Improvements and corrections to estimating probabilities in the formula for planning a list of operations to fit into a scheduled time:

Innovative operating room scheduling metric for creating surgical lists with desirable room utilisation rates

One of the critical issues in healthcare management is the operating room (OR) scheduling problem. Solutions to this problem consider surgery durations and allocate elective surgeries to OR sessions in order to create surgical lists of high quality. Determining the quality of a surgical list is a key undertaking within OR scheduling and is the focus of this research. Currently, probability- and/or expectation-based measures of surgical lists are used instead of statistical distributions of surgery lists to measure quality. The use of multiple measures, e.g., a combination of expectation and probability to assess a surgical list, complicates OR scheduling, so we introduce a new single measure – the OR scheduling metric – for evaluating surgical lists before their realisations, i.e., for use within OR scheduling. We apply the OR scheduling metric to an actual elective dataset and use simulation to demonstrate its use, including customised scheduling rules. We recommend the adoption of a benchmarked OR scheduling metric by the elective surgical services in hospitals with expected practical benefits in the long run, i.e., simpler OR scheduling and more desirable room utilisation, to be similar to that observed in our simulations.

The effect of overlapping surgical scheduling on operating theatre productivity: a narrative review

This article reviews the background to overlapping surgery, in which a single senior surgeon operates across two parallel operating theatres; anaesthesia is induced and surgery commenced by junior surgeons in the second operating theatre while the lead surgeon completes the operation in the first. We assess whether there is any theoretical basis to expect increased productivity in terms of number of operations completed. A review of observational studies found that while there is a perception of increased surgical output for one surgeon, there is no evidence of increased productivity compared with two surgeons working in parallel. There is potential for overlapping surgery to have some positive impact in situations where turnover times between cases are long, operations are short (<2 h) and where 'critical portions' of surgery constitute about half of the total operation time. However, any advantages must be balanced against safety, ethical and training concerns.

Getting going on time: reducing neurophysiology set-up times in order to contribute to improving surgery start and finish times

At the Walton Centre we conduct a relatively large number of complex and lengthy elective (booked) spinal operations. Recently, we have had a particular problem with half or more of these sessions finishing late, resulting in staff discontent and greater use of on-call staff.

These operations require patient monitoring by neurophysiology clinical scientists. Before the surgeon can start the operation, in-theatre neurophysiological measurements are required to establish a baseline. We reasoned that reducing this set-up time would reduce the risk of surgery starting late, and so the whole session finishing later than expected.

In this project we redesigned the neurophysiology parts of in-theatre patient preparation. We conducted five Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles over 3 months, reducing the duration of pre-surgery preparation from a mean of 70 min to around 50 min. We saw improvements in surgical start times and session finish times (both earlier by roughly comparable amounts). The ultimately impact is that we saw on-time session finishes improve from around 50% to 100%. Following this project, we have managed to sustain the changes and the improved performance.

The most impactful change was to conduct in-theatre neurophysiology patient preparation simultaneously with anaesthesia, rather than waiting for this to finish; when we performed this with a pair of clinical scientists, we were able to complete neurophysiology patient preparation by the time the anaesthetist was finished, therefore not introducing delays to the start of surgery. A final change was to remove a superfluous preparatory patient-baseline measurement.

This is a very challenging and complex environment, with powerful stakeholders and many factors and unpredictable events affecting sessions. Nevertheless, we have shown that we can make improvements within our span of influence that improve the wider process. While using pairs of staff requires greater resource, we found the benefit to be worthwhile.

Rational performance metrics for operating theatres, principles of efficiency, and how to achieve it

BACKGROUND

Several performance metrics are commonly used by National Health Service (NHS) organizations to measure the efficiency and productivity of operating lists. These include: start time, utilization, cancellations, number of operations and gap time between operations. The authors describe reasons why these metrics are flawed, and use clinical evidence and mathematics to define a rational, balanced efficiency metric.

METHODS

A narrative review of literature on the efficiency and productivity of elective NHS operating lists was undertaken. The aim was to rationalize how best to define and measure the efficiency of an operating list, and describe strategies to achieve it.

RESULTS

There is now a wealth of literature on how optimally to measure the performance of elective surgical lists. Efficiency may be defined as the completion of all scheduled operations within the allocated time with no over- or under-runs.

CONCLUSION

Achieving efficiency requires appropriate scheduling using specific procedure mean (or median) times and their associated variance (standard deviation or interquartile range) to calculate the probability they can be completed on time. The case mix may be adjusted to yield better time management. This review outlines common misconceptions applied to managing scheduled operating theatre lists and the challenges of measuring unscheduled operations in emergency settings.

Rational planning of operating lists: a prospective comparison of 'booking to the mean' vs. 'probabilistic case scheduling' in urology

The efficient use of operating theatres requires accurate case scheduling. One common method is 'booking to the mean'. Here, the mean times for individual operations are summed to approximate the time allocated to the list. An alternative approach is 'probabilistic scheduling'. Here, the means and standard deviation of the individual case times are combined to estimate the probability that the planned list will finish on time. This study assessed how probabilistic booking would have changed list utilisation, over-running and case cancellations in 60 urology lists during eight months that had been 'booked to the mean'. Booking to the mean resulted in 53/60 (88%) lists over-running and correctly predicted the finish times in just 13% of lists. Out of 264 patients, 36 (14%) were cancelled on the day due to over-runs in 24/60 (40%) lists. In contrast, probabilistic scheduling correctly predicted an over-run or under-run in 77% of lists, which would have allowed the case mix to be adjusted to prevent cancellation and optimise utilisation.