Surgical Supply Costs Research Articles

Greening Hand Surgery: Targeted Measures to Reduce Waste in Ambulatory Trigger Finger and Carpal Tunnel Decompression.

Operating rooms (ORs) produce approximately 70% of hospital waste. Greening strategies in the OR aim to reduce the environmental impact of surgery while maintaining patient safety and outcomes. The aim of this study was to strategically reduce waste and cost associated with common ambulatory hand procedures by implementing a 3-stage "green case" plan over a 1-year period in a high-volume tertiary referral hand surgery division. A 3-stage greening initiative for hand surgery was designed and implemented in ambulatory open carpal tunnel release (CTR) and trigger finger release (TFR) cases, including: (1) introduction of minor field sterility; (2) implementation of a lean and green minor hand surgery pack and reduced instrument set; and (3) elimination of gown use by surgeons and OR staff. Surgical supply usage and costs were tracked during the study period and compared with control. Each "green case" resulted in savings of $105 compared with the control cases from the preceding year, excluding cost savings associated with reduced waste processing. There was a 64% and 75% reduction in waste and costs after greening, respectively. This equates to a minimum institutional annual savings of $51 000 when used for CTR and TFR. There was no observed increase in surgical site infections or complications after the introduction of greening. Greening initiatives can be successfully implemented by surgeons to reduce waste and costs. With targeted greening of CTR and TFR procedures, we significantly reduced waste and decreased costs while maintaining patient safety and outcomes.

Determinants of Cost for Outpatient Hysterectomy for Benign Indications in a Nationwide Sample.

To identify surgeon-level variation in cost to produce an outpatient hysterectomy for benign indications in the United States. A sample of patients undergoing outpatient hysterectomy in October 2015 to December 2021, excluding those with a diagnosis of gynecologic malignancy, was obtained from the Vizient Clinical Database. The primary outcome was total direct hysterectomy cost, which is a modeled cost to produce care. Patient, hospital, and surgeon covariates were analyzed with mixed-effects regression, which included surgeon-level random effects to capture unobserved differences influencing cost variation. The final sample included 264,717 cases performed by 5,153 surgeons. The median total direct cost of hysterectomy was $4,705 (interquartile range $3,522-6,234). Cost was highest for robotic hysterectomy ($5,412) and lowest for vaginal hysterectomy ($4,147). After all variables were included in the regression model, approach was the strongest of the observed predictors, but 60.5% of the variance in costs was attributable to unexplained surgeon-level differences, implying a difference in costs between the 10th and 90th percentiles of surgeons of $4,063. The largest observed determinant of cost to produce an outpatient hysterectomy for benign indications in the United States is approach, but differences in cost are attributable primarily to unexplained differences among surgeons. Standardization of surgical approach and technique and surgeon awareness of surgical supply costs could address these unexplained cost variations.

MSPP02 Presentation Time: 4:10 PM: A Six Minute Brachytherapy Waste Audit: A Feasible, Efficient Method for Identifying Opportunities to Enhance the Environmental Sustainability of a Radiation Oncology Department Practices

<h3>Purpose</h3> Operating rooms (OR) have been identified as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in part due to their waste generation - producing an estimated 30% of hospital waste. Today, unused surgical supplies that end up in the waste system can account for 15% of total surgical supply costs. Nearly all forms of brachytherapy require use of an OR, or designated procedural suite, thus significant opportunities exist to engage staff in analyzing current practices and finding ways to reduce waste. We established a waste audit protocol to increase employee engagement and measure a single department's OR waste. <h3>Materials and Methods</h3> A three-month brachytherapy OR waste audit was conducted. The waste audit team consisted of a brachytherapy attending, two brachytherapy radiation therapists, radiation oncology residents, and a research coordinator. Standardized documents created for the audit included: a one-page waste-audit template, a one-page supply audit, and an email template sent to the brachytherapist whose cases were audited. Equipment used included a patient scale and phone camera used to document standard setup, supplies used, and waste generated. The audit was performed by an independent auditor (a resident and/or research coordinator) upon conclusion of the OR case. Procedural waste was weighed and photographed, and later analyzed collaboratively at waste audit team meetings. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 21 randomly selected HDR brachytherapy OR cases were audited between December 2021 - February 2022. The average length of time required to complete the waste audit was 6 minutes. Results were presented to all brachytherapy staff at an already established monthly meeting, and to the greater department during a five-minute time slot at the monthly departmental Quality Improvement conference. An educational poster was created depicting proper waste sorting of common OR and brachytherapy supplies into biohazard versus non-biohazard waste. All templates and education material were packaged into an public online waste audit "toolkit" which may be adapted by other departments. Further implementation of waste mitigation efforts remain underway. <h3>Conclusions</h3> The OR waste audit protocol described here serves as an efficient, feasible model that seamlessly integrates into brachytherapy practices. The standardized templates and "toolkit" may be used widely by other procedural suites, outpatient clinics, radiation oncology departments, and specialties beyond radiotherapy to evaluate current waste practices, improve care, and possibly reduce costs. Importantly, this waste audit tool serves as an easy entry point, and a call-to-action, for healthcare professionals and radiation oncologists to begin to transition to environmentally sustainable care.

Staged Versus Simultaneous Bilateral Knee Arthroplasty: Does Minimal Cost Difference Justify Risks?

BackgroundSimultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (BTKA) is associated with a higher risk but can be perceived to afford faster improvement and mitigated costs versus staged BTKA. We aimed to explore (1) health care utilization, (2) surgical supply costs of simultaneous BTKA; and (3) 1-year improvement in patient-reported pain, function, and quality of life (QOL) versus staged BTKA. MethodsA prospective cohort of 198 simultaneous and 625 staged BTKAs was obtained (2016-2020). Simultaneous BTKA cohort was propensity score-matched (1:2) to a similar group of staged patients (simultaneous = 198 versus staged = 396). Outcomes included length of stay, discharge disposition, 90-day readmission, 1-year reoperation, surgical episode supply cost, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-pain, KOOS-Physical Function Short Form, and KOOS-QOL. Rates of attaining minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State were calculated. ResultsCompared to both staged BTKA surgeries combined, simultaneous BTKA demonstrated shorter median net length of stay (2.00 [2.00, 3.00] days versus 2.00 [2.00, 4.00] days; P < .001) but higher rates of nonhome discharge (n = 56 [28.3%] versus n = 32 [4.04%]; P < .001), 90-day readmission (n = 20 [10.1%] versus n = 48 [6.06%]; P = .047) and similar reoperation rates (P = .44). Simultaneous BTKA afforded slight reduction in net surgical cost compared to that of both staged BTKAs combined ($643; P = .028). There was no significant difference in 1-year improvement and minimal clinically important difference attainment rates with simultaneous versus staged BTKA for KOOS-pain (P = .137 and P = .99), KOOS-QOL (P = .095 and P = .81), or KOOS-Physical Function Short Form (P = .75 and P = .49, respectively) or Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (P = .12). ConclusionStaged BTKA is associated with similar 1-year pain, function, and QOL at a better safety profile and minimal surgical supply cost increase compared to simultaneous BTKA.

Association of Operating Room Costs With Head and Neck Surgical Instrumentation Optimization

In an era of increasing health care expenditure, reduction of redundant head and neck surgical instrumentation may minimize waste. To (1) optimize head and neck surgical instrument trays at a single large academic tertiary care center and (2) identify associated direct cost savings. This prospective quality improvement initiative was conducted at an academic tertiary care medical center from July 2017 through July 2021. Participants were a multidisciplinary surgical quality team consisting of head and neck surgeons, operating room nurses, surgical technicians, and supply chain analysts. The 4 primary surgical instrument trays (major otolaryngology [Oto], Oto plastics, direct laryngoscopy, and microdirect laryngoscopy) used in all head and neck procedures were reviewed by 10 head and neck surgical faculty with detailed case observation of instrument utilization performed by trained operating room nurses and surgical technologists. Instruments used in less than 40% of cases were excluded from surgical trays, and novel instrument trays were established based on faculty feedback and utilization. Data on instrument processing, utilization, and associated institutional direct costs were prospectively collected over a 3-year period. The primary outcome measure was change in operating room direct costs. Surgeon satisfaction with the quality improvement intervention was the secondary outcome. Direct cost savings were identified as a function of surgical volume, labor and supply costs, and instrument depreciation. More than 1500 eligible surgical cases were reviewed during the preintervention period. Of the 149 instruments in the major Oto tray, only 118 (79%) instruments were used in more than 40% of cases. There were 58 (49%) and 32 (21%) instruments in this tray that were used in more than 40% of neck dissections and sentinel lymph node biopsies, respectively. Resulting intervention included development of a streamlined major Oto tray with 118 instruments and novel neck dissection and sentinel lymph node biopsy trays. Similar processes were applied to the remaining head and neck trays, with a total of 257 instruments removed. Over a 3-year postintervention period, streamlined surgical trays were used 9284 times with direct cost savings of $228 338 (95% CI, $227 817-$228 854). Overall surgeon satisfaction with the optimized head and neck surgical trays was 100%. In this quality improvement study, surgeon-led elimination of redundant or rarely used instruments from surgical instrument trays was associated with reduced operating room direct costs while maintaining stakeholder satisfaction.

Surgeon education through a surgical cost feedback system reduces supply cost in endoscopic skull base surgery.

A large proportion of healthcare expense is operating room (OR) costs. As a means of cost mitigation, several institutions have implemented surgeon education programs to bring awareness about supply costs. This study evaluates the impact of a surgical cost feedback system (surgical receipt) on the supply costs of endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS) procedures. The supply costs of each ESBS surgical case were prospectively collected and analyzed before and after the implementation of a nonincentivized, automated, and itemized weekly surgical receipt system between January 2017 and December 2019. Supply cost data collected 15 months prior to intervention were compared with cost data 21 months after implementation of the surgical receipt system. Demographics, surgical details, and OR time were collected retrospectively. Of 105 ESBS procedures analyzed, 36 preceded and 69 followed implementation of cost feedback. There were no significant differences in patient age (p = 0.064), sex (p = 0.489), surgical indication (p = 0.389), or OR anesthesia time (p = 0.51) for patients treated before and after implementation. The mean surgical supply cost decreased from $3824.41 to $3010.35 (p = 0.002) after implementation of receipt feedback. Usage of dural sealants (p = 0.043), microfibrillar collagen hemostat (p = 0.007), and oxidized regenerated cellulose hemostat (p < 0.0001) and reconstructive technique (p = 0.031) significantly affected cost. Mediation analysis confirmed that the overall cost reduction was predominantly driven by reduced use of dural sealant; this cost saving exceeded the incremental cost of greater use of packing materials such as microfibrillar collagen hemostat. Education of surgeons regarding surgical supply costs by a surgical receipt feedback system can reduce the supply cost per case of ESBS operations.

Evaluating the impact of surgical supply cost variation during partial nephrectomy on patient outcomes.

BackgroundReducing surgical supply costs can help to lower hospital expenditures. We aimed to evaluate whether variation in supply costs between urologic surgeons performing both robotic or open partial nephrectomies is associated with differential patient outcomes.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed 399 consecutive robotic (n=220) and open (n=179) partial nephrectomies performed at an academic center. Surgical supply costs were determined at the institution-negotiated rate. Through retrospective review, we identified factors related to case complexity, patient comorbidity, and perioperative outcomes. Two radiologists assigned nephrometry scores to grade tumor complexity. We created univariate and multivariable models for predictors of supply costs, length of stay, and change in serum creatinine.ResultsMedian supply cost was $3,201 [interquartile range (IQR): $2,201–3,808] for robotic partial nephrectomy and $968 (IQR: $819–1,772) for open partial nephrectomy. Mean nephrometry score was 7.0 (SD =1.7) for robotic procedures and 8.2 (SD =1.6) for open procedures. In multivariable models, the surgeon was the primary significant predictor of variation in surgical supply costs for both procedure types. In multivariable mixed-effects analysis with surgeon as a random effect, supply cost was not a significant predictor of change in serum creatinine for robotic or open procedures. Supply cost was not a statistically significant predictor of length of stay for the open procedure. Supply cost was a significant predictor of longer length of stay for the robotic procedure, however it was not a clinically meaningful change in length of stay (0.02 days per $100 in supply costs).ConclusionsHigher supply spending did not predict significantly improved patient outcomes. Variability in surgeon supply preference is the likely source of variability in supply cost. These data suggest that efforts to promote cost-effective utilization and standardization of supplies in partial nephrectomy could help reduce costs without harming patients.

Supracondylar Fractures: A Retrospective Chart Review Comparing Infection Rate, Antibiotic Use, Surgical Time and Cost of Full Surgical Preparation and Draping vs "Semi-Sterile" Technique.

BackgroundSemi-sterile and full preparation and draping techniques are commonly used in closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) of supracondylar fractures. Debate exists whether full preparation and draping is safer than semi-sterile technique in regards to infection risk and the utility of pre-operative antibiotics. This study is a comparison of infection rates, pre-operative antibiotic administration, cost and surgical time between techniques.MethodsA retrospective chart review of 336 pediatric patients with supracondylar fractures repaired with CRPP at our institution was completed between January 2014 and April 2018, 168 per technique. Infection rates, pre-operative antibiotic administration, preparation-to-incision time and cost in semi-sterile draping versus full preparation and draping techniques were compared.ResultsOf the 336 patients, 1/168 (0.1%) in the full preparation and draping group developed an infection compared to 0/168 (0%) patients in the semi-sterile group. Pre-operative antibiotics (Cefazolin) were administered to 76/168 (23%) patients in the full preparation and draping group and 0/168 (0%) in the semi-sterile group. The infection found received pre-operative antibiotics. Mean preparation-to-incision time for the semi-sterile group was 2.4±2.0 minutes and the full preparation and draping group was 9.9 ±4.2 minutes (p <0.001). Surgical supply cost was $80.72 [CDN] and 108.24$ [CDN], respectively, for the semi-sterile and full preparation and draping groups.ConclusionRisk of infection using a semi-sterile draping technique was safe and comparable to a full preparation and draping technique when used in CRPP of supracondylar fractures. The administration of pre-operative antibiotics does not appear to make a difference in infection rates. Semi-sterile operative technique is cost effective and has decreased preparation-to-incision time.

Surgical Supply Cost Awareness Is Associated With Lower Costs: A Single-Center Experience.

Surgeons are often unfamiliar with the costs of surgical instrumentation and supplies. We hypothesized that surgeon cost feedback would be associated with a reduction in cost. A multidisciplinary team evaluated surgical supply costs for laparoscopic appendectomies of 7 surgeons (surgeons A-G) at a single-center academic institution. In the intervention, each surgeon was debriefed with their average supply cost per case, their partner's average supply cost per case, the cost of each surgical instrument/supply, and the cost of alternatives. In addition, the laparoscopic appendectomy tray was standardized to remove extraneous instruments. Pre-intervention (March 2017-February 2018) and post-intervention (March 2018-October 2018) costs were compared. Pre-intervention, the surgeons' average supply cost per case ranged from $754-$1189; when ranked from most to least expensive, surgeon A > B > C > D > E > F > G. Post-intervention, the surgeons' average supply cost per case ranged from $676 to $846, and ranked from surgeon G > D > F > C > E > B > A. Overall, the average cost per case was lower in the post-intervention group ($854.35 vs. $731.11, P < .001). This resulted in savings per case of $123.24 (14.4%), to a total annualized savings of $29151.

Can automating surgical processes reduce operating room supply costs? A pilot study of a novel OR based technology.

Introduction In the struggling economic post covid era, there will be greater cost containment, efficiency, and quality pressures. How does novel technology to dynamically digitize and automate surgical processes, as an adjunct to existing static workflows, impact surgical supply costs in knee replacement surgeries compared to traditional non automated knee replacement surgeries? Materials/Methods A novel innovative patented technology (SIGHT Medical, Alexandria LA) was created to digitize surgical processes and interface with hospital data systems (EMR- EPIC and ERP- Lawson) within Ochsner health system. Medical Surgical supplies and billable medical supplies were captured by the OR staff using standard hospital EMR and materials management workflows. Outcome measures included costs of surgical supplies, length of stay and number of cases captured using the Ochsner Health system data analytics platform (Tableau, Seattle, WA). Results 1023 knee replacement surgeries were reviewed over 3 years by 3 surgeons at 3 different hospitals within the Ochsner Health system. There was an average of $479/surgery in medical surgical supply costs for automated surgeries and $557/surgery for traditional surgeries. There was an average of $2,444/surgery in billable medical supply costs for automated surgeries and $4,660/surgery for traditional surgeries. Discussion Deploying innovative technology to create a real time dynamic communication and transparency platform can create significant supply cost savings. An average of $78 in medical surgical supply cost savings and $2216 in billable medical supply cost savings can be achieved by automating many of the surgical workflows and processes.

MP15-20 COST ESTIMATION OF COMMONLY USED DISPOSABLES DURING URETEROSCOPY

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy III (MP15)1 Apr 2020MP15-20 COST ESTIMATION OF COMMONLY USED DISPOSABLES DURING URETEROSCOPY Mahad Minhas*, Sari Khaleel, Jessica Mandeville, and Michael Borofsky Mahad Minhas*Mahad Minhas* More articles by this author , Sari KhaleelSari Khaleel More articles by this author , Jessica MandevilleJessica Mandeville More articles by this author , and Michael BorofskyMichael Borofsky More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000840.020AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Research suggests that surgeon awareness of surgical supply cost is lacking. We wanted to assess the ability of urologists and their operating room (OR) staff to estimate the cost of 10 common disposable items used in ureteroscopy, and to identify potential motives for cost reduction. METHODS: An anonymous survey was emailed to 110 urologic surgeons, trainees, and OR staff at two different academic institutions. The 26-question survey comprised of 6 demographic questions, 10 regarding attitudes and beliefs around cost awareness of disposables, and cost estimates of 10 common disposables. A cost estimate was considered accurate if it fell within 20% of the actual institutional cost; a sensitivity analysis at 50% was also done. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 69% (76). Of 760 cost estimations, 21% were accurate. Accuracy increased to 41% on the sensitivity analysis. About 65% of estimations were overestimations from actual cost, and the mean percentage error (MPE) was 263% (SD 436%) (Figure 1). Attending urologists had an MPE of 252% (SD 390%), trainees had an MPE of 174% (SD 194%), and OR staff had and MPE of 332% (SD 558%) (p<.001). Trainees generally had the lowest median cost estimates per item, while OR staff had the highest (Figure 2). Overall 75% of respondents believed that there is “far too little” or “too little” emphasis placed on ureteroscopy cost awareness. When asked what would motivate respondents to decreased their disposable ureteroscopy costs, 46% favored having more knowledge of costs while 50% favored incentives, such as new equipment or bonuses. CONCLUSIONS: Among urologists and OR staff, cost estimation of common disposables in ureteroscopy is highly inaccurate and mostly overestimated. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e212-e213 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Mahad Minhas* More articles by this author Sari Khaleel More articles by this author Jessica Mandeville More articles by this author Michael Borofsky More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Variation in Intraoperative and Postoperative Utilization for 3 Common General Surgery Procedures.

The aim of this study was to understand variation in intraoperative and postoperative utilization for common general surgery procedures. Reducing surgical costs is paramount to the viability of hospitals. Retrospective analysis of electronic health record data for 7762 operations from 2 health systems. Adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and inguinal/femoral hernia repair between November 1, 2013 and November 30, 2017 were reviewed for 3 utilization measures: intraoperative disposable supply costs, procedure time, and postoperative length of stay (LOS). Crossed hierarchical regression models were fit to understand case-mixed adjusted variation in utilization across surgeons and locations and to rank surgeons. The number of surgeons performing each type of operation ranged from 20 to 63. The variation explained by surgeons ranged from 8.9% to 38.2% for supply costs, from 15.1% to 54.6% for procedure time, and from 1.3% to 7.0% for postoperative LOS. The variation explained by location ranged from 12.1% to 26.3% for supply costs, from 0.2% to 2.5% for procedure time, and from 0.0% to 31.8% for postoperative LOS. There was a positive correlation (ρ = 0.49, P = 0.03) between surgeons' higher supply costs and longer procedure times for hernia repair, but there was no correlation between other utilization measures for hernia repair and no correlation between any of the utilization measures for laparoscopic appendectomy or cholecystectomy. Surgeons are significant drivers of variation in surgical supply costs and procedure time, but much less so for postoperative LOS. Intraoperative and postoperative utilization profiles can be generated for individual surgeons and may be an important tool for reducing surgical costs.

Variations in Stapes Surgery Cost within a Multihospital Network.

To identify costs and operative times for stapedotomy and evaluate factors influencing cost variation. Case series with cost analysis. Multihospital network. A multihospital network's standardized activity-based accounting system was used to determine costs and operative times of all patients undergoing stapedotomy from 2013 to 2017. Subjects with additional procedures were excluded. Correlations between variable factors and cost were calculated by Spearman correlation coefficients. Audiometric and cost data were compared with a Mann-Whitney U test. The study cohort included 176 stapedotomies performed by 23 surgeons at 10 hospitals. Mean ± SD patient age was 44.3 ± 17.4 years. Mean cut-to-close time was 61.1 ± 23.55 minutes. Mean total encounter cost was $3542.14 ± $1258.78 (US dollars). Significant factors correlating with increased total encounter cost were surgical supply cost (r = 0.74, P < .0001) and cut-to-close time (r = 0.66, P < .0001). Laser utilization ($563.37 ± $407.41) was the highest-cost surgical supply, with the carbon dioxide laser being significantly more costly than the potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP; $852.60 vs $230.55, P < .001). Additionally, the carbon dioxide laser was associated with a significantly higher mean total encounter cost than the KTP laser ($4645.43 vs $2903.00, P < .001) and cases where no laser was used ($4645.43 vs $2932.47, P < .001). There was no difference in mean total encounter cost between the KTP laser and cases of no laser use ($2903.00 vs $2932.47, P = .75). Significant cost variation exists in stapes surgery. Surgical supply cost, specifically laser use, may be associated with significantly increased costs. Reducing variation in costs while maintaining outcomes may improve health care value.

Effects of a Surgical Receipt Program on the Supply Costs of Five General Surgery Procedures

BackgroundSurgical supplies occupy a large portion of health care expenditures but is often under the surgeon's control. We sought to assess whether an automated, surgeon-directed, cost feedback system can decrease supply expenditures for five common general surgery procedures. Materials and methodsAn automated “surgical receipt” detailing intraoperative supply costs was generated and emailed to surgeons after each case. We compared the median cost per case for 18 mo before and after implementation of the surgical receipt. We controlled for price fluctuations by applying common per-unit prices in both periods. We also compared the incision time, case length booking accuracy, length of stay, and postoperative occurrences. ResultsMedian costs decreased significantly for open inguinal hernia ($433.45 to $385.49, P < 0.001), laparoscopic cholecystectomy ($886.77 to $816.13, P = 0.002), and thyroidectomy ($861.21 to $825.90, P = 0.034). Median costs were unchanged for laparoscopic appendectomy and increased significantly for lumpectomy ($325.67 to $420.53, P < 0.001). There was an increase in incision-to-closure minutes for open inguinal hernia (71 to 75 min, P < 0.001) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (75 to 96 min, P < 0.001), but a decrease in thyroidectomy (79 to 73 min, P < 0.001). There was an increase in booking accuracy for laparoscopic appendectomy (38.6% to 55.0%, P = 0.001) and thyroidectomy (32.5% to 48.1%, P = 0.001). There were no differences in postoperative occurrence rates and length of stay duration. ConclusionsAn automated surgeon-directed surgical receipt may be a useful tool to decrease supply costs for certain procedures. However, curtailing surgical supply costs with surgeon-directed cost feedback alone is challenging and a multimodal approach may be necessary.

Reducing Surgical Infections and Implant Costs via a Novel Paradigm of Enhanced Physician Awareness.

Studies have demonstrated that physicians are often unaware of prescription drug, laboratory, diagnostic, and surgical supply costs. To investigate the effects of increased physician awareness on infection incidence and surgical device cost containment. Within our institution, physicians were informed of individual, independently adjudicated, craniotomy and ventricular shunt infection incidence and rankings among peers, after which a protocol aimed at reducing skin bacterial burden was implemented for craniotomies. Physicians were also made aware of the costs for shunts and dural substitutes as well as available alternatives. The combined craniotomy and ventricular shunt infection incidence significantly decreased by 37.5% from 3.2% over May 2011 to April 2015 (132 infections/4137 procedures) to 2.1% over May 2015 to April 2016 (26 infections/1250 procedures; P = .041). The average annual cost savings was $234 175 from preventing postoperative craniotomy infections and $121 125 from preventing postoperative ventricular shunt infections. Total supply costs of ventricular shunts significantly decreased by 26% from $2345 per procedure in fiscal year 2015 to $1747 per procedure in fiscal year 2016 (P < .001). Total supply cost of dural grafts significantly decreased by 54% from $191 per procedure in fiscal year 2015 to $88 per procedure in fiscal year 2016 (P < .001). In total, all initiatives in this study resulted in an estimated annual savings of $567 062. Physician awareness of outcomes and costs resulted in increasing the quality of care, while at the same time reducing the cost.

Variation in Laparoscopic Nephrectomy Surgical Costs: Opportunities for High Value Care Delivery

IntroductionRising health care costs are leading to efforts to minimize costs while maintaining high quality care. Practice variation in the operating room that is not dictated by patient necessity or clinical guidelines presents an opportunity for cost containment. We identified variation in surgical supply costs among urological surgeons performing laparoscopic nephrectomy and evaluated whether this variation was associated with patient outcomes. MethodsA total of 211 consecutive laparoscopic nephrectomies performed at an academic center between September 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015 were identified and surgical supply costs for each case were determined from the institutional negotiated rate. Patient and surgical factors relevant to case complexity, comorbidity and perioperative outcomes were obtained. Univariate and multivariable analysis of predictors of surgical supply costs and patient outcome as determined by length of stay was conducted. ResultsMedian supply cost was $2,537, with individual medians ranging from $1,642 to $4,524, representing a significant variation among surgeons (p <0.01). On multivariable analysis, accounting for patient factors and case complexity, most surgeons remained significant predictors of surgical supply costs. Case supply cost was not a significant predictor of patient outcomes as measured by length of stay on univariate or multivariable analysis controlling for surgeon, patient factors and case complexity. ConclusionsSignificant variation in surgeons’ surgical supply costs for laparoscopic nephrectomy exists and is driven by surgeons, and this does not correlate with length of stay. Targeting variation in surgical supply costs in this setting represents an opportunity for cost savings without adversely impacting patient outcomes.

A comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with either a cellular bone allograft containing multipotent adult progenitor cells or recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2

BackgroundBoth the map3 Cellular Allogeneic Bone Graft® and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2, Infuse®) were developed to provide an alternative to iliac crest autograft, thus eliminating the morbidity associated with its harvest. The recent literature concerning adverse events associated with the use of rhBMP-2, however, highlights the need for a safe and effective alternative. The multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPC) found in map3 allograft may provide this alternative. The purpose of this study is to report 1-year outcomes of patients treated via anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using either map3 Cellular Allogeneic Bone Graft or rhBMP-2 for bony fusion.MethodsThis was a retrospective evaluation of 41 patients treated via ALIF with either map3 or rhBMP-2 in a polyetheretherketone cage with posterior stabilization at 1, 2, or 3 consecutive levels (L3-S1). Patients were equally divided between treatment groups. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scores (VAS) for pain were documented as part of the standard of care. An independent radiologist assessed bridging of bone, disc height, and lordosis. Primary outcome measures included radiographic analysis of fusion by plain film and CTs. Secondary clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale for neck and arm pain and low back disability index scores.ResultsThe overall fusion rate was 91%, with no significant difference between groups. Improvements in ODI and VAS were observed among all patients (p < 0.001), with no significant difference between groups for ODI (p = 0.966) or VAS (p = 0.251). There was no significant difference in terms of changes to disc height and lordosis between groups (p < 0.05). The rhBMP-2 group had increased post-operative complications when compared to the map3 group, but the low numbers precluded statistical analysis.ConclusionImprovements in radiographic and clinical findings were observed in both treatment groups one-year postoperatively. Map3 allograft demonstrated equivalent fusion rates to rhBMP-2. A review of surgical supply costs at the treatment facility favored map3 allograft for the treatment of patients with DDD undergoing an ALIF in 1–3 levels compared to rhBMP-2. Further studies to evaluate long-term outcomes and post-operative complications are required.

Preparing for bundled payments in urology: Defining episodes, evaluating variations in care, and demonstrating improved value.

11 Background: As payors introduce APMs, there is little guidance on how episodes will be defined in subspecialty areas. We set out to define clinically relevant episodes of care, develop standardized approachs toward reducing variations in care, and implement evidence-based standardized care pathways. We chose two urologic cancer procedures- Radical Cystectomy and Robotic Radical Prostatectomy. Methods: Episode timeframes were defined: Radical Cystectomy (14 days prior, index hospitalization, 90 days post) and RALP (30 days prior, index hospitalization, 30 days post). To identify variations in care, we compared evidence-based guidelines with practice patterns, analyzed episode and index hospitalization direct costs for various surgeons, and reviewed the utilization of high cost supplies and drugs. Length of stay (LOS), readmissions, complications, and acuity were benchmarked against comparable academic medical centers. Faculty, trainees, APPs, and staff collaborated to develop care pathways, modify workflows and EPIC order sets to reduce variation, improve outcomes, and increase efficiency. Results: Variation in care was reflected in wide standard deviations in episode direct costs. Six months after implementing care pathways, we achieved the following: RALP average cost per episode decreased by 15%. Standard deviation in episode direct costs decreased by 77%. The percentage of patients with 1-day LOS increased from 21% to 67%. The medical surgical supply costs during hospitalization decreased by 22.5%. Standard deviation in episode direct costs for Radical Cystectomy decreased by 27%. Readmissions to SHC decreased from 15.6% to 12.5%. The percentage of patients with less than 6-day LOS increased from 46% to 66%. Conclusions: Across two episodes, our care redesign efforts had actualized direct cost savings of $692,000 annually. As we prepare for future APMs, similar multidisciplinary approaches can be applied to other areas to reduce costs and improve quality of care.

Association Between Surgeon Scorecard Use and Operating Room Costs

Despite the significant contribution of surgical spending to health care costs, most surgeons are unaware of their operating room costs. To examine the association between providing surgeons with individualized cost feedback and surgical supply costs in the operating room. The OR Surgical Cost Reduction (OR SCORE) project was a single-health system, multihospital, multidepartmental prospective controlled study in an urban academic setting. Intervention participants were attending surgeons in orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, and neurological surgery (n = 63). Control participants were attending surgeons in cardiothoracic surgery, general surgery, vascular surgery, pediatric surgery, obstetrics/gynecology, ophthalmology, and urology (n = 186). From January 1 to December 31, 2015, each surgeon in the intervention group received standardized monthly scorecards showing the median surgical supply direct cost for each procedure type performed in the prior month compared with the surgeon's baseline (July 1, 2012, to November 30, 2014) and compared with all surgeons at the institution performing the same procedure at baseline. All surgical departments were eligible for a financial incentive if they met a 5% cost reduction goal. The primary outcome was each group's median surgical supply cost per case. Secondary outcome measures included total departmental surgical supply costs, case mix index-adjusted median surgical supply costs, patient outcomes (30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and discharge status), and surgeon responses to a postintervention study-specific health care value survey. The median surgical supply direct costs per case decreased 6.54% in the intervention group, from $1398 (interquartile range [IQR], $316-$5181) (10 637 cases) in 2014 to $1307 (IQR, $319-$5037) (11 820 cases) in 2015. In contrast, the median surgical supply direct cost increased 7.42% in the control group, from $712 (IQR, $202-$1602) (16 441 cases) in 2014 to $765 (IQR, $233-$1719) (17 227 cases) in 2015. This decrease represents a total savings of $836 147 in the intervention group during the 1-year study. After controlling for surgeon, department, patient demographics, and clinical indicators in a mixed-effects model, there was a 9.95% (95% CI, 3.55%-15.93%; P = .003) surgical supply cost decrease in the intervention group over 1 year. Patient outcomes were equivalent or improved after the intervention, and surgeons who received scorecards reported higher levels of cost awareness on the health care value survey compared with controls. Cost feedback to surgeons, combined with a small departmental financial incentive, was associated with significantly reduced surgical supply costs, without negatively affecting patient outcomes.

Predictors of Variation in Neurosurgical Supply Costs and Outcomes Across 4904 Surgeries at a Single Institution

There is high variability in neurosurgical costs, and surgical supplies constitute a significant portion of cost. Anecdotally, surgeons use different supplies for various reasons, but there is little understanding of how supply choices affect outcomes. Our goal is to evaluate the effect of patient, procedural, and provider factors on supply cost and to determine if supply cost is associated with patient outcomes. We obtained patient information (age, gender, payor, case mix index [CMI], body mass index, admission source), procedural data (procedure type, length, date), provider information (name, case volume), and total surgical supply cost for all inpatient neurosurgical procedures from 2013 to 2014 at our institution (n= 4904). We created mixed-effect models to examine the effect of each factor on surgical supply cost, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality. There was significant variation in surgical supply cost between and within procedure types. Older age, female gender, higher CMI, routine/elective admission, longer procedure, and larger surgeon volume were associated with higher surgical supply costs (P < 0.05). Routine/elective admission and higher surgeon volume were associated with lower readmission rates (odds ratio, 0.707, 0.998; P < 0.01). Only patient factors of older age, male gender, private insurance, higher CMI, and emergency admission were associated with higher mortality (odds ratio, 1.029, 1.700, 1.692, 1.080, 2.809). There was no association between surgical supply cost and readmission or mortality (P= 0.307, 0.548). A combination of patient, procedural, and provider factors underlie the significant variation in neurosurgical supply costs at our institution. Surgical supply costs are not correlated with 30-day readmission or mortality.