The Model Hospital aggregates utilisations across lists in a mathematically invalid way, which leads to the assumption that small aliquots of unused time on lists can be combined to create larger time blocks, in which to complete more operations. We present alternative, more intuitive, and mathematically conventional methods to derive performance metrics using the same data. The results have implications for hospitals developing their own dashboards and international organisations seeking to create national databases for operating theatre performance.
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.