J Postgrad Med. 2015 Jan-Mar; 61(1): 1–2.
doi: 10.4103/0022-3859.147000: 10.4103/0022-3859.147000
PMCID: PMC4944359
PMID: 25511209
Can we improve operating room efficiency?
JV Divatia and P Ranganathan
Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Address for correspondence: Dr. Jigeeshu V. Divatia, E-mail: jdivatia@yahoo.com
Copyright : © 2015 Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as
the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Operating rooms (ORs) are probably among the most important areas of the hospital, contributing to both
the workload and the revenue. Efficiency of use of OR time depends on scheduling of cases, allocation of
staff, equipment, time required for preparation and induction of anesthesia, performance of surgery,
recovery from anesthesia, preparation of the OR for the next patient and other resources. Inefficient OR
management can result in case cancellations and long patient waiting lists. A well-managed OR results not
only in a high surgical turnover, but also in reduced postoperative complications, improved patientcentered outcomes and greater patient satisfaction. How does one improve OR utilization? The first logical
step would be an audit. Several performance parameters relevant to OR utilization have been identified.
[1,2] These include 1) accurate case-duration estimate: Measures the percentage of cases where patient-inroom duration is within 15 minutes of the estimated in-room duration. This is a performance parameter for
the scheduling of cases. 2) percentage of on-time first case starts: In a good OR, there should be no reason
for the patient to be wheeled in late. Delayed starts may reflect inefficiencies in the hospital systems at any
level from the wards to receiving the patient in the OR. 3) Pre-admission screening measures the
percentage of cases that had a preanesthetic checkup prior to surgery. Inadequate prescreening may be
responsible for a proportion of cancellations or delayed starts. 4) Patient-in-to-incision time: Measures the
average time that elapsed between the patient entering the operating room and the first incision. This
includes the time for induction of anesthesia, positioning, and surgical preparation. This is variable
depending on the nature of the anesthetic and the surgery. 5) Average turnover time measures the time that
elapsed between the prior patient exiting the room and the next patient entering the OR. There are many
factors that drive turnover time. This can include an inefficient central processing of instruments or can be
a result of a multidisciplinary problem involving nursing, anesthesia, housekeeping and the turnover team
staff not working in co-ordination. Reduction in turnover times may not lead to an increase in surgical
throughput unless the number of cases carried out per OR per session is high. Outcomes such as incidence
of complications, infection rates, and perioperative mortality are important, but are affected by many
factors other than efficiency of OR performance.
Audits of OR utilization have been criticized on several fronts; the lack of standard definitions for various
OR processes, differences between studies in terms of methodology used to calculate utilization, lack of
validation of these indices as performance indicators and the inability to extrapolate results from one
center to another. It is difficult to set universal benchmarks for all ORs as these can vary considerably
depending on the patient population, type of hospital as well as the type of surgery and anesthesia. For
example, one cannot apply a benchmark set for patient-in-to-incision time for a lipoma excision done as a
day-case procedure to a major hip replacement surgery. Hospitals operating on a for-profit basis would be
more oriented towards a rapid turnover than academic hospitals with residents in-training. Other
limitations of such audits may be a perceived bias in data collection (if surgeons, anesthesiologists or
nurses with a potential for bias are responsible for data collection). The Hawthorne effect during the audit
may lead to better than expected results. Despite these drawbacks, for want of better alternatives, such
audits are being increasingly accepted as tools to improve OR performance.
In this issue of the journal, Talati et al.[3] analyze the utilization of OR time and cancellation of scheduled
cases in a tertiary care teaching centre in North India. The principal findings of Talati's study are in
keeping with published literature, both from India and elsewhere and have identified potential areas for
improvement. With an OR utilization of 86%, 12% of OR time was spent on supportive services (including
anesthesia) and 61% on actual surgery. Notably, 22.5% of scheduled cases were cancelled, with lack of
operating time being the main factor for cancellation. This seems a rather high figure for an elective
surgical list and could represent a key area for change. Unrealistic and inflexible scheduling, hospital and
departmental policies and unanticipated delays in anesthetic or surgical procedure could be responsible.
The cancellation rate varied from 40% in one OR to 0% in another. This wide range could help identify
factors that lead to (or prevented) cancellations. Another interesting finding was that delayed OR starts
were fairly common and were due to easily avoidable factors (mostly late shifting of patients from wards).
Several limitations of this study though need to be emphasized. It is unclear why the authors chose to
exclude cases which were started after 1400 hrs. It has been shown that list over-runs are an important
component of OR performance and contribute to decreased staff morale and delays in start of ORs the next
day, due to non-availability of equipment and sterile supplies. Also, since this was a teaching hospital, it
would have been interesting to note whether performance of procedures by trainees affected anesthesia and
surgery times. The impact of training on OR efficiency is unclear — Eappen et al.[4] found that the
administration of anesthesia by residents did not negatively impact anesthesia timings; Urman and
colleagues[5] concluded that having anesthesia residents in ORs improved on-time starts but led to
increased induction and emergence timings.
A few other studies have examined the appropriateness of use of OR time in the Indian scenario.
Vinukondaiah[6] analyzed the utilization of ORs in the department of general surgery in a referral-hospital
and identified factors that could possibly improve availability of OR time by as much as 20%. Our own
audit of utilization of OR time for 828 surgeries carried out during 407 OR sessions in a tertiary-referral
cancer centre.[7] showed that the median time of starting the OR list was 5 min after the scheduled list
start time, with 15% (60 out of 407) first cases entering the OR more than 10 min late. Late OR start and
finish times, delays in shifting patients out of the OR after recovery from anesthesia, and under-utilization
of the anesthesia induction room were identified as potential areas of inefficiency.
Once the problem areas have been identified, the next step is to implement solutions. While it is vital for
all concerned departments to be engaged in dialogue and discussion, it is equally important to have strong
perioperative leadership.[2] It would be useful to identify an accountable, point person who runs the OR,
manages scheduling, and effectively communicates with the surgical, nursing and anesthesia teams and
other concerned staff. Often theatres are allocated with a particular surgeon or surgical unit. While it is
effective for the first case in each OR, it may be appropriate to schedule subsequent cases into ORs in
which there is a greater likelihood of starting and finishing the operation in time, rather than reserve the
OR for a particular surgeon. Such flexibility in scheduling can prevent cancellations as well as delayed
finishes, and result in better utilization of the OR.
As early as in 1998, Ovedyk and colleagues[8] achieved significant improvements in operating room
efficiency by analyzing OR data on causes of delays, devising strategies for minimizing the most common
delays, and subsequently measuring delay data. Personal accountability, streamlining of procedures,
interdisciplinary teamwork, and accurate data collection were all important contributors to improved
efficiency. The importance of audit as a quality improvement tool is beyond doubt. Audits help identify
deficits and assess the impact of interventions. Of course, multi-disciplinary changes in practice, processes
and attitudes will be needed to bring about improvements in OR utilization and consequently better patient
centric outcomes.
Footnotes
Source of Support: Nil
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
References
1. Foster T. Data for benchmarking your OR's performance. OR Manager 2012 January. [Last accessed on
2014 Oct 8];28(No 1):about 5 pages. Available from: http://www.ormanager.com/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/ORMVol28No1ORBenchmarks.pdf .
2. Kurtz R. 7 of the most important metric for measuring OR efficiency. Beckers Hospital Review January
19. 2012. [Last accessed on 2014 Oct 8]. Available from: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/orefficiencies/7-of-the-mostimportant-metrics-for-measuring-or-efficiency.html .
3. Talati S, Gupta AK, Kumar A, Malhotra SK, Jain A. Analysis of time utilization and cancellations of
scheduled cases in the main operation theater complex of a tertiary care teaching Institute of North India. J
Postgrad Med. 2014;61:3–8. [PMCID: PMC4944363] [PubMed: 25511210]
4. Eappen S, Flanagan H, Bhattacharyya N. Introduction of anesthesia resident trainees to the operating
room does not lead to changes in anesthesia-controlled times for efficiency measures. Anesthesiology.
2004;101:1210–4. [PubMed: 15505458]
5. Urman RD, Sarin P, Mitani A, Philip B, Eappen S. Presence of anesthesia resident trainees in day
surgery unit has mixed effects on operating room efficiency measures. Ochsner J. 2012;12:25–9.
[PMCID: PMC3307501] [PubMed: 22438778]
6. Vinukondaiah K, Ananthakrishnan N, Ravishankar M. Audit of operation theatre utilization in general
surgery. Natl Med J India. 2000;13:118–21. [PubMed: 11558108]
7. Ranganathan P, Khanapurkar P, Divatia JV. Utilization of operating room time in a cancer hospital. J
Postgrad Med. 2013;59:281–3. [PubMed: 24346385]
8. Overdyk FJ, Harvey SC, Fishman RL, Shippey F. Successful strategies for improving operating room
efficiency at academic institutions. Anesth Analg. 1998;86:896–906. [PubMed: 9539621]
Articles from Journal of Postgraduate Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer -- Medknow
Publications