Alex Macario

Where are the costs in perioperative care : analysis of hospital costs and charges for inpatient surgical care

BackgroundMany health-care institutions are emphasizing cost reduction programs as a primary tool for managing profitability. The goal of this study was to elucidate the proportion of anesthesia costs relative to perioperative costs as determined by charges and actual costs.

Which clinical anesthesia outcomes are both common and important to avoid? The perspective of a panel of expert anesthesiologists.

UNLABELLED Anesthesia groups may need to determine which clinical anesthesia outcomes to track as part of quality improvement efforts. The goal of this study was to poll a panel of expert anesthesiologists to determine which clinical anesthesia outcomes associated with routine outpatient surgery were judged to occur frequently and to be important to avoid. Outcomes scoring highly in both scales could then be prioritized for measurement and improvement in ambulatory clinical practice. A mailed survey instrument instructed panel members to rate 33 clinical anesthesia outcomes in two scales: how frequently they believe the outcomes occur and which outcomes they expect patients find important to avoid. A feedback process (Delphi process) was used to gain consensus rankings of the outcomes for each scale. Importance and frequency scores were then weighted equally to qualitatively rank order the outcomes. Of the 72 anesthesiologists, 56 (78%) completed the questionnaire. The five items with the highest combined score were (in order): incisional pain, nausea, vomiting, preoperative anxiety, and discomfort from IV insertion. To increase quality of care, reducing the incidence and severity of these outcomes should be prioritized. IMPLICATIONS Expert anesthesiologists reached a consensus on which low-morbidity clinical outcomes are common and important to the patient. The outcomes identified may be reasonable choices to be monitored as part of ambulatory anesthesia clinical quality improvement efforts.

What does one minute of operating room time cost

“How much does one minute of OR time cost?” is a question often asked in the operating room (OR) suite. We hear this question during cases that seem to be taking longer than they should, or when a missing piece of equipment delays the next step of the surgery. This question also arises if there is a last-minute cancellation that leaves the OR unexpectedly idle until another case can be assigned. The latter issue is specifically addressed in the nice article by Lau et al. in this issue of the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. In it, the authors analyze the reasons that cases are cancelled after the patient has arrived in the OR [1]. The short answer to “How much does one minute of OR time cost?” is, “It depends.” It depends on many factors including: which country you are in, as resource costs vary from country to country; which surgical procedure is being performed, as, for example, OR time for a coronary artery bypass graft costs more than for an inguinal hernia repair; whether the answer refers to hospital charges as appearing on the hospital bill sent to the insurance company or to hospital costs related to the actual amount of money that the hospital spends in providing the surgery; whether the OR cost includes fixed overhead costs that are constant regardless of the number of surgeries perfomed, or if it only accounts for the variable costs, which vary according to the number of cases performed; or whether professional fees of the physician work in the OR are included. The objective of this article is to review these concepts in more detail.

Tracheal Diameter Predicts Double-lumen Tube Size: A Method for Selecting Left Double-Lumen Tubes

Linear regression analysis (method of least squares) was used to evaluate tracheal width as related to patient height, weight, and age. The relationship between gender and tracheal width was assessed with analysis of variance. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Spinal versus epidural anesthesia for cesarean section : a comparison of time efficiency, costs, charges, and complications

Spinal anesthesia recently has gained popularity for elective cesarean section.Our anesthesia service changed from epidural to spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section in 1991. To evaluate the significance of this change in terms of time management, costs, charges, and complication rates, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who had received epidural (n = 47) or spinal (n = 47) anesthesia for nonemergent cesarean section. Patients who received epidural anesthesia had significantly longer total operating room (OR) times than those who received spinal anesthesia (101 +/- 20 vs 83 +/- 16 min, [mean +/- SD] P < 0.001); this was caused by longer times spent in the OR until surgical incision (46 +/- 11 vs 29 +/- 6 min, P < 0.001). Length of time spent in the postanesthesia recovery unit was similar in both groups. Supplemental intraoperative intravenous (IV) analgesics and anxiolytics were required more often in the epidural group (38%) than in the spinal group (17%) (P < 0.05). Complications were noted in six patients with epidural anesthesia and none with spinal anesthesia (P < 0.05). Average per-patient charges were more for the epidural group than for the spinal group. Although direct cost differences between the groups were negligible, there were more substantial indirect costs differences. We conclude that spinal block may provide better and more cost effective anesthesia for uncomplicated, elective cesarean sections. (Anesth Analg 1995;80:709-12)

Hospital profitability per hour of operating room time can vary among surgeons

The operating margins (i.e., profits) of hospitals are decreasing. An important aspect of a hospital’s finances is the profitability of individual surgical cases, which is measured by contribution margin. We sought to determine the extent to which contribution margin per hour of operating room (OR) time can vary among surgeons. We retrospectively analyzed 2848 elective cases performed by 94 surgeons at the Stanford University School of Medicine. For each case, we subtracted variable costs from the total payment to the hospital to compute contribution margin. We found moderate variability in contribution margin per hour of OR time among surgeons, relative to the variability in contribution margins per OR hour among each surgeon’s cases (Cohen’s f equaled 0.29, 95% lower confidence interval bound 0.27). Contribution margin per OR hour was negative for 26% of the cases. These results have implications for hospitals for which OR utilization is extensive, and for which elective cases are only scheduled if they can be completed during regularly scheduled hours. To increase or achieve profitability, managers need to increase the hours of lucrative cases, rather than encourage surgeons to do more and more cases. Whether the variability in contribution margin among surgeons should be used to more optimally (profitably) allocate OR time depends on the scheduling objectives of the surgical suite.

Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating.

Background Many online physician-rating sites provide patients with information about physicians and allow patients to rate physicians. Understanding what information is available is important given that patients may use this information to choose a physician. Objectives The goals of this study were to (1) determine the most frequently visited physician-rating websites with user-generated content, (2) evaluate the available information on these websites, and (3) analyze 4999 individual online ratings of physicians. Methods On October 1, 2010, using Google Trends we identified the 10 most frequently visited online physician-rating sites with user-generated content. We then studied each site to evaluate the available information (eg, board certification, years in practice), the types of rating scales (eg, 1–5, 1–4, 1–100), and dimensions of care (eg, recommend to a friend, waiting room time) used to rate physicians. We analyzed data from 4999 selected physician ratings without identifiers to assess how physicians are rated online. Results The 10 most commonly visited websites with user-generated content were HealthGrades.com, Vitals.com, Yelp.com, YP.com, RevolutionHealth.com, RateMD.com, Angieslist.com, Checkbook.org, Kudzu.com, and ZocDoc.com. A total of 35 different dimensions of care were rated by patients in the websites, with a median of 4.5 (mean 4.9, SD 2.8, range 1–9) questions per site. Depending on the scale used for each physician-rating website, the average rating was 77 out of 100 for sites using a 100-point scale (SD 11, median 76, range 33–100), 3.84 out of 5 (77%) for sites using a 5-point scale (SD 0.98, median 4, range 1–5), and 3.1 out of 4 (78%) for sites using a 4-point scale (SD 0.72, median 3, range 1–4). The percentage of reviews rated ≥75 on a 100-point scale was 61.5% (246/400), ≥4 on a 5-point scale was 57.74% (2078/3599), and ≥3 on a 4-point scale was 74.0% (740/1000). The patient’s single overall rating of the physician correlated with the other dimensions of care that were rated by patients for the same physician (Pearson correlation, r = .73, P < .001). Conclusions Most patients give physicians a favorable rating on online physician-rating sites. A single overall rating to evaluate physicians may be sufficient to assess a patient’s opinion of the physician. The optimal content and rating method that is useful to patients when visiting online physician-rating sites deserves further study. Conducting a qualitative analysis to compare the quantitative ratings would help validate the rating instruments used to evaluate physicians.

Changing Allocations of Operating Room Time From a System Based on Historical Utilization to One Where the Aim is to Schedule as Many Surgical Cases as Possible

Many facilities allocate operating room (OR) time based on historical utilization of OR time. This assumes that there is a fixed amount of regularly scheduled OR time, called “block time”. This “Fixed Hours” system does not apply to many surgical suites in the US. Most facilities make OR time available for all its surgeons’ patients, even if cases are expected to finish after the end of block time. In this setting, OR time should be allocated to maximize OR efficiency, not historical utilization. Then, cases are scheduled either on “Any Workday” (i.e., date chosen by patient and surgeon) or within a reasonable time (e.g., “Four Weeks”). In this study, we used anesthesia billing data from two facilities to study statistical challenges in converting from a Fixed Hours to an Any Workday or Four Weeks patient scheduling system. We report relationships among the number of staffed ORs (i.e., first case of the day starts), length of the regularly scheduled OR workday, OR efficiency, OR staffing cost, and changes in services’ OR allocations. These relationships determine the expected changes in each service’s OR allocation, when a facility using Fixed Hours considers converting to the Any Workday or Four Weeks systems.

Improving safety in the operating room: a systematic literature review of retained surgical sponges.

Purpose of review Gossypibomas are surgical sponges that are unintentionally left inside a patient during a surgical procedure. To improve this patient safety indicator, anesthesiologists will need to work with operating room personnel. This studys goal was to systematically review the literature on retained sponges to identify body location, time to discovery, methods for detection, and risk factors. Recent findings Two hundred and fifty-four gossypiboma cases (147 reports from the period 1963–2008) were identified via the National Library of Medicines Medline and the Cochrane Library. Gossypibomas (mean patient age 49 years, range 6–92 years) were most commonly found in the abdomen (56%), pelvis (18%), and thorax (11%). Average discovery time equaled 6.9 years (SD 10.2 years) with a median (quartiles) of 2.2 years (0.3–8.4 years). The most common detection methods were computed tomography (61%), radiography (35%), and ultrasound (34%). Pain/irritation (42%), palpable mass (27%), and fever (12%) were the leading signs and symptoms, but 6% of cases were asymptomatic. Complications included adhesion (31%), abscess (24%), and fistula (20%). Risk factors were case specific (e.g. emergency) or related to the surgical environment (e.g. poor communication). Most gossypibomas occurred when the sponge count was falsely pronounced correct at the end of surgery. Summary More is being discovered about the patterns leading to a retained sponge. Multidisciplinary approaches and new technologies may help reduce this low frequency but clinically significant event. However, given the complexity of surgical care, eliminating retained sponges may prove elusive.

How to release allocated operating room time to increase efficiency: Predicting which surgical service will have the most underutilized operating room time

At many facilities, surgeons and patients choose the day of surgery, cases are not turned away, and staffing is adjusted to maximize operating room (OR) efficiency. If a surgical service has already filled its allocated OR time, but has an additional case to schedule, then OR efficiency is increased