A regional anesthesia-based “swing” operating room model reduces non-operative time in a mixed orthopedic inpatient/outpatient population

A quadruple peripheral nerve block outside the OR for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction reduces the OR occupancy time

PURPOSE

The use of regional anesthesia (RA) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction reduces morphine consumption, the time spent in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and the hospital readmission rate. However, RA failures due to delays in the induction of anesthesia and its unpredictable success rate (Cuvillon et al. Ann Fr Anesth 29:710-715, 2010; Jankowski et al. Anesth Analg 10.1213/01.ANE.0000081798.89853.E7) can lead to disorganization of the operating room (OR) schedule. The hypothesis is that performing RA outside the OR will significantly reduce the OR occupancy time relative to using general anesthesia (GA). The primary objective was to compare the OR occupancy time between RA and GA when performing ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center study of data collected prospectively from consecutive patients operated by a single surgeon between January 2019 and December 2020. The patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were divided into two groups based on the type of anesthesia they received (GA, RA). RA consisted of a quadruple peripheral nerve block (femoral, sciatic, obturator and lateral femoral cutaneous nerves). The durations of the perioperative stages of the patient's journey in the OR suite were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

The analysis involved 469 ACL reconstructions: 356 GA and 113 RA. The two groups were comparable in age, gender and ASA score (American Society of Anesthesiologists). The OR occupancy time for ACL reconstruction with RA was reduced by a mean of 13 min (70 ± 12 SD vs. 83 ± 14 SD; P < 0.0001) and the PACU time by 41 min relative to GA (P < 0.0001). The entry-incision time was reduced by an average of 8 min and the end-exit time by 3 min (P < 0.0001). The care time in the PACU was reduced from 84 ± 35 to 46 ± 26 min (P < 0.0001). However, performing anesthesia outside the OR (i.e., in a RA block room) did not reduce the turnover time (n.s).

CONCLUSION

Performing RA outside the OR reduced the OR occupancy time by nearly 20% relative to using GA for ACL reconstructions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Regional anaesthesia: what surgical procedures, what blocks and availability of a “block room”?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With an expected rise in day care procedures with enhanced recovery programs, the use of specific regional anaesthesia can be useful. In this review, we will provide insight in the used regional block and medication so far known and its applicability in a day care setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Regional anaesthesia has been improved with the aid of ultrasound-guided placement. However, it is not commonly used in the outpatient setting. Old, short acting local anaesthetics have found a second life and may be especially beneficial in the ambulatory setting replacing more long-acting local anaesthetics such as bupivacaine.To improve efficiency, a dedicated block room may facilitate the performance of regional anaesthesia. However, cost-efficacy for improved operating time, patient care and hospital efficiency has to be established.

SUMMARY

Regional anaesthesia has proven to be beneficial in ambulatory setting. Several short acting local anaesthetics are favourable over bupivacaine in the day care surgery. And if available, there are reports of the benefit of an additional block room used in a parallel (monitored) care of patients.

Cost comparison between spinal versus general anesthesia for hip and knee arthroplasty: an incremental cost study

PURPOSE

Wait list times for total joint arthroplasties have been growing, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Increasing operating room (OR) efficiency by reducing OR time and associated costs while maintaining quality allows the greatest number of patients to receive care.

METHODS

We used propensity score matching to compare parallel processing with spinal anesthesia in a block room vs general anesthesia in a retrospective cohort of adult patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We compared perioperative costs, hospital costs, OR time intervals, and complications between the groups with nonparametric tests using an intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

After matching, we included 636 patients (315 TKA; 321 THA). Median [interquartile range (IQR)] perioperative costs were CAD 7,417 [6,521-8,109], and hospital costs were CAD 10,293 [9,344-11,304]. Perioperative costs were not significantly different between groups (pseudo-median difference [MD], CAD -47 (95% confidence interval [CI], -214 to -130; P = 0.60); nor were total hospital costs (MD, CAD -78; 95% CI, -340 to 178; P = 0.57). Anesthesia-controlled time and total intraoperative time were significantly shorter for spinal anesthesia (MD, 14.6 min; 95% CI, 13.4 to 15.9; P < 0.001; MD, 15.9; 95% CI, 11.0 to 20.9; P < 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in complications.

CONCLUSION

Spinal anesthesia in the context of a dedicated block room reduced both anesthesia-controlled time and total OR time. This did not translate into a reduction in incremental cost in the spinal anesthesia group.

An Anesthesia Block Room Is Financially Net Positive for a Hospital Performing Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Regional anesthesia is increasingly used in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). It has shown efficiency benefits as it allows parallel processing of patients in a dedicated block room (BR). However, granular quantification of these benefits to hospital operations is lacking. The goal of this study was to determine the financial effect of establishing a BR using comprehensive operational modeling.

METHODS

A discrete-event simulation model of daily operating room (OR) patient flow for TJA procedures at a mid-sized hospital was developed. Two scenarios were tested: (1) without and (2) with a BR. Scenarios were compared according to staffing requirements, hours/day, and labor costs. The number of ORs and cases varied from 2 to 6 ORs performing 3 to 5 cases. These results were used as the inputs of a discounted cash flow (CF) model. Discounted CF model outputs were CF, net present value, internal rate of return, and return on investment.

RESULTS

Mean time savings of incorporating a BR were 68 min/d (range: 30 to 80 min/d), reducing the OR closing time by 1 hour. Incremental labor costs/day from nurse overtime pay ranged from $2,025 to $10,125 with no BR and $1,595 to $9,045 with a BR, which resulted in an increase in profit/day from $360 to $1,605. The CF/annum was $54,363, the net present value was $213,082, the internal rate of return was 12%, and the return on investment was 43.61%.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that under all scenarios, a BR is more profitable than no BR to a hospital performing TJA via a bundled care or private payer remuneration model. A BR was shown to be financially net positive even when considering the necessary financial investment to establish it. In addition, this study demonstrates the potential of combining discrete-event simulation with financial analyses to assess various operational models of care to improve hospital efficiency, such as dedicated trauma rooms and swing rooms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Impact of parallel processing of regional anesthesia with block rooms on resource utilization and clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Block rooms allow parallel processing of surgical patients with the purported benefits of improving resource utilization and patient outcomes. There is disparity in the literature supporting these suppositions. We aimed to synthesize the evidence base for parallel processing by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was undertaken of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the National Health Service (NHS) National Institute for Health Research Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, and Google Scholar for terms relating to regional anesthesia and block rooms. The primary outcome was anesthesia-controlled time (ACT; time from entry of the patient into the operating room (OR) until the start of surgical prep plus surgical closure to exit of patient from the OR). Secondary outcomes of interest included other resource-utilization parameters such as turnover time (TOT; time between the exit of one patient from the OR and the entry of another), time spent in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), OR throughput, and clinical outcomes such as pain scores, nausea and vomiting, and patient satisfaction. Fifteen studies were included involving 8888 patients, of which 3364 received care using a parallel processing model. Parallel processing reduced ACT by a mean difference (95% CI) of 10.4 min (16.3 to 4.5; p<0.0001), TOT by 16.1 min (27.4 to 4.8; p<0.0001) and PACU stay by 26.6 min (47.1 to 6.1; p=0.01) when compared with serial processing. Moreover, parallel processing increased daily OR throughout by 1.7 cases per day (p<0.0001). Clinical outcomes all favored parallel processing models. All studies showed moderate-to-critical levels of bias. Parallel processing in regional anesthesia appears to reduce the ACT, TOT, PACU time and improved OR throughput when compared with serial processing. PROSPERO CRD42018085184.

Immediate Reconstruction Swing Room Scheduling Reduces Wait Times to Surgery and Increases Breast Reconstruction Rates

BACKGROUND

Despite benefits in quality of life, patient satisfaction, overall healthcare costs, and number of surgeries, historically fewer than 30% of patients undergo immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer. A paucity of qualified oncologic and plastic surgeons coupled with inefficient use of operating room (OR) resources presents challenges in offering immediate breast reconstruction in a timely manner. To address these challenges, an immediate reconstruction swing room (IRSW) program was developed.

METHODS

IRSW scheduling leverages two concurrently running ORs, with the surgical oncologist and plastic surgeon moving between rooms to complete 2-4 combined mastectomy cases with immediate reconstruction, in addition to 1-2 independent cases, each operative day. The final year of traditional booking was compared with IRSW scheduling to assess wait times and reconstruction rates.

RESULTS

Comparing the 2 years, fewer surgical breast cases were performed with IRSW scheduling (1250 vs. 1178), however the overall number of oncology cases increased from 735 (59%) to 857 (73%). The number of immediate reconstructions performed increased from 75 to 139 (p < 0.0001), which reflects a mean of 1.2 IR cases versus 2.9 combined cases in IRSW. Overall, this facilitated an increase in the rate of immediate reconstruction following therapeutic mastectomy from 35 to 49% (p = 0.0004) and decreased wait times from core biopsy to surgery from 70 to 52 days (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary model with optimized scheduling has the potential to improve resource utilization and access to breast cancer care.

Setting up an ambulatory regional anesthesia program for orthopedic surgery

This article presents an overview of how to set up an ambulatory regional anesthesia program for orthopedic surgery. This information is valuable to anesthesiologists who want to expand their regional anesthesia practice and provides a greater understanding of relevant issues and strategies to maximize success.

Improving operating room productivity via parallel anesthesia processing

PURPOSE

Parallel processing of regional anesthesia may improve operating room (OR) efficiency in patients undergoes upper extremity surgical procedures. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate whether performing regional anesthesia outside the OR in parallel increases total cases per day, improve efficiency and productivity.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Data from all adult patients who underwent regional anesthesia as their primary anesthetic for upper extremity surgery over a one-year period were used to develop a simulation model. The model evaluated pure operating modes of regional anesthesia performed within and outside the OR in a parallel manner. The scenarios were used to evaluate how many surgeries could be completed in a standard work day (555 minutes) and assuming a standard three cases per day, what was the predicted end-of-day time overtime.

FINDINGS

Modeling results show that parallel processing of regional anesthesia increases the average cases per day for all surgeons included in the study. The average increase was 0.42 surgeries per day. Where it was assumed that three cases per day would be performed by all surgeons, the days going to overtime was reduced by 43 percent with parallel block. The overtime with parallel anesthesia was also projected to be 40 minutes less per day per surgeon.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Key limitations include the assumption that all cases used regional anesthesia in the comparisons. Many days may have both regional and general anesthesia. Also, as a case study, single-center research may limit generalizability.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Perioperative care providers should consider parallel administration of regional anesthesia where there is a desire to increase daily upper extremity surgical case capacity. Where there are sufficient resources to do parallel anesthesia processing, efficiency and productivity can be significantly improved.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Simulation modeling can be an effective tool to show practice change effects at a system-wide level.