Data Analysis of Plastic Surgery Instrument Trays Yields Significant Cost Savings and Efficiency Gains.

PURPOSE: Inpatient surgery costs have risen 30% over the past 5 years, and the operating room accounts for up to 60% of total hospital operational expense. On average, only 13.0% to 21.9% of instruments opened for a case are used, contributing to significant avoidable reprocessing, repurchase, and labor expense. METHODS: A comprehensive review of 40 major instrument trays at UNC Rex Hospital was conducted using a technology service (OpFlow; Operative Flow Technologies, Raleigh, NC). Among the full scope of the project, the general plastics tray and breast reconstruction tray were evaluated for the plastic surgery service line over a 3-month period. Intraoperative data collection was performed on the exact instruments used across a standard breadth of cases. Data analytics were conducted stratifying instrument usage concordance among surgeons by tray and procedure type. After a surgeon-led review of the proposed new tray configurations, the optimized versions were implemented via a methodical change management process. RESULTS: A total of 183 plastic surgery cases were evaluated across 17 primary surgeons. On average, the instrument usage per tray was 15.8% for the general plastics tray and 23.5% for the breast reconstruction tray. After stakeholder review, 32 (45.1%) of 71 instruments were removed from the general plastics tray and 40 (36.7%) of 109 were removed from the breast reconstruction tray, resulting in a total reduction of 2652 instruments. This resulted in a decrease of 81,696 instrument sterilization cycles annually. The removal of the instruments yielded an estimated cost avoidance of US $163,800 for instrument repurchase and US $69,441 in annual resterilization savings. The instrument volume reduction is projected to save 383.5 hours of sterile processing personnel time in tray assembly annually. CONCLUSIONS: An analytics-driven method applying empirical data on actual case-based instrument usage has implications for better efficiency, improved quality, and cost avoidance related to instrument repurchase and sterile processing. Given increasing cost constraints and the transition to value-based care models, leveraging a technology-based solution enables meaningful change in the sterile processing department as a source for cost reduction and quality of care improvement.

Data analysis of vascular surgery instrument trays yielded large cost and efficiency savings.

BACKGROUND: Surgical procedures account for 50% of hospital revenue and ∼60% of operating costs. On average, <20% of surgical instruments will be used during a case, and the expense for resterilization and assembly of instrument trays ranges from $0.51 to $3.01 per instrument. Given the complexity of the surgical service supply chain, physician preferences, and variation of procedures, a reduction of surgical cost has been extremely difficult and often ill-defined. A data-driven approach to instrument tray optimization has implications for efficiency and cost savings in sterile processing, including reductions in tray assembly time and instrument repurchase, repair, and avoidable depreciation. METHODS: During a 3-month period, vascular surgery cases were monitored using a cloud-based technology product (OpFlow, Operative Flow Technologies, Raleigh, NC) as a part of a hospital-wide project. Given the diversity of the cases evaluated, we focused on two main vascular surgery trays: vascular and aortic. An assessment was performed to evaluate the exact instruments used by the operating surgeons across a variety of cases. The vascular tray contained 131 instruments and was used for the vast majority of vascular cases, and the aortic tray contained 152 instruments. Actual instrument usage data were collected, a review and analysis performed, and the trays optimized. RESULTS: During the 3-month period, 168 vascular surgery cases were evaluated across six surgeons. On average, the instrument usage per tray was 30 of 131 instruments (22.9%) for the vascular tray and 19 of 152 (12.5%) for the aortic tray. After review, 45.8% of the instruments were removed from the vascular tray and 62.5% from the aortic tray, for 1255 instruments removed from the versions of both trays. An audit was performed after the removal of instruments, which showed that none of the removed instruments had required reinstatement. The instrument reduction from these two trays alone yielded an estimated costs savings of $97,781 for repurchase and $97,444 in annual resterilization savings. Annually, the removal of the instruments is projected to save 316.2 hours of personnel time. The time required for operating room table setup decreased from a mean of 7:44 to 5:02 minutes for the vascular tray (P < .0001) and from 8:53 to 4:56 minutes for the aortic tray (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Given increasing cost constraints in healthcare, sterile processing remains an untapped resource for surgical expense reduction. A comprehensive data analytics solution provided the ability to make informed decisions in tray management that otherwise could not be reliably performed.