Physician-Targeted Interventions Reduce Surgical Expense and Improve Value-Driven Health Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing health-care costs in the United States have not translated to superior outcomes in comparison to other developed countries. The implementation of physician-targeted interventions to reduce costs may improve value-driven health outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of physician-targeted interventions to reduce surgical expenses and improve care for patients undergoing total thyroidectomies. METHODS: Two separate face-to-face interventions with individual surgeons focusing on surgical expenses associated with thyroidectomy were implemented in two surgical services (endocrine surgery and otolaryngology) by the surgical chair of each service in Jun 2016. The preintervention period was from Dec 2014 to Jun 2016 (19 mo, 352 operations). The postintervention period was from July 2016 to January 2018 (19 mo, 360 operations). Descriptive statistics were utilized, and differences-in-differences were conducted to compare the pre and postintervention outcomes including cost metrics (total costs, fixed costs, and variable costs per thyroidectomy) and clinical outcomes (30-d readmission rate, days to readmission, and total length of stay). RESULTS: Patient demographics and characteristics were comparable across pre- and post-intervention periods. Post-intervention, both costs and clinical outcomes demonstrated improvement or stability. Compared to otolaryngology, endocrine surgery achieved additional savings per surgery post-intervention: mean total costs by $607.84 (SD: 9.76; P < 0.0001), mean fixed costs by $220.21 (SD: 5.64; P < 0.0001), and mean variable costs by $387.82 (SD: 4.75; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Physician-targeted interventions can be an effective tool for reducing cost and improving health outcomes. The effectiveness of interventions may differ based on specialty training. Future implementations should standardize these interventions for a critical evaluation of their impact on hospital costs and patient outcomes.

Reducing cost and improving operating room efficiency: examination of surgical instrument processing.

BACKGROUND: Operating room efficiency can be compromised because of surgical instrument processing delays. We observed that many instruments in a standardized tray were not routinely used during thyroid and parathyroid surgery at our institution. Our objective was to create a streamlined instrument tray to optimize operative efficiency and cost. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Head and neck surgical instrument trays were evaluated by operating room team leaders. Instruments were identified as either necessary or unnecessary based on use during thyroidectomies and parathyroidectomies. The operating room preparation time, tray weights, number of trays, and number of instruments were recorded for the original and new surgical trays. Cost savings were calculated using estimated reprocessing cost of $0.51 per instrument. RESULTS: Three of 13 head and neck trays were converted to thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy trays. The starting head and neck surgical set was reduced from two trays with 98 total instruments to one tray with 36 instruments. Tray weight decreased from 27 pounds to 10 pounds. Tray preparation time decreased from 8 min to 3 min. The new tray saved $31.62 ($49.98 to $18.36) per operation in reprocessing costs. Projected annual savings with hospitalwide implementation is over $28,000.00 for instrument processing alone. Unmeasured hospital savings include decreased instrument wear and replacement frequency, quicker operating room setup, and decreased decontamination costs. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing surgical trays can reduce cost, physical strain, preparation time, decontamination time, and processing times, and streamlining trays is an effective strategy for hospitals to reduce costs and increase operating room efficiency.

The Burden of the Fellowship Interview Process on General Surgery Residents and Programs.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of the fellowship interview process in a cohort of general surgery residents. We hypothesized that the interview process would be associated with significant clinical time lost, monetary expenses, and increased need for shift coverage. DESIGN: An online anonymous survey link was sent via e-mail to general surgery program directors in June 2014. Program directors distributed an additional survey link to current residents in their program who had completed the fellowship interview process. SETTING: United States allopathic general surgery programs. PARTICIPANTS: Overall, 50 general surgery program directors; 72 general surgery residents. RESULTS: Program directors reported a fellowship application rate of 74.4%. Residents most frequently attended 8 to 12 interviews (35.2%). Most (57.7%) of residents reported missing 7 or more days of clinical training to attend interviews; these shifts were largely covered by other residents. Most residents (62.3%) spent over $4000 on the interview process. Program directors rated fellowship burden as an average of 6.7 on a 1 to 10 scale of disruption, with 10 being a significant disruption. Most of the residents (57.3%) were in favor of change in the interview process. We identified potential areas for improvement including options for coordinated interviews and improved content on program websites. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical fellowship match is relatively burdensome to residents and programs alike, and merits critical assessment for potential improvement.

Perceptions about blood transfusion: a survey of surgical patients and their anesthesiologists and surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Although blood transfusion is a common therapeutic intervention and a mainstay of treating surgical blood loss, it may be perceived by patients and their physicians as having associated risk of adverse events. Practicing patient-centered care necessitates that clinicians have an understanding of an individual patient's perceptions of transfusion practice and incorporate this into shared medical decision-making. METHODS: A paper survey was completed by patients during routine outpatient preoperative evaluation. An online survey was completed by attending anesthesiologists and surgeons at the same institution. Both surveys evaluated perceptions of the overall risk of transfusions, level of concern regarding 5 specific adverse events with transfusion, and perceptions of the frequency of those adverse events. Group differences were evaluated with conventional inferential biostatistics. RESULTS: A total of 294 patients and 73 physicians completed the surveys. Among the surveyed patients, 20% (95% confidence interval, 15%-25%) perceived blood transfusions as "very often risky" or "always risky." Greater perceived overall blood transfusion risk was associated with African American race (P = 0.028) and having a high school or less level of education (P = 0.022). Greater perceived risk of allergic reaction (P = 0.001), fever (P < 0.001), and dyspnea (P = 0.001) were associated with African American race. Greater perceived risk of allergic reaction (P = 0.009), fever (P = 0.039), dyspnea (P = 0.004), human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome and hepatitis (P = 0.003), and medical error (P = 0.039) were associated with having a high school or less level of education. Patients and physicians also differed significantly in their survey responses, with physicians reporting greater overall perceived risk with a blood transfusion (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements in blood transfusion safety in the United States and other developed countries, the results of this study indicate that a sizeable percentage of patients still perceive transfusion as having significant associated risk. Furthermore, patients and their anesthesiologists/surgeons differ in their perceptions about transfusion-related risks and complications. Understanding patients' perceptions of blood transfusion and identifying groups with the greater specific concerns will better enable health care professionals to address risk during the informed consent process and recommend blood management in accordance with the individual patient's values, beliefs, and fears or concerns.