新冠肺炎时代神经外科手术室效率分析

S. Koester
{"title":"新冠肺炎时代神经外科手术室效率分析","authors":"S. Koester","doi":"10.12788/jcom.0113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had broad effects on surgical care, including operating room (OR) staffing, personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization, and newly implemented anti-infective measures. Our aim was to assess neurosurgery OR efficiency before the COVID-19 pandemic, during peak COVID-19, and during current times. Methods: Institutional perioperative databases at a single, highvolume neurosurgical center were queried for operations performed from December 2019 until October 2021. March 12, 2020, the day that the state of Tennessee declared a state of emergency, was chosen as the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The 90-day periods before and after this day were used to define the pre-COVID-19, peak-COVID-19, and post-peak restrictions time periods for comparative analysis. Outcomes included delay in first-start and OR turnover time between neurosurgical cases. Preset threshold times were used in analyses to adjust for normal leniency in OR scheduling (15 minutes for first start and 90 minutes for turnover). Univariate analysis used Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous outcomes, while chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used for categorical comparisons. Significance was defined as P<.05. Results: First-start time was analyzed in 426 pre-COVID-19, 357 peak-restrictions, and 2304 post-peak-restrictions cases. The unadjusted mean delay length was found to be significantly different between the time periods, but the magnitude of increase in minutes was immaterial (mean [SD] minutes, 6 [18] vs 10 [21] vs 8 [20], respectively;P=.004). The adjusted average delay length and proportion of cases delayed beyond the 15-minute threshold were not significantly different. The proportion of cases that started early, as well as significantly early past a 15-minute threshold, have not been impacted. There was no significant change in turnover time during peak restrictions relative to the pre-COVID-19 period (88 [100] minutes vs 85 [95] minutes), and turnover time has since remained unchanged (83 [87] minutes). Conclusion: Our center was able to maintain OR efficiency before, during, and after peak restrictions even while instituting advanced infection-control strategies. While there were significant changes, delays were relatively small in magnitude.","PeriodicalId":15393,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neurosurgery Operating Room Efficiency During the COVID-19 Era\",\"authors\":\"S. Koester\",\"doi\":\"10.12788/jcom.0113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had broad effects on surgical care, including operating room (OR) staffing, personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization, and newly implemented anti-infective measures. Our aim was to assess neurosurgery OR efficiency before the COVID-19 pandemic, during peak COVID-19, and during current times. Methods: Institutional perioperative databases at a single, highvolume neurosurgical center were queried for operations performed from December 2019 until October 2021. March 12, 2020, the day that the state of Tennessee declared a state of emergency, was chosen as the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The 90-day periods before and after this day were used to define the pre-COVID-19, peak-COVID-19, and post-peak restrictions time periods for comparative analysis. Outcomes included delay in first-start and OR turnover time between neurosurgical cases. Preset threshold times were used in analyses to adjust for normal leniency in OR scheduling (15 minutes for first start and 90 minutes for turnover). Univariate analysis used Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous outcomes, while chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used for categorical comparisons. Significance was defined as P<.05. Results: First-start time was analyzed in 426 pre-COVID-19, 357 peak-restrictions, and 2304 post-peak-restrictions cases. The unadjusted mean delay length was found to be significantly different between the time periods, but the magnitude of increase in minutes was immaterial (mean [SD] minutes, 6 [18] vs 10 [21] vs 8 [20], respectively;P=.004). The adjusted average delay length and proportion of cases delayed beyond the 15-minute threshold were not significantly different. The proportion of cases that started early, as well as significantly early past a 15-minute threshold, have not been impacted. There was no significant change in turnover time during peak restrictions relative to the pre-COVID-19 period (88 [100] minutes vs 85 [95] minutes), and turnover time has since remained unchanged (83 [87] minutes). Conclusion: Our center was able to maintain OR efficiency before, during, and after peak restrictions even while instituting advanced infection-control strategies. While there were significant changes, delays were relatively small in magnitude.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12788/jcom.0113\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12788/jcom.0113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:新冠肺炎大流行对外科护理产生了广泛影响,包括手术室(OR)人员配备、个人防护设备(PPE)使用和新实施的抗感染措施。我们的目的是评估新冠肺炎大流行前、新冠肺炎高峰期间和当前时期的神经外科手术效率。方法:查询一个大容量神经外科中心的机构围手术期数据库,了解2019年12月至2021年10月的手术情况。2020年3月12日,也就是田纳西州宣布进入紧急状态的那一天,被选为新冠肺炎大流行的开始。这一天之前和之后的90天时间段用于定义COVID-19之前、CO冠肺炎高峰和高峰限制之后的时间段,以进行比较分析。结果包括神经外科病例之间首次启动和OR周转时间的延迟。在分析中使用预设阈值时间来调整OR调度中的正常宽大处理(首次启动15分钟,周转90分钟)。单变量分析使用Wilcoxon秩和检验进行连续结果,而卡方检验和Fisher精确检验用于分类比较。显著性定义为P<0.05。结果:分析了426例COVID-19前、357例峰值限制和2304例峰值限制后病例的首次启动时间。未经调整的平均延迟时间在不同时间段之间有显著差异,但分钟数的增加幅度无关紧要(平均[SD]分钟,分别为6[18]vs 10[21]vs 8[20];P=.004)。调整后的平均延迟长度和延迟超过15分钟阈值的病例比例没有显著差异。早期开始的病例比例,以及明显早于15分钟阈值的病例比例没有受到影响。与COVID-19前相比,高峰限制期间的周转时间没有显著变化(88[100]分钟vs 85[95]分钟),此后周转时间保持不变(83[87]分钟)。结论:即使在制定先进的感染控制策略的同时,我们的中心也能够在高峰限制之前、期间和之后保持OR效率。虽然发生了重大变化,但延误的幅度相对较小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Neurosurgery Operating Room Efficiency During the COVID-19 Era
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had broad effects on surgical care, including operating room (OR) staffing, personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization, and newly implemented anti-infective measures. Our aim was to assess neurosurgery OR efficiency before the COVID-19 pandemic, during peak COVID-19, and during current times. Methods: Institutional perioperative databases at a single, highvolume neurosurgical center were queried for operations performed from December 2019 until October 2021. March 12, 2020, the day that the state of Tennessee declared a state of emergency, was chosen as the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The 90-day periods before and after this day were used to define the pre-COVID-19, peak-COVID-19, and post-peak restrictions time periods for comparative analysis. Outcomes included delay in first-start and OR turnover time between neurosurgical cases. Preset threshold times were used in analyses to adjust for normal leniency in OR scheduling (15 minutes for first start and 90 minutes for turnover). Univariate analysis used Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous outcomes, while chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used for categorical comparisons. Significance was defined as P<.05. Results: First-start time was analyzed in 426 pre-COVID-19, 357 peak-restrictions, and 2304 post-peak-restrictions cases. The unadjusted mean delay length was found to be significantly different between the time periods, but the magnitude of increase in minutes was immaterial (mean [SD] minutes, 6 [18] vs 10 [21] vs 8 [20], respectively;P=.004). The adjusted average delay length and proportion of cases delayed beyond the 15-minute threshold were not significantly different. The proportion of cases that started early, as well as significantly early past a 15-minute threshold, have not been impacted. There was no significant change in turnover time during peak restrictions relative to the pre-COVID-19 period (88 [100] minutes vs 85 [95] minutes), and turnover time has since remained unchanged (83 [87] minutes). Conclusion: Our center was able to maintain OR efficiency before, during, and after peak restrictions even while instituting advanced infection-control strategies. While there were significant changes, delays were relatively small in magnitude.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Glucagon Prescription Rates for Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Following Implementation of an Electronic Health Records Intervention Quality Improvement in Health Care: From Conceptual Frameworks and Definitions to Implementation The Hospitalist Triage Role for Reducing Admission Delays: Impacts on Throughput, Quality, Interprofessional Practice, and Clinician Experience of Care Redesign of Health Care Systems to Reduce Diagnostic Errors: Leveraging Human Experience and Artificial Intelligence Patient Safety in Transitions of Care: Addressing Discharge Communication Gaps and the Potential of the Teach-Back Method
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1