title: Can We Improve Workflows in the OR? A Comparison of Quality Perceptions and Preoperative Efficiency across Institutions in Spine Surgery.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Cost containment and surgical inefficiencies are major concerns for hospitals in this era of declining resources. The primary aim of this investigation was to understand subjective perceptions of perioperative spine surgical quality across three practice settings and to identify potential factors contributing to these perceptions. Subsequently, we objectively evaluated factors that influence the duration of time in which the patient is in the operating room (OR) prior to the surgical incision and assessed the influence of fluoroscopy technician expertise on radiation dose and imaging efficiency.
  
  
  METHODS
  One hundred and eight medical device representatives with at least 1 year of OR experience were surveyed at a national conference. Three distinct healthcare facilities were identified: university, small volume, and large volume private hospitals. Respondents rated facilities on a five-point scale for staff quality; size and consistency of surgical teams; and overall likelihood of recommending the facility. Separately, 140 posterior lumbar procedures from two institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Two time periods were quantified for each surgical case: patient arrival in the OR to induction of anesthesia (T1) and induction to surgical incision (T2). T1 and T2 were compared between university and large private hospital settings using t tests and multivariate analysis. For 44 separate lumbar spine surgical procedures, practice setting, patient BMI, number of vertebral levels requiring imaging, number of localizing fluoroscopy images taken, total fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, fluoroscopy machine, and whether the fluoroscopist could correctly state his or her role, which was to obtain a lateral lumbar localizing image, were recorded. T-tests were used to compare cases in which the fluoroscopist could and could not correctly state the task.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Survey ratings for surgeons were not significantly different across university, large private, and small private hospitals. Fewer circulating nurses were rated as excellent or good in university versus private hospitals (p < 0.001). Small volume private hospital surgical teams were more likely to have worked together before than university teams (p < 0.05), and university teams were larger (p < 0.05). Respondents were more likely to recommend a university or large private hospital for complex instrumentation cases (p < 0.001). On objective measures, university patients were older, less obese, and had higher mean ASA scores (2.5 versus 2.2, p < 0.001). Compared to the university setting, private hospital cases had significantly shorter Time 1 (8 versus 37 min, p < 0.001) and Time 2 (23 versus 30 min, p < 0.001), even after adjusting for ASA score, BMI, and age. Cases in which the fluoroscopist knew the imaging purpose were associated with significantly fewer images (mean 1.8 versus 3.4 images, p < 0.0001) and shorter total exposure times (2.3 versus 4.0 sec, p < 0.001). Operations performed in the university setting were associated with significantly more images (2.7 versus 1.8 images, p < 0.001), longer total exposure times (3.2 versus 2.3 sec, p = 0.0027), and total radiation dose (27.8 versus 53.3 rad, p < 0.001) when compared with those performed in the private setting. The university practice setting was associated with significantly more images (2.7 versus 1.8 images, p < 0.001), longer total exposure times (3.2 versus 2.3 sec, p = 0.003), and total radiation dose (27.8 versus 53.3 rad, p < 0.001) when compared with non-university settings.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Large private and university hospitals had higher surgeon ratings. The university setting was associated with larger and less consistent surgical teams and lower nurse ratings. Surgical staff awareness of the procedure and attention to preoperative tasks specific to the procedure reduced pre-operative time spent in the OR as well as fluoroscopy radiation. These data suggest that nurses and support staff make substantial contributions to overall quality of care, and that leadership and interpersonal coordination are especially important within large teams at teaching hospitals.
authors.forename: Amy S
authors.initials: AS
authors.lastname: Wasterlain
authors.forename: Andrew A
authors.initials: AA
authors.lastname: Tran
authors.forename: Chad
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Tang
authors.forename: David R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Campbell
authors.forename: Hillary J
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Braun
authors.forename: Yasmeen A
authors.initials: YA
authors.lastname: Scuderi
authors.forename: Gaetano J
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Scuderi
mesh_terms: D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D002983:Clinical Competence; D017598:Efficiency, Organizational; D005471:Fluoroscopy; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D061847:Hospitals, High-Volume; D061846:Hospitals, Low-Volume / Q000458:organization & administration; D016304:Hospitals, Private / Q000458:organization & administration; D006785:Hospitals, University / Q000458:organization & administration; D006801:Humans; D009741:Nursing Staff, Hospital / Q000458:organization & administration; D009873:Operating Rooms / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D061646:Operative Time; D019637:Orthopedic Procedures / Q000592:standards; D010348:Patient Care Team / Q000458:organization & administration; D017064:Process Assessment, Health Care / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D058996:Quality Improvement / Q000592:standards; D019984:Quality Indicators, Health Care / Q000592:standards; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013131:Spine / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D066231:Surgeons / Q000458:organization & administration; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014481:United States; D057188:Workflow