OR delays Whos responsible and what can be done

Every two or three years, someone, usually a hospital administrator, decides that delays in operating room turnover time need to be looked into. A committee of 20 or 30 stakeholders (love that term) is appointed and assigns someone the job of measuring the time between cases and identifying reasons for delays. In years when turnover time is not being studied, first case starting delays are on the agenda.

In my nearly 24 years as a surgical department chair, one or the other of these issues was investigated at least 10 times. We were never able to conclusively determine the exact causes of delays or solutions to the problem, and we returned to business as usual.

An article in Anesthesiology News about a paper that looked at causes of operating room delays in over 15,500 cases at a single hospital got my attention.

The number one reason for delays was that the nurses did not have the operating room ready for the patient. Nursing also was responsible for the third most common cause "preop prep (IVs, meds, etc.)."

Surgeons were the reason for the second most common problem, "notes, consent, patient marking not complete." A few more of the top 10 included surgeons running two rooms, surgeon unavailable, and my favorite, "last case ended early." I’m not sure how a case ending early causes a delay in starting the next case. Usually we are blamed for underestimating the length of time we need to do an operation.

Anesthesiologists were cited for only one of the 10 most common reasons for delays—placement of an IV line or regional block.

Not surprisingly, the study was done by anesthesiologists using data they collected.

When I expressed skepticism about this on Twitter, I was accused of implying the research was fraudulent. Not so. Some of my best friends are anesthesiologists. In fact two of my medical school roommates became anesthesiologists. Fraud is not the issue. Its a matter of perspective.

For example when the nurses investigate OR delays, the problem never seems to be nursing.

Im not saying that surgeons dont cause delays. A task force once found that one of my surgeons was late for his first case every time he operated because he had to take his kids to school.

Another surgeon would disappear between cases and was always late for his next one. No one knew where he went. Some thought he may have been calling his broker or perhaps having an affair.

Here’s what the anesthesiologist researchers may have overlooked.

In effort to avoid delays, I would often ask for an anesthesia consult on complicated inpatients booked for surgery a day or two later. On nearly every occasion, the anesthesiologist who saw the patient was not the one assigned to do the case. The consulting anesthesiologist never said a certain lab test was necessary, but in the holding room, the one who was going to put the patient to sleep said it was. A spirited discussion, phone calls, and a delay ensued.

Sometimes a day surgery patient who arrived 2 hours ahead of schedule wasnt interviewed by anesthesia until the scheduled time of the case.

Then there was my patient whose operation was postponed for 6 hours because she had a piece of hard candy in her mouth when she got to OR. The anesthesiologist said it was the equivalent of having a full stomach. Read the full story here.

Can delays be shortened by working together? A 2014 paper in the Journal of Surgical Research by a surgeon and four anesthesiologists found that “various events and organizational factors created an environment that was receptive to change.” The authors were able to decrease their general surgery OR turnaround times from 48.6 minutes to 44.8 minutes, a statistically significant (p < 0.0001) but hardly clinically important difference.

Let me hear your experiences with OR delays.

Read More..

My blog cited in JAMA Surgery paper Progress for bloggers

About a year and a half ago, I blogged that a medical student on Twitter used a blog post of mine as evidence. In January, the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia published an article I wrote under my pseudonym called “Why I blog and tweet.”

Last month, medical blogging took another step toward legitimacy. A JAMA Surgery Viewpoint formally cited my post critiquing the Finnish randomized trial of antibiotics versus surgery for the treatment of acute appendicitis.

Here is the first page with the portion of the piece discussing what I had written in the blog post.

Click on figure to enlarge.

Here is how citation appears in the JAMA Surgery article.

If you havent read my entire post about the randomized trial, click here.

Last year I said this: “Journals may have to adapt and become more like blogs. In the future, medical information may be disseminated by blogs and comments rather than journal articles and letters to the editor.”

We have already seen prominent publications such as the New England Journal of Medicine starting online forums and the BMJ hosting blogs (at least 36 so far) and rapid responses to published papers.

The sea change in the way medical research is disseminated may be happening sooner than I thought.

Read More..

Which is better—an electronic or a paper progress note

It depends on whom you ask.

A new study says internal medicine house staff generally feel that the quality of progress notes is unchanged or better since the implementation of an electronic medical record, but the attendings feel that progress note quality is unchanged or worse.

Over 400 interns, residents, and attending internists at four university hospitals were surveyed. The paper appears online in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

Specifically, 50% of residents felt that the quality of notes was unchanged and 39% thought the quality was better or much better. Conversely, 39% of the attendings felt the note quality was unchanged, and another 39% felt that it was worse or much worse.

From the paper: Half of interns and residents rated their own progress notes as “very good” or “excellent.” A total of 44% percent of interns and 24% of residents rated their peers’ notes as “very good” or “excellent,” whereas only 15% of attending physicians rated housestaff notes as “very good” or “excellent.”

When the 9-item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument was used to evaluate notes, attending perceptions of housestaff notes were significantly lower than housestaff perceptions of their own notes, p < 0.001. One of the PDQI items asked for a rating of how succinct resident notes were. That feature was rated lowest by attendings and residents alike. I can think of a lot of words to describe electronic progress notes, but "succinct" isnt one of them.

In all, 16% of interns, 22% of residents, and 55% of attendings reported that copy forward [copy and paste] had a “somewhat negative” or “very negative” impact on critical thinking, p < 0.001. Auto population of fields in notes was judged similarly.

The authors felt that these differences could be explained because Attendings may expect notes to reflect synthesis and analysis, whereas trainees may be satisfied with the data gathering that an EHR facilitates. I agree.

Can all this be remedied?

Dr. Daniel Sexton, a Duke University internist, authored a three page guide [link is safe] on how to write effective progress notes. Here are just a few excerpts:

DO NOT TRANSCRIBE LAB DATA INTO THE PROGRESS NOTES UNLESS YOU INTEND TO COMMENT UPON IT. [All caps by Dr. Sexton]

It is often good and useful to explain your thinking in the chart.

Do not mindlessly repeat yourself in daily notes. [That goes for "copy and paste" too (my extension of this recommendation)]

LENGTH OF NOTES DOES NOT RELATE TO RELEVANCE OF NOTES. [All caps by Dr. Sexton]

I have written about the pitfalls of electronic medical records several times. In my blogs search field to your upper right, insert "electronic medical record" or "EMR" and click "Search This Blog" to see my other posts.

Its early in the academic year. Start writing better notes now. And please dont copy and paste.

Read More..