PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Julian M Goldman

Publications and source records attributed to Julian M Goldman.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Reorganizing patient care and workflow in the operating room: a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Many surgeons believe that long turnover times between cases are a major impediment to their productivity. We hypothesized that redesigning the operating room (OR) and perioperative-staffing system to take advantage of parallel processing would improve throughput and lower the cost of care. METHODS: A state of the art high tech OR suite equipped with augmented data collection systems served as a living laboratory to evaluate both new devices and perioperative systems of care. The OR suite and all the experimental studies carried out in this setting were designated as the OR of the Future Project (ORF). Before constructing the ORF, modeling studies were conducted to inform the architectural and staffing design and estimate their benefit. In phase I a small prospective trial tested the main hypothesized benefits of the ORF: reduced patient intra-operative flow-time, wait-time and operative procedure time. In phase II a larger retrospective study was conducted to explore factors influencing these effects. A modified process costing method was used to estimate costs based on nationally derived data. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using standard methods. RESULTS: There were 385 cases matched by surgeon and procedure type in the retrospective dataset (182 ORF, 193 standard operating room [SOR]). The median Wait Time (12.5 m ORF vs 23.8 m SOR), Operative Procedure Time (56.1 m ORF vs 70.5 m SOR), Emergence Time (10.9 m ORF vs 14.5 m SOR) and Total Patient OR Flowtime (79.5 m ORF vs 108.9 m SOR) were all shorter in the ORF (P < .05 for all comparisons). The median cost/patient was $3,165 in the ORF (interquartile range, $1,978 to $4,426) versus $2,645 in SORs (interquartile range, $1,823 to $3,908) (P = ns). The potential change in patient throughput for the ORF was 2 additional patients/day. This improved throughput was primarily attributable to a marked reduction in the non-operative time (ie, those activities commonly accounting for "turnover time") rather than facilitation of faster operations. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ORF was $260 (interquartile range, $180 to $283). CONCLUSION: The redesigned perioperative system improves patient flow, allowing more patients to be treated per day. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that the additional costs incurred by higher staffing ratios in an ORF environment are likely to be offset by increases in productivity. The benefits of this system are realized when performing multiple, short-to-medium duration procedures (eg, <120 m).

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2006

Communication in critical care environments: mobile telephones improve patient care.

Most hospital policies prohibiting the use of wireless devices cite reports of disruption of medical equipment by cellular telephones. There have been no studies to determine whether mobile telephones may have a beneficial impact on safety. At the 2003 meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists 7878 surveys were distributed to attendees. The five-question survey polled anesthesiologists regarding modes of communication used in the operating room/intensive care unit and experience with communications delays and medical errors. Survey reliability was verified using test-retest analysis and proportion agreement in a convenience sample of 17 anesthesiologists. Four-thousand-eighteen responses were received. The test-retest reliability of the survey instrument was excellent (Kappa = 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.94). Sixty-five percent of surveyed anesthesiologists reported using pagers as their primary mode of communications, whereas only 17% used cellular telephones. Forty-five percent of respondents who use pagers reported delays in communications compared with 31% of cellular telephone users. Cellular telephone use by anesthesiologists is associated with a reduction in the risk of medical error or injury resulting from communication delay (relative risk = 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.6234-0.9649). The small risks of electromagnetic interference between mobile telephones and medical devices should be weighed against the potential benefits of improved communication.

Anesthesiology↗
PubMed2005

Introducing new technology into the operating room: measuring the impact on job performance and satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: The Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Operating Room of the Future (ORF) project is a test site for evaluating new surgical technologies and processes. Here we evaluate the effect on staff satisfaction and burnout of introducing a set of new technologies. METHODS: Staff satisfaction and burnout were measured via sequential surveys based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory during the introduction of a new technology system. Functional behavior of the OR was measured in terms of flow time (time to transit the OR) and wait time (time to access the OR). These data were gathered using time-motion analysis methods. RESULTS: Significant functional improvements were found in the ORF (more than 35% reduction in flow time and wait time, P < .05). During the same period, more exposure to the ORF resulted in greater sense of personal accomplishment among surgeons, a worse sense of personal accomplishment among nurses, more emotional exhaustion among surgeons, and less emotional exhaustion among nurses. However, the responses for emotional exhaustion were reversed the greater the time from exposure to the ORF. Staff with 6 to 10 years' experience were at highest risk for burnout across all categories. General surgeons experienced more emotional exhaustion than other physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Tracking the response of all users and identifying groups at high risk for burnout when exposed to new systems should be a central part of any new technology project.

Burnout, Professional↗
PubMed2005

Deliberate perioperative systems design improves operating room throughput.

BACKGROUND: New operating room (OR) design focuses more on the surgical environment than on the process of care. The authors sought to improve OR throughput and reduce time per case by goal-directed design of a demonstration OR and the perioperative processes occurring within and around it. METHODS: The authors constructed a three-room suite including an OR, an induction room, and an early recovery area. Traditionally sequential activities were run in parallel, and nonsurgical activities were moved from the OR to the supporting spaces. The new workflow was supported by additional anesthesia and nursing personnel. The authors used a retrospective, case- and surgeon-matched design to compare the throughput, cost, and revenue performance of the new OR to traditional ORs. RESULTS: For surgeons performing the same case mix in both environments, the new OR processed more cases per day than traditional ORs and used less time per case. Throughput improvement came from superior nonoperative performance. Nonoperative Time was reduced from 67 min (95% confidence interval, 64-70 min) to 38 min (95% confidence interval, 35-40 min) in the new OR. All components of Nonoperative Time were meaningfully reduced. Operative Time decreased by approximately 5%. Hospital and anesthesia costs per case increased, but the increased throughput offset costs and the global net margin was unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberate OR and perioperative process redesign improved throughput. Performance improvement derived from relocating and reorganizing nonoperative activities. Better OR throughput entailed additional costs but allowed additional patients to be accommodated in the OR while generating revenue that balanced these additional costs.

Anesthesia↗