No abstract

Cost feedback to surgeons, combined with a small departmental financial incentive, was associated with significantly reduced surgical supply costs, without negatively affecting patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE Disposable supplies constitute a large portion of operating room (OR) costs and are often left over at the end of a surgical case. Despite financial and environmental implications of such waste, there has been little evaluation of OR supply utilization. The goal of this study was to quantify the utilization of disposable supplies and the costs associated with opened but unused items (i.e., "waste") in neurosurgical procedures. METHODS Every disposable supply that was unused at the end of surgery was quantified through direct observation of 58 neurosurgical cases at the University of California, San Francisco, in August 2015. Item costs (in US dollars) were determined from the authors' supply catalog, and statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS Across 58 procedures (36 cranial, 22 spinal), the average cost of unused supplies was $653 (range $89-$3640, median $448, interquartile range $230-$810), or 13.1% of total surgical supply cost. Univariate analyses revealed that case type (cranial versus spinal), case category (vascular, tumor, functional, instrumented, and noninstrumented spine), and surgeon were important predictors of the percentage of unused surgical supply cost. Case length and years of surgical training did not affect the percentage of unused supply cost. Accounting for the different case distribution in the 58 selected cases, the authors estimate approximately $968 of OR waste per case, $242,968 per month, and $2.9 million per year, for their neurosurgical department. CONCLUSIONS This study shows a large variation and significant magnitude of OR waste in neurosurgical procedures. At the authors' institution, they recommend price transparency, education about OR waste to surgeons and nurses, preference card reviews, and clarification of supplies that should be opened versus available as needed to reduce waste.

IMPORTANCE Robust laboratory use data are lacking to support the general assumption that teaching hospitals with trainees routinely order more laboratory tests for inpatients than do nonteaching hospitals.OBJECTIVE To quantify differences in the use of laboratory tests between teaching and nonteaching hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA cross-sectional study was performed using a statewide database to identify hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia or cellulitis from January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015, at teaching and nonteaching hospitals with 100 or more hospitalizations of each condition. Patients included were adult inpatients with a primary diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia (n = 24 118) or cellulitis (n = 19 211); patients excluded were those with an intensive care unit stay, transfer from another hospital, or a length of stay that was 2 SDs or more of the condition's mean length of stay. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESMean laboratory tests per day stratified by illness severity, as well as factors associated with laboratory use rates.RESULTS A total of 43 329 hospitalized patients (20493 women and 22836 men) had a principal diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia or cellulitis across 11 major teaching hospitals, 12 minor teaching hospitals, and 73 nonteaching hospitals in Texas. Mean number of laboratory tests per day varied significantly by hospital type and was highest for major teaching hospitals for both conditions (bacterial pneumonia: major teaching hospitals, 13.21; 95% CI, 12.91-13.51; nonteaching hospitals, 8.92; 95% CI, 8.84-9.00; P < .001; cellulitis: major teaching hospitals, 10.43; 95% CI, 10.16-10.70; nonteaching hospitals, 7.29; 95% CI, 7.22-7.36; P < .001). This association held for all levels of illness severity for both conditions, except for patients with cellulitis with the highest illness severity level. In generalized mixed linear regression models, controlling for additional patient and encounter covariates, there was a significant difference in the marginal effect of hospital teaching status on mean number of laboratory tests per day between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals (difference in marginal mean laboratory tests per day for bacterial pneumonia, 3.58; 95% CI, 2.61-4.55; P < .001; for cellulitis, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.76-3.47; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCECompared with nonteaching hospitals, patients in Texas admitted to major teaching hospitals with bacterial pneumonia or cellulitis received significantly more laboratory tests after controlling for illness severity, length of stay, and patient demographics. These results support the need to examine how the culture of training environments may contribute to increased use of laboratory tests.

BACKGROUND Discharging patients before noon is a key approach to improving bed utilization. Few data exist to describe whether patients are discharged earlier or their stay is extended to allow for an early discharge the next day. OBJECTIVE To determine if a discharge before noon (DCBN) is associated with length of stay (LOS). DESIGN/SETTINGS/PATIENTS Retrospective analysis of data from adult medical and surgical discharges from a single academic center from July 2012 through April 2015. We used a multivariable generalized linear model to evaluate the association between DCBN and LOS. RESULTS Of 38,365 hospitalizations, 6484 (16.9%) were discharged before noon, and the median LOS was 3.7 days. After adjustment, DCBN was associated with a longer LOS (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.043, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.003‐1.086). The association between longer LOS and DCBN was more pronounced in patients admitted emergently (n = 14,192, 37%) (adjusted OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.033‐1.249). CONCLUSIONS Although we cannot discern whether discharges were delayed to achieve discharge before noon, earlier discharge was associated with a longer LOS, particularly among emergent admissions. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015;11:859–861. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine

No abstract

Community mitigation strategies to combat COVID-19, ranging from healthy hygiene to shelter-in-place orders, exact substantial socioeconomic costs. Judicious implementation and relaxation of restrictions amplify their public health benefits while reducing costs. We derive optimal strategies for toggling between mitigation stages using daily COVID-19 hospital admissions. With public compliance, the policy triggers ensure adequate intensive care unit capacity with high probability while minimizing the duration of strict mitigation measures. In comparison, we show that other sensible COVID-19 staging policies, including France’s ICU-based thresholds and a widely adopted indicator for reopening schools and businesses, require overly restrictive measures or trigger strict stages too late to avert catastrophic surges. As proof-of-concept, we describe the optimization and maintenance of the staged alert system that has guided COVID-19 policy in a large US city (Austin, Texas) since May 2020. As cities worldwide face future pandemic waves, our findings provide a robust strategy for tracking COVID-19 hospital admissions as an early indicator of hospital surges and enacting staged measures to ensure integrity of the health system, safety of the health workforce, and public confidence.

The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02593253).