It has been established that a dedicated orthopaedic trauma room (DOTR) provides significant clinical and organizational benefits to the management of trauma patients. After-hours care is associated with surgeon fatigue, a high risk of patient complications, and increased costs related to staffing. However, hesitation due to concerns of the associated opportunity cost at the hospital leadership level is a major barrier to wide-spread adoption. The primary aim of this study is to determine the impact of dedicated orthopaedic trauma room (DOTR) implementation on operating room efficiency. Secondly, we sought to evaluate the associated financial impact of the DOTR, with respect to both after-hours care costs as well as the opportunity cost of displaced elective cases.

This was a retrospective cost-analysis study performed at a single academic-affiliated community hospital in Toronto, Canada. All patients that underwent the most frequently performed orthopedic trauma procedures (hip hemiarthroplasty, open reduction internal fixation of the ankle, femur, elbow and distal radius), over a four-year period from 2016-2019 were included. Patient data acquired for two-years prior and two-years after the implementation of a DOTR were compared, adjusting for the number of cases performed. Surgical duration and number of day-time and after-hours cases was recorded pre- and post-implementation. Cost savings of performing trauma cases during daytime and the opportunity cost of displacing elective cases by performing cases during the day was calculated. A sensitivity analysis accounting for varying overtime costs and hospital elective case profit was also performed.

1960 orthopaedic cases were examined pre- and post-DOTR. All procedures had reduced total operative time post-DOTR. After accounting for the total number of each procedure performed, the mean weighted reduction was 31.4% and the mean time saved was 29.6 minutes per surgery. The number of daytime surgical hours increased 21%, while nighttime hours decreased by 37.8%. Overtime staffing costs were reduced by $24,976 alongside increase in opportunity costs of $22,500. This resulted in a net profit of $2,476.

Our results support the premise that DOTRs improve operating room efficiency and can be cost efficient. Through the regular scheduling of a DOTR at a single hospital in Canada, the number of surgeries occurring during daytime hours increased while the number of after-hours cases decreased. The same surgeries were also completed nearly one-third faster (30 minutes per case) on average. Our study also specifically addresses the hesitation regarding potential loss of profit from elective surgeries. Notably, the savings partially stem from decreased OR time as well as decreased nurse overtime. Widespread implementation can improve patient care while still remaining financially favourable.

Most cost containment efforts in public health systems have focused on regulating the use of hospital resources, especially operative time. As such, attempting to maximize the efficiency of limited operative time is important. Typically, hospital operating room (OR) scheduling of time is performed in two tiers: 1) master surgical scheduling (annual allocation of time between surgical services and surgeons) and 2) daily scheduling (a surgeon's selection of cases per operative day). Master surgical scheduling is based on a hospital's annual case mix and depends on the annual throughput rate per case type. This throughput rate depends on the efficiency of surgeons’ daily scheduling. However, daily scheduling is predominantly performed manually, which requires that the human planner simultaneously reasons about unknowns such as case-specific length-of-surgery and variability while attempting to maximize throughput. This often leads to OR overtime and likely sub-optimal throughput rate. In contrast, scheduling using mathematical and optimization methods can produce maximum systems efficiency, and is extensively used in the business world. As such, the purpose of our study was to compare the efficiency of 1) manual and 2) optimized OR scheduling at an academic-affiliated community hospital representative of most North American centres.

Historic OR data was collected over a four year period for seven surgeons. The actual scheduling, surgical duration, overtime and number of OR days were extracted. This data was first configured to represent the historic manual scheduling process. Following this, the data was then used as the input to an integer linear programming model with the goal of determining the minimum number of OR days to complete the same number of cases while not exceeding the historic overtime values. Parameters included the use of a different quantile for each case type's surgical duration in order to ensure a schedule within five percent of the historic overtime value per OR day.

All surgeons saw a median 10% (range: 9.2% to 18.3%) reduction in the number of OR days needed to complete their annual case-load compared to their historical scheduling practices. Meanwhile, the OR overtime varied by a maximum of 5%. The daily OR configurations differed from historic configurations in 87% of cases. In addition, the number of configurations per surgeon was reduced from an average of six to four.

Our study demonstrates a significant increase in OR throughput rate (10%) with no change in operative time required. This has considerable implications in terms of cost reduction, surgical wait lists and surgeon satisfaction. A limitation of this study was that the potential gains are based on the efficiency of the pre-existing manual scheduling at our hospital. However, given the range of scenarios tested, number of surgeons included and the similarity of our hospital size and configuration to the majority of North American hospitals with an orthopedic service, these results are generalizable. Further optimization may be achieved by taking into account factors that could predict case duration such as surgeon experience, patients characteristics, and institutional attributes via machine learning.