ArticleCureus2025
From Paper to Platform: Evaluating the Shift From Manual to Electronic Surgical Booking in a Large Hospital Setting.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundTransitioning from manual to electronic surgical booking systems has been shown to improve operating room efficiency in high-income settings. However, limited evidence exists from large public tertiary hospitals in low- and middle-income countries.
objectiveTo compare surgical booking compliance, scheduling accuracy, and operational efficiency between manual and electronic booking systems in a large tertiary care hospital.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study was conducted in a 500-bed tertiary hospital in Egypt (NI hospital). Data were collected across three months: April 2025 (manual booking), June 2025, and July 2025 (electronic booking). A total of 3,268 elective surgical cases under general anesthesia across 17 specialties were analyzed. Booking compliance was defined as the proportion of elective cases booked ≥24 hours before surgery with complete data entry and approval per hospital policy. Exclusion criteria included emergency surgeries, procedures under local anesthesia, and same-day bookings. Operational metrics included scheduling conflicts, non-reserved cases, and delays.
resultsCompliance improved from 64.7% (April, manual) to 83.2% (June, electronic) and 89.7% (July, electronic) (p<0.001). Across most specialties, significant gains in compliance and scheduling accuracy were observed, with minimal improvement in low-volume specialties such as plastic surgery and neurosurgery. Surgical volume increased by 31% post-implementation. DISCUSSION: The electronic system reduced improperly scheduled cases by 14% (~126 cases/month), saving ~63 OR hours monthly. Estimated direct cost savings were 126,000 EGP/month. Staff feedback indicated smoother coordination, though no structured survey was conducted. Potential risks of electronic systems - data loss, system downtime, and cost - were mitigated through backup protocols and training. This was a single-center, short-term, retrospective study with no direct assessment of patient satisfaction or staff workload. Data entry bias during early adoption is possible.
conclusionElectronic booking significantly improved compliance and efficiency compared to manual methods in a large tertiary hospital. While promising, these findings require validation through prospective, multi-center studies with longer follow-up and inclusion of patient-centered outcomes.
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.