4.6 Article

Streamlining variability in hospital charges for standard thyroidectomy: Developing a strategy to decrease waste

Journal

SURGERY
Volume 156, Issue 6, Pages 1441-1449

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.08.068

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. We assessed the efficiency, consistency, and appropriateness of perioperative processes for standard (total) thyroidectomy and devised a valuable strategy to decrease variability and waste. Methods. Our multidisciplinary team evaluated <23-hour stay standard thyroidectomy performed by) 3 surgical endocrinologists. We used the nominal group technique, process flowcharts, and root cause analysis to evaluate 6 perioperative processes. Anticipated decreases in costs, charges, and resources from improvements were calculated. Results. Median total charge for standard thyroidectomy was $27,363 (n = 80; $48,727 variation). Perioperative coordination between surgery and anesthesia clinics could eliminate unnecessary testing (potential decrease in charges of $1,505). Nonoperating room time was less in the outpatient operating room (43 vs 52 minutes; P < .001). Consistent scheduling could decrease charges by $585.49 per case. By decreasing 20% of nondisposable instruments on the surgical tray, we could decrease sterile processing costs by $13.30 per case. Modification of postoperative orders could decrease charges by $643 per patient. Overall, this comprehensive analysis identified an anticipated decrease in cost/charge of >$200,000 annually. Conclusion. Pen operative process analyses revealed wide variability for a single, presumed uniform procedure. Systematic assessment helped to identify opportunities to improve efficiency, decrease unnecessary waste and procedures/instrument usage, and focus on patient-centered, quality care. This multidisciplinary strategy could substantially decrease costs/charges for common operative procedures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available