• Andreas R Seim, Bjørn Andersen, David L Berger, Suzanne M Sokal, and Warren S Sandberg.
• Department of Production and Quality Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
• Surg Innov. 2006 Dec 1; 13 (4): 257-64.

AbstractAmbulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy pathways move patients through the hospital without encountering delays caused by congested inpatient bed units. However, redirecting patients to a direct discharge pathway might not be beneficial if recovery capacity is further taxed by additional workload. In this study, we attempt to assess the operational impact on recovery room workload of directly discharging laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients to home. We conducted a retrospective case-control review of recovery room flow sheets to determine recovery room time and effort required for laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. The study was restricted to patients of a single surgeon to minimize confounds from surgical technique. Fifty-seven case patients (May 1, 2004, through November 30, 2004), all managed with intent to directly discharge from the recovery room, were compared with control patients (n = 81) from the corresponding 6 months in the year before the direct-discharge plan. The times (mean; 95% confidence interval) to meet objective criteria for adequate pain control (3.5 minutes [2.1 to 5.9] versus 4.0 minutes [2.6 to 6.1]) and readiness for discharge from phase 1 recovery (8.1 minutes [4.8 to 13.6] versus 6.1 minutes [4.0 to 9.5]) were not different between the groups. The number and distribution of interventions documented in the recovery process were not different between groups, nor was there a difference in recovery room length of stay (158 minutes [138 to 182] versus 149 minutes [132 to 167]). In our study, recovery room records reveal little if any increased workload associated with the direct-to-home discharge of laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients.

12 keywords...

hide…