The Impact of the Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program on the Perioperative Efficiency and Patient Safety of Adult Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Procedures: Retrospective Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of health care delivery systems presents a unique challenge for the perioperative space. In the area of arthroplasty procedures, the shift of complex patients into ambulatory surgery centers and reimbursement that is no longer commensurate with the inflated costs of performing these procedures have created difficulties for hospitals and physicians alike. Thus, there is a critical need to optimize perioperative workflows while maintaining high-quality care provision. METHODS: Our institution implemented the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) to improve the quality and efficiency of total knee and hip arthroplasties (TKAs and THAs). This initiative involved extensive collaboration with clinical and administrative teams, as well as 5 intervention-driven workgroups. First-case on-time start rates and duration of first-case delays, case length, anesthesia preparation, in-room patient preparation, operation, patient exit, and room turnover after CUSP implementation were analyzed using independent samples median testing, Mann-Whitney U testing, and a percentage-point difference calculation. RESULTS: After CUSP arthroplasty implementation, first-case on-time start rates increased from 43 to 81%. Statistically significant decreases were observed in median times for first-case delays, case length, in-room patient preparation, operation, patient exit, and room turnover for TKAs and THAs, but not anesthesia preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of CUSP arthroplasty for TKAs and THAs resulted in significant improvements in nearly all efficiency metrics, as well as preventions of patient safety missteps. These results exemplify the versatility of CUSP as a quality improvement method that can maintain patient safety and perioperative efficiency in the arthroplasty service of a large-scale medical center. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The cost-effectiveness of standalone HEPA filtration units for the prevention of airborne SARS CoV-2 transmission.

OBJECTIVE: Airborne infection from aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 poses an economic challenge for businesses without existing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. The Environmental Protection Agency notes that standalone units may be used in areas without existing HVAC systems, but the cost and effectiveness of standalone units has not been evaluated. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis with Monte Carlo simulation and aerosol transmission modeling. METHODS: We built a probabilistic decision-analytic model in a Monte Carlo simulation that examines aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in an indoor space. As a base case study, we built a model that simulated a poorly ventilated indoor 1000 square foot restaurant and the range of Covid-19 prevalence of actively infectious cases (best-case: 0.1%, base-case: 2%, and worst-case: 3%) and vaccination rates (best-case: 90%, base-case: 70%, and worst-case: 0%) in New York City. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of improving ventilation rate to 12 air changes per hour (ACH), the equivalent of hospital-grade filtration systems used in emergency departments. We also provide a customizable online tool that allows the user to change model parameters. RESULTS: All 3 scenarios resulted in a net cost-savings and infections averted. For the base-case scenario, improving ventilation to 12 ACH was associated with 54 [95% Credible Interval (CrI): 29-86] aerosol infections averted over 1 year, producing an estimated cost savings of $152,701 (95% CrI: $80,663, $249,501) and 1.35 (95% CrI: 0.72, 2.24) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. CONCLUSIONS: It is cost-effective to improve indoor ventilation in small businesses in older buildings that lack HVAC systems during the pandemic.

Evaluating compliance with the 2013 best practice guidelines for preventing surgical site infection in high-risk pediatric spine surgery.

PURPOSE: Best Practice Guidelines (BPGs) were published one decade ago to decrease surgical site infection (SSI) in pediatric spinal deformity. Successful implementation has not been established. This study evaluated surgeon compliance with items on the BPG. We hypothesized that BPG authors and surgeons with more experience, higher caseload, and awareness of the BPG would have higher compliance. METHODS: We queried North American and European surgeons, authors and non-authors, and members of various spine study groups on adherence to BPGs using an anonymous survey. Mean compliance scores (MCSs) were developed by correlating Likert responses with MCSs ("None of the time" = no compliance = MCS 0, "Sometimes" = weak to moderate = MCS 1, "Most of the time" = high = MCS 2, "All the time" = perfect = MCS 3). RESULTS: Of the 142 respondents, 73.7% reported high or perfect compliance. Average compliance scores for all guidelines was 2.2 ± 0.4. There were significantly different compliance scores between North American and European surgeons (2.3 vs 1.8, p < 0.001), authors and non-authors (2.5 vs. 2.2, p = 0.023), and surgeons with and without knowledge of the BPGs (2.3 vs. 1.8, p < 0.001). There was a weak correlation between BPG awareness and compliance (r = 0.34, p < 0.001) and no correlation between years in practice (r = 0.0, p = 0.37) or yearly caseload (r = 0.2, p = 0.78) with compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance among our cohort of surgeons surveyed was high. North American surgeons, authors of the BPGs and those aware of the guidelines had increased compliance. Participation in a spine study group, years in practice, and yearly caseload were not associated with compliance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V-expert opinion.

Evaluating compliance with the best practice guidelines for wrong-level surgery prevention in high-risk pediatric spine surgery.

PURPOSE: In 2018, Best Practice Guidelines (BPGs) were published for preventing wrong-level surgery in pediatric spinal deformity, but successful implementation has not been established. The purpose of this study was to evaluate BPG compliance 5 years after publication. We hypothesized higher compliance among BPG authors and among surgeons with more experience, higher caseload, and awareness of the BPGs. METHODS: We queried North American and European surgeons, authors and nonauthors, and members of pediatric spinal study groups on adherence to BPGs using an anonymous survey consisting of 18 Likert scale questions. Respondents provided years in practice, yearly caseload, and guideline awareness. Mean compliance scores (MCS) were developed by correlating Likert responses with MCS scores ("None of the time" = no compliance = MCS 0, "Sometimes" = weak to moderate = MCS 1, "Most of the time" = high = MCS 2, and "All the time" = perfect = MCS 3). RESULTS: Of the 134 respondents, 81.5% reported high or perfect compliance. Average MCS for all guidelines was 2.4 ± 0.4. North American and European surgeons showed no compliance differences (2.4 vs. 2.3, p = 0.07). Authors and nonauthors showed significantly different compliance scores (2.8 vs 2.4, p < 0.001), as did surgeons with and without knowledge of the BPGs (2.5 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). BPG awareness and compliance showed a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.48, p < 0.001), with non-significant associations between compliance and both years in practice (r = 0.41, p = 0.64) and yearly caseload (r = 0.02, p = 0.87). CONCLUSION: Surgeons reported high or perfect compliance 81.5% of the time with BPGs for preventing wrong-level surgery. Authorship and BPG awareness showed increased compliance. Location, study group membership, years in practice, and yearly caseload did not affect compliance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V-expert opinion.