The impact of Joint Commission International accreditation on time periods in the operating room: A retrospective observational study
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of RadiologyDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2018-09-21Keywords
Surgical and invasive medical proceduresAnesthesia
Otolaryngological procedures
Pediatric surgery
Orthopedic surgery
Plastic surgery and reconstructive techniques
Surgical oncology
Gynecologic surgery
Anesthesia and Analgesia
Health and Medical AdministrationHealth PolicyHealth Services AdministrationHealth Services ResearchSurgerySurgical Procedures, Operative
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
The Joint Commission International (JCI) is responsible for upholding standards in healthcare and organizations in compliance receive accreditation. JCI requires quality improvement on patient safety goals, but requirements may prolong the total procedure/surgery time and reduce efficiency. Here, we evaluate the impact of JCI requirements on time periods in the operating room. We included patients who received elective and emergency surgeries under general anesthesia at Juntendo University Hospital between December 2014 and June 2016. Patients were classified as before and after JCI accreditation on December 12, 2015. The primary outcome was total procedure/surgery time. Secondary outcomes include five time periods comprising the total procedure/surgery time: pre-anesthesia time, anesthesia induction time, procedure/surgery time, anesthesia awareness time and post-anesthesia time. We compared these time periods between patients before and after JCI accreditation and patients were matched for age, sex and the specific type of surgery. Although total procedure/surgery time did not change significantly, pre-anesthesia time significantly increased (8.2 +/- 6.9 minutes vs. 8.5 +/- 6.9 minutes, before vs. after JCI, respectively, p = 0.028) and anesthesia induction time significantly decreased (34.4 +/- 16.1 minutes vs. 33.6 +/- 15.4 minutes, before vs. after JCI, respectively, p = 0.037) after JCI accreditation. Other secondary study outcomes did not change significantly. Quality improvement initiatives associated with time periods in the operating room can be achieved without undermining efficiency.Source
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 21;13(9):e0204301. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204301. eCollection 2018. Link to article on publisher's site
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0204301Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/40799PubMed ID
30240416Related Resources
Rights
Copyright: © 2018 Inomata et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Distribution License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Scopus Count
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright: © 2018 Inomata et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Clinical and Financial Impact of Hospital Readmissions Following Colorectal Resection: Predictors, Outcomes, and Costs: A ThesisBackground: Following passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, 30-day hospital readmissions have come under greater scrutiny. Excess readmissions for certain medical conditions and procedures now result in penalizations on all Medicare reimbursements. We examined the risk factors, outcomes, and costs of 30-day readmissions after colorectal surgery (CRS). Methods: The University HealthSystem Consortium database was queried for adults (≥ 18 years) who underwent colorectal resection for cancer, diverticular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, or benign tumors between January 2008 and December 2011. Our outcomes of interest were readmission within 30-days of the patient’s index discharge, hospital readmission outcomes, and total direct hospital costs. Results: A total of 70,484 patients survived the index hospitalization after CRS during the years under study, 13.7% (9,632) of which were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. The strongest independent predictors of readmission were: LOS ≥4 days (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.32-1.57), stoma (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.45-1.61), and discharge to skilled nursing (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.49-1.76) or rehabilitation facility (OR 2.93; 95% CI 2.54-3.40). Of those readmitted, half occurred within 7 days of the index admission, 13% required ICU care, 6% had a reoperation, and 2% died during the readmission stay. The median combined total direct hospital cost was over twice as high ($26,917 v. $13,817) for readmitted than for nonreadmitted patients. Conclusions: Readmissions following colorectal resection occur frequently and incur a significant financial burden on the healthcare system. Future studies aimed at targeted interventions for high-risk patients may reduce readmissions and curb escalating healthcare costs. Categorization: Outcomes research; Cost analysis; Colon and Rectal Surgery
-
Utilization of morning report by acute care surgery teams: results from a qualitative studyBACKGROUND: The rigor of handoffs is increasingly scrutinized in the era of shift-based patient care. Acute care surgery (ACS) embraced such a model of care; however, little is known about handoffs in ACS programs. METHODS: Eighteen open-ended interviews were conducted with ACS leaders representing diverse geographic and practice settings. Two independent reviewers analyzed interviews using an inductive approach to elucidate themes regarding use of morning report (using NVivo qualitative analysis software). RESULTS: Twelve of 18 respondents reported using morning report, but only 6 of 12 included attending surgeon-to-attending surgeon handoffs. One of 12 incentivized attending surgeons to participate, 2 of 12 included nursing staff members, and 2 of 12 included physician extenders. Cited benefits of morning report were safe and effective information exchange (2 of 12), quality improvement (2 of 12), multidisciplinary discussion (1 of 12), and resident education (2 of 12). Three of 12 respondents cited time commitment as the main limitation of morning report. CONCLUSIONS: Morning report is underused among ACS programs; however, if implemented strategically, it may improve patient care and resident education.
-
A qualitative analysis of acute care surgery in the United States: it's more than just "a competent surgeon with a sharp knife and a willing attitude"BACKGROUND: Since acute care surgery (ACS) was conceptualized a decade ago, the specialty has been adopted widely; however, little is known about the structure and function of ACS teams. METHODS: We conducted 18 open-ended interviews with ACS leaders (representing geographic [New England, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South, West, Midwest] and practice [Public/Charity, Community, University] diversity). Two independent reviewers analyzed transcribed interviews using an inductive approach (NVivo qualitative analysis software). RESULTS: All respondents described ACS as a specialty treating "time-sensitive surgical disease" including trauma, emergency general surgery (EGS), and surgical critical care (SCC); 11 of 18 combined trauma and EGS into a single clinical team; 9 of 18 included elective general surgery. Emergency orthopedics, emergency neurosurgery, and surgical subspecialty triage were rare (1/18 each). Eight of 18 ACS teams had scheduled EGS operating room time. All had a core group of trauma and SCC surgeons; 13 of 18 shared EGS due to volume, human resources, or competition for revenue. Only 12 of 18 had formal signout rounds; only 2 of 18 had prospective EGS data registries. Streamlined access to EGS, evidence-based protocols, and improved education were considered strengths of ACS. ACS was described as the "last great surgical service" reinvigorated to provide "timely," cost-effective EGS by experts in "resuscitation and critical care" and to attract "young, talented, eager surgeons" to trauma/SCC; however, there was concern that ACS might become the "wastebasket for everything that happens at inconvenient times." CONCLUSION: Despite rapid adoption of ACS, its implementation varies widely. Standardization of scope of practice, continuity of care, and registry development may improve EGS outcomes and allow the specialty to thrive.
