SSET project

Cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical specialty emergency trays in the emergency department

Laura S. Humphries, Deana S. Shenaq, Chad M. Teven, Julie Park, David H. Song

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: We hypothesize that reusable, on-site specialty instrument trays available to plastic surgery residents in the emergency department (ED) for bedside procedures are more cost-effective than disposable on-site and remote re-usable operating room (OR) instruments at our institution. Methods: We completed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of disposable on-site kits and remote OR trays to a hypothetical, custom, reusable tray for ED procedures completed by PRS residents. Material costs of existing OR trays were used to estimate the purchasing and use-cost of a custom on-site tray for the same procedures. Cost of per procedure 'consult time' was estimated using procedure and resident salary. Results: Sixteen bedside procedures were completed over a 4.5 month period. A mean of 2.14 disposable kits were used per-procedure. Mean consultation time was 1.66 hours. Procedures that used OR trays took 3 times as long as procedures that used on-site kits (4 vs. 1.1 hours). Necessary, additional instruments were unavailable for 75% of procedures. Mean cost of using disposable kits and OR trays was $115.03/ procedure versus an estimated $26.67/procedure cost of using a custom tray, yielding $88.36/procedure cost-savings. Purchase of a single custom tray ($1,421.55) would be redeemed after 2.3 weeks at 1 procedure/day. Purchasing 4 trays has projected annual cost-savings of $26,565.20. Conclusion: The purchase of specialized procedure trays will yield valuable time and cost-savings while providing quality patient care. Improving time efficiency will help achieve the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) goals of maintaining resident well-being and developing quality improvement competency.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere1591
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Surgical Specialties
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Hospital Emergency Service
Emergencies
Operating Rooms
Costs and Cost Analysis
Cost Savings
Graduate Medical Education
Accreditation
Quality of Health Care
Salaries and Fringe Benefits

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

SSET project : Cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical specialty emergency trays in the emergency department. / Humphries, Laura S.; Shenaq, Deana S.; Teven, Chad M.; Park, Julie; Song, David H.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open, Vol. 6, No. 1, e1591, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d077b4a75ff343109dfd9ad1b02b92a9,
title = "SSET project: Cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical specialty emergency trays in the emergency department",
abstract = "Background: We hypothesize that reusable, on-site specialty instrument trays available to plastic surgery residents in the emergency department (ED) for bedside procedures are more cost-effective than disposable on-site and remote re-usable operating room (OR) instruments at our institution. Methods: We completed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of disposable on-site kits and remote OR trays to a hypothetical, custom, reusable tray for ED procedures completed by PRS residents. Material costs of existing OR trays were used to estimate the purchasing and use-cost of a custom on-site tray for the same procedures. Cost of per procedure 'consult time' was estimated using procedure and resident salary. Results: Sixteen bedside procedures were completed over a 4.5 month period. A mean of 2.14 disposable kits were used per-procedure. Mean consultation time was 1.66 hours. Procedures that used OR trays took 3 times as long as procedures that used on-site kits (4 vs. 1.1 hours). Necessary, additional instruments were unavailable for 75{\%} of procedures. Mean cost of using disposable kits and OR trays was $115.03/ procedure versus an estimated $26.67/procedure cost of using a custom tray, yielding $88.36/procedure cost-savings. Purchase of a single custom tray ($1,421.55) would be redeemed after 2.3 weeks at 1 procedure/day. Purchasing 4 trays has projected annual cost-savings of $26,565.20. Conclusion: The purchase of specialized procedure trays will yield valuable time and cost-savings while providing quality patient care. Improving time efficiency will help achieve the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) goals of maintaining resident well-being and developing quality improvement competency.",
author = "Humphries, {Laura S.} and Shenaq, {Deana S.} and Teven, {Chad M.} and Julie Park and Song, {David H.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/GOX.0000000000001591",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open",
issn = "2169-7574",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SSET project

T2 - Cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical specialty emergency trays in the emergency department

AU - Humphries, Laura S.

AU - Shenaq, Deana S.

AU - Teven, Chad M.

AU - Park, Julie

AU - Song, David H.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background: We hypothesize that reusable, on-site specialty instrument trays available to plastic surgery residents in the emergency department (ED) for bedside procedures are more cost-effective than disposable on-site and remote re-usable operating room (OR) instruments at our institution. Methods: We completed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of disposable on-site kits and remote OR trays to a hypothetical, custom, reusable tray for ED procedures completed by PRS residents. Material costs of existing OR trays were used to estimate the purchasing and use-cost of a custom on-site tray for the same procedures. Cost of per procedure 'consult time' was estimated using procedure and resident salary. Results: Sixteen bedside procedures were completed over a 4.5 month period. A mean of 2.14 disposable kits were used per-procedure. Mean consultation time was 1.66 hours. Procedures that used OR trays took 3 times as long as procedures that used on-site kits (4 vs. 1.1 hours). Necessary, additional instruments were unavailable for 75% of procedures. Mean cost of using disposable kits and OR trays was $115.03/ procedure versus an estimated $26.67/procedure cost of using a custom tray, yielding $88.36/procedure cost-savings. Purchase of a single custom tray ($1,421.55) would be redeemed after 2.3 weeks at 1 procedure/day. Purchasing 4 trays has projected annual cost-savings of $26,565.20. Conclusion: The purchase of specialized procedure trays will yield valuable time and cost-savings while providing quality patient care. Improving time efficiency will help achieve the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) goals of maintaining resident well-being and developing quality improvement competency.

AB - Background: We hypothesize that reusable, on-site specialty instrument trays available to plastic surgery residents in the emergency department (ED) for bedside procedures are more cost-effective than disposable on-site and remote re-usable operating room (OR) instruments at our institution. Methods: We completed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of disposable on-site kits and remote OR trays to a hypothetical, custom, reusable tray for ED procedures completed by PRS residents. Material costs of existing OR trays were used to estimate the purchasing and use-cost of a custom on-site tray for the same procedures. Cost of per procedure 'consult time' was estimated using procedure and resident salary. Results: Sixteen bedside procedures were completed over a 4.5 month period. A mean of 2.14 disposable kits were used per-procedure. Mean consultation time was 1.66 hours. Procedures that used OR trays took 3 times as long as procedures that used on-site kits (4 vs. 1.1 hours). Necessary, additional instruments were unavailable for 75% of procedures. Mean cost of using disposable kits and OR trays was $115.03/ procedure versus an estimated $26.67/procedure cost of using a custom tray, yielding $88.36/procedure cost-savings. Purchase of a single custom tray ($1,421.55) would be redeemed after 2.3 weeks at 1 procedure/day. Purchasing 4 trays has projected annual cost-savings of $26,565.20. Conclusion: The purchase of specialized procedure trays will yield valuable time and cost-savings while providing quality patient care. Improving time efficiency will help achieve the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) goals of maintaining resident well-being and developing quality improvement competency.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064975214&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064975214&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001591

DO - 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001591

M3 - Article

VL - 6

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

SN - 2169-7574

IS - 1

M1 - e1591

ER -