4.6 Article

Time and motion studies of National Health Service cataract theatre lists to determine strategies to improve efficiency

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 102, 期 9, 页码 1259-1267

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310452

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To provide a quantitative assessment of cataract theatre lists focusing on productivity and staffing levels/tasks using time and motion studies. Methods National Health Service (NHS) cataract theatre lists were prospectively observed in five different institutions (four NHS hospitals and one private hospital). Individual tasks and their timings of every member of staff were recorded. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to investigate possible associations between individual timings and tasks. Results 140 operations were studied over 18 theatre sessions. The median number of scheduled cataract operations was 7 (range: 5-14). The average duration of an operation was 10.3 min +/-(SD 4.11 min). The average time to complete one case including patient turnaround was 19.97 min (SD 8.77 min). The proportion of the surgeons' time occupied on total duties or operating ranged from 65.2% to 76.1% and from 42.4% to 56.7%, respectively. The correlations of the surgical time to patient time in theatre was R-2=0.95. A multiple linear regression model found a significant association (F(3,111)=32.86, P<0.001) with R-2=0.47 between the duration of one operation and the number of allied healthcare professionals (AHPs), the number of AHP key tasks and the time taken to perform these key tasks by the AHPs. Conclusions Significant variability in the number of cases performed and the efficiency of patient flow were found between different institutions. Time and motion studies identified requirements for high-volume models and factors relating to performance. Supporting the surgeon with sufficient AHPs and tasks performed by AHPs could improve surgical efficiency up to approximately double productivity over conventional theatre models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据