RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Spine interventional pain injections have dramatically increased in volume in the past three decades. High referral volumes at our institution necessitated using both a hospital-based interventional suite and a clinic-based suite scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis. We sought to determine whether the clinic-based suite provided benefits in efficiency and health system cost in comparison with the hospital suite without compromising quality of care. METHODS: To investigate differences between outpatient procedures performed in hospital-based procedure rooms (HBPRs) and clinic-based procedure rooms (CBPRs), we reviewed all consecutive outpatient spine interventional pain procedures performed by the interventional neuroradiology service over a 12-month period. We analyzed procedure complexity, fluoroscopic times, procedural times, patient wait times, and health system costs for each case, as well as any complications. RESULTS: Our analysis demonstrated similar procedural complexity between sites with decreased average fluoroscopic time (112 seconds versus 163 seconds, P = .002), procedural time (17 min versus 28 min, P < .001), and wait time (20 min versus 38 min, P < .001) in the CBPR versus the HBPR. In cases without trainee involvement, procedural and wait times were decreased (P < .001, P = .008) with no difference in fluoroscopy time (P = .18). There were no complications at either site. The analysis of cost to the health system demonstrated that procedures in the HBPR cost >14 times the amount to perform than in the CBPR. DISCUSSION: Performing spine interventional pain procedures in a CBPR adds value by decreasing procedural, fluoroscopic, wait times, and health system cost compared with an HBPR without compromising safety.
