Simon Söderberg, Nils Nyhlin, Axelina Moro, Christina Figaro, Emelie Fransson, Jennie Stefansdotter, Malin Schagerström, Maria Lindblad, Martin Ahlzén, Olga Zukovets, Sofia Borell, Viktoria Johansson, Marianne Axman, Anette Wendt, Hanna Falck, Michiel A van Nieuwenhoven
{"title":"Time and Motion at the Endoscopy Unit-A University Hospital Experience.","authors":"Simon Söderberg, Nils Nyhlin, Axelina Moro, Christina Figaro, Emelie Fransson, Jennie Stefansdotter, Malin Schagerström, Maria Lindblad, Martin Ahlzén, Olga Zukovets, Sofia Borell, Viktoria Johansson, Marianne Axman, Anette Wendt, Hanna Falck, Michiel A van Nieuwenhoven","doi":"10.1177/23333928231159808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>An effective workflow at the endoscopy unit is important for optimal production. We conducted a time-and-motion study to identify the amount of time that patients spend during the different steps of a regular endoscopy procedure and compared propofol with midazolam sedation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 376 patients were prospectively collected. Durations of the different procedure steps were measured. Correlations between recovery times, age, and dose of sedative were calculated. Multiple regression analysis was performed to evaluate how various factors affect recovery time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The use of midazolam resulted in significantly shorter procedure duration for gastroscopy (5.1 vs 8.3 min), shorter endoscopist delay duration for either types of endoscopy (5.9 vs 8.3 min for gastroscopy and 6.7 vs 11.4 min for colonoscopy), shorter endoscopy room duration for gastroscopy (22.2 vs 30.0 min), shorter recovery time for colonoscopy (23.4 vs 27.4 min) and shorter Endoscopy Unit Duration for either type of endoscopy (77.1 vs 101.4 min for gastroscopy and 99.6 vs 123.2 min for colonoscopy). There was a weak correlation between dose of midazolam and recovery time.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In contrast to other studies, propofol administration leads to more time spent at different steps in the workflow at our unit. Implementing propofol sedation will not improve efficacy if other steps in the workflow are not taken into account.</p>","PeriodicalId":12951,"journal":{"name":"Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology","volume":"10 ","pages":"23333928231159808"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10009022/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23333928231159808","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/aims: An effective workflow at the endoscopy unit is important for optimal production. We conducted a time-and-motion study to identify the amount of time that patients spend during the different steps of a regular endoscopy procedure and compared propofol with midazolam sedation.
Methods: Data from 376 patients were prospectively collected. Durations of the different procedure steps were measured. Correlations between recovery times, age, and dose of sedative were calculated. Multiple regression analysis was performed to evaluate how various factors affect recovery time.
Results: The use of midazolam resulted in significantly shorter procedure duration for gastroscopy (5.1 vs 8.3 min), shorter endoscopist delay duration for either types of endoscopy (5.9 vs 8.3 min for gastroscopy and 6.7 vs 11.4 min for colonoscopy), shorter endoscopy room duration for gastroscopy (22.2 vs 30.0 min), shorter recovery time for colonoscopy (23.4 vs 27.4 min) and shorter Endoscopy Unit Duration for either type of endoscopy (77.1 vs 101.4 min for gastroscopy and 99.6 vs 123.2 min for colonoscopy). There was a weak correlation between dose of midazolam and recovery time.
Conclusions: In contrast to other studies, propofol administration leads to more time spent at different steps in the workflow at our unit. Implementing propofol sedation will not improve efficacy if other steps in the workflow are not taken into account.
背景/目的:内窥镜检查单元的有效工作流程对于优化生产非常重要。我们进行了一项时间和运动研究,以确定患者在常规内窥镜检查过程中不同步骤所花费的时间,并将异丙酚与咪达唑仑镇静进行比较。方法:前瞻性收集376例患者资料。测量了不同程序步骤的持续时间。计算恢复时间、年龄和镇静剂剂量之间的相关性。采用多元回归分析评价各因素对恢复时间的影响。结果:咪达唑仑的使用显著缩短了胃镜检查的手术时间(5.1分钟对8.3分钟),缩短了内镜医师对两种内镜检查的延迟时间(胃镜检查5.9分钟对8.3分钟,结肠镜检查6.7分钟对11.4分钟),缩短了胃镜检查的内镜室时间(22.2分钟对30.0分钟)。结肠镜检查的恢复时间更短(23.4 vs 27.4分钟),两种内镜检查的单位时间更短(77.1 vs 101.4分钟胃镜检查,99.6 vs 123.2分钟结肠镜检查)。咪达唑仑剂量与恢复时间相关性较弱。结论:与其他研究相比,异丙酚的使用导致我们单位在工作流程的不同步骤上花费更多的时间。如果不考虑工作流程中的其他步骤,实施异丙酚镇静不会提高疗效。