Evaluation of interventional endoscopy unit efficiency metrics at a tertiary academic medical center

Background and study aims: There is an increasing demand for interventional endoscopic services and the need to develop efficient endoscopic units. The aim of this study was to analyze performance data and define metrics to improve efficiency in a single academic interventional endoscopy center.

]Patients and methods: The prospective operations performance data (6-month period) of our interventional endoscopy unit (EU) was analyzed. First-case start time (FIRST) delay was defined as any time the first patient of the day entered the endoscopy room after the scheduled time. Non-endoscopy time (NET) and total time (TT) were defined as non-procedural and total time elapsed in the EU, respectively. Time-interval between successive patients (TISP) was defined as the time from one patient departure from the room until the time of arrival of the next patient in the room.

Results: A total of 1421 patients underwent 1635 endoscopic procedures. FIRST was delayed (54.2 % cases) by 13.6 min (range 1 – 53), but started within 15 min of the scheduled time in 85 % of the cases. NET accounted for 9.1 hours (67.2 %) of 13.5 hours TT/day. TISP (37.1 min, range 5 – 125) comprised 54.2 % of the NET, and was delayed (> 30 min) in 49.8 % of cases. “Patient flow” processes (registration, admission, transportation, scheduling) accounted for 50.1 % of TISP delays.

Conclusions: Delays in NET, specifically TISP, rather than FIRST, were identified as a cause for decreased efficiency. “Patient flow” processes were the main reasons for delays in TISP. This study identifies potential process measures that can be used as benchmarks to improve efficiency in the EU.

• References

• 1 VanLane JM, Conway PH. Value based purchasing national programs to move from volume to value. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 292-295
• 2 Faigel DO, Pike IM, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 866-872
• 3 Bohra S, Byrne MF, Manning D et al. A prospective analysis of inpatient consultation to a gastroenterology service. Ir Med J 2003; 96: 263-265
• 4 Cai Q, Bruno CJ, Hagedorn CH et al. Temporal trends over ten years in formal inpatient gastroenterology consultation at an inner city hospital. J Clin Gastroenterol 2003; 36: 34-38
• 5 Yang D, Wagh MS. Peroral Endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: an analysis. Diagn Ther Endosc 2013; 389596
• 6 Draganov PV, Gotoda T, Chavalitdhamrong D et al. Techniques of endoscopic submucosal dissection: application for the Western endoscopist?. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 677-688
• 7 Zamir S, Rex DK. An initial investigation of efficiency in endoscopy delivery. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1968-1972
• 8 Berg B, Denton B, Nelson H et al. A discrete event simulation model to evaluate operational performance of a colonoscopy suite. Med Decis Making 2010; 30: 380-387
• 9 Harewood GC, Chrysostomou K, Himy N et al. A “time-and-motion” study of endoscopic practice: strategies to enhance efficiency. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 1043-1050
• 10 Grossman PLBDR. Where are ambulatory surgery center (ASC) bottlenecks? Use of computer simulation modeling to evaluate efficiency targets [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: AB 150
• 11 Kaushal NK, Chang K, Lee JG et al. Using efficiency analysis and targeted intervention to improve operation performance and achieve cost savings in the endoscopy center. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 637-645
• 12 Gellad ZF, Thompson CP, Taheri J. Endoscopy unit efficiency: quality redefined. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 1046-109 e1
• 13 Wolters U, Wolf T, Stutzer H et al. ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth 1996; 77: 217-222
• 14 Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373-383
• 15 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 450-454
• 16 Tomer G, Choi S, Montalvo A et al. Improving the timeliness of procedures in a pediatric endoscopy suite. Pediatrics 2014; 133 (02) e428-433
• 17 Dickey W, Farrett D. Colonoscope length and procedure efficiency. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 79-82
• 18 Barthel J, Hinojosa T, Shah N. Colonoscope length and procedure efficiency. J Clin Gastroenterol 1995; 21: 30-32
• 19 Yong E, Zenkova O, Saibil F et al. Efficiency of an endoscopy suite in a teaching hospital: delays, prolonged procedures, and hospital waiting times. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 760-764
• 20 Friedman DM, Sokal SM, Chang Y et al. Increasing operating room efficiency through parallel processing. Ann Surg 2006; 243: 10-14
• 21 Olmstead J, Coxon P, Falcone D et al. World-class OR turnaround times: secrets uncovered. AORN J 2007; 85 942-5, 7-9
• 22 Day LW, Belson D, Dessouky M et al. Optimizing efficiency and operations at a California safety-net endoscopy center: a modeling and simulation approach. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 762-773
• 23 Koshy G, Nair S, Norkus EP et al. Propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for conscious sedation in GI endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 1576-1579
• 24 Sipe BW, Rex DK, Latinovich D et al. Propofol versus midazolam/meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 815-825