Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2000
A strategy to decide whether to move the last case of the day in an operating room to another empty operating room to decrease overtime labor costs.
We examined how to program an operating room (OR) information system to assist the OR manager in deciding whether to move the last case of the day in one OR to another OR that is empty to decrease overtime labor costs. We first developed a statistical strategy to predict whether moving the case would decrease overtime labor costs for first shift nurses and anesthesia providers. The strategy was based on using historical case duration data stored in a surgical services information system. Second, we estimated the incremental overtime labor costs achieved if our strategy was used for moving cases versus movement of cases by an OR manager who knew in advance exactly how long each case would last. We found that if our strategy was used to decide whether to move cases, then depending on parameter values, only 2.0 to 4.3 more min of overtime would be required per case than if the OR manager had perfect retrospective knowledge of case durations. The use of other information technologies to assist in the decision of whether to move a case, such as real-time patient tracking information systems, closed-circuit cameras, or graphical airport-style displays can, on average, reduce overtime by no more than only 2 to 4 min per case that can be moved. ⋯ The use of other information technologies to assist in the decision of whether to move a case, such as real-time patient tracking information systems, closed-circuit cameras, or graphical airport-style displays, can, on average, reduce overtime by no more than only 2 to 4 min per case that can be moved.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialBisulfite-containing propofol: is it a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan for induction of anesthesia?
Propofol (Diprivan(TM); AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) is a commonly used drug for the induction of general anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. With the availability of a new bisulfite-containing generic formulation of propofol, questions have arisen regarding its cost effectiveness and safety compared with Diprivan(TM). Two hundred healthy outpatients were randomly assigned, according to a double-blinded protocol, to receive either Diprivan(TM) or bisulfite-containing propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV as part of a standardized induction sequence. Maintenance of anesthesia consisted of either desflurane (4%-8% end-tidal) or sevoflurane (1%-2% end-tidal) in combination with a remifentanil infusion (0.125 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) IV). Patient assessments included pain on injection, induction time, hemodynamic and bispectral electroencephalographic changes during induction, emergence time, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The two propofol groups were comparable demographically, and the induction times and bispectral index values during the induction were also similar. However, the bisulfite-containing formulation was associated with less severe pain on injection (5% vs 11%), with fewer patients recalling pain on injection after surgery (38% vs. 51%, P<0.05). None of the patients manifested allergic-type reactions after the induction of anesthesia. The acquisition cost (average wholesale price in US dollars) of a 20-mL ampoule of Diprivan(TM) was $15 compared with $13 for the bisulfite-containing propofol formulation. Therefore, we concluded that the bisulfite-containing formulation of propofol is a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM) for the induction of outpatient anesthesia. ⋯ Bisulfite-containing propofol and Diprivan(TM) (AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) were similar with respect to their induction characteristics; however, the generic formulation was associated with a smaller incidence of injection pain. Assuming that the drug costs are similar, these data suggest that the bisulfite-containing formulation of propofol is a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM).