Operating rooms (ORs) are complex and sensitive environments that are typically expensive to operate and maintain. Minimally invasive surgical procedures are becoming increasingly more prevalent in many OR environments, while the costs of operating and maintaining OR environments are simultaneously increasing. To counteract these issues, the authors of this study propose a novel OR design and workflow known as an Operating Room of the Future (ORF). The ORF will seek to increase overall throughput, or the movement of patients and resources through complete surgical treatment processes.
To describe the implementation of ORF (Operating Room of the Future) designs and analyze the impact of these designs on patient throughput and facility finances.
The ORF constructed and observed in this study consisted of a three-room suite (1,315 ft2 in total size) housing an OR, an early recovery space, and an induction room. A new workflow was used in the ORF, which entailed using additional nursing and anesthesia personnel to help manage the anticipated higher throughput levels. Hospital records showing the total amount of time required for four specific surgeons to treat patients, as well as the number of patients treated over the course of a year, were used as a basis for gauging the performance of the ORF design and workflow.
When compared to hospital records related to the previous OR design and workflow, the new ORF design resulted in reduced overall operation times and increased overall throughput of both patients and facility resources. Although implementation of the ORF design incurred higher operational costs through the use of additional personnel and newer OR technology, these costs were offset by increased overall revenue and higher numbers of patients receiving surgical treatment in an efficient and timely manner.
This study was conducted at a single location over a relatively short period of time; the results may not translate identically to other redesigned ORs and may depend largely on staff efficiency, hospital resources, and a variety of environmental factors related to a given facility’s operations. The authors note that their methods for documenting and comparing overall costs could have produced additional limitations.