Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01892865

Use of Predictive Modeling to Improve Operating Room Scheduling Efficiency

This study compares two different methodologies of scheduling cases in the operating room.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX

Houston, Texas, 77030, United States

About this study

The goal of the proposed study is to address the efficacy of a scheduling methodology that uses a regression-based predictive modeling system (PMS) to calculate operative and anesthetic time length. The investigators hypothesize that compared to the traditional scheduling system (TSS) that calculate operative length using historic means, case allocation in an operating room using the PMS will improve scheduling precision, increase operative volume and increase Operative Suite (OS) personnel satisfaction, without having adverse impact on patient outcomes. The investigators will evaluate this hypothesis using a randomized block design in two operating rooms of a single surgical specialty for a total of 100 operative days per arm.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • The only requirement for including a day in the study will be that all the procedures performed in that specific day have been previously performed in our hospital at least 5 times a year for each of the last three years. This rule will encompass the vast majority of the performed vascular procedures in our facility. Setting the threshold at a minimum of 5 cases per year is essential to assure that some data will be available to calculate the expected length of the case with either the traditional or the predictive modeling system. If a case is performed in a day when the scheduling imprecision is supposed to be calculated using the PMS but modeling data do not exist, then the anticipated length of this case will be calculated using the historic means.
  • Surgery cancellation after the first case will not disqualify that day from inclusion in the study. If the cancellation occurs in the last case of the sequence for the specific day then no particular intervention will be taken. The anticipated end of the surgical day will reset to the end of the last case that took place, and all the imprecision calculations will be performed as described below. If the cancellation occurs in one of the intermediate cases, then the end of the operative day will reset to reflect the removal of the cancelled case.

Exclusion criteria

A day will be excluded from the study when any of the following occur (based on historical data the investigators anticipate 10-15% of the operative days to meet the exclusion criteria):

  • Only one or no cases have been scheduled for the entire operative day
  • An emergency case is added as first case, or in between the scheduled cases.
  • The operative day falls during a major holiday week (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year). The schedule during these time periods tends to be fragmented, cancellation rates are high, and cases are frequently performed with back-up teams only. All these factors may distort the findings.
  • There is an unusual case in the schedule that does not meet the minimum requirement of 5 previous operations on a yearly basis for the last three years.
  • The first case of the day is cancelled

Treatment and study plan

Scheduling using historical means

Other

Scheduling will be performed taking into account historical means only for anesthetic, operative, and turn around time

Scheduling using regression modeling system

Other

A regression model that uses predictor of operative length will be used to predict operative, anesthetic, and turn around time length

Primary outcomes

  1. Difference Between the Actual and Predicted Length of Operative Day (in Minutes)

    Time frame: Three years

    The scheduling imprecision between the two scheduling approaches will be compared. Scheduling imprecision is defined as the difference between the actual and predicted length of operative day.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Difference in Throughput

    Time frame: Three years

    Difference in total number of cases scheduled per unit of time analyzed between the two study arms

  2. Operative Suite Personnel Job Satisfaction

    Time frame: Three years

    Comparison of job satisfaction between study arms using three domains of the Maslach Burnout Inventory: Depersonalization (range 0-17, score of 17 indicates worse depersonalization). Emotional Exhaustion (range: 0-36, score of 36 is the worse). Personal accomplishment (range 1-60, score of 60 is best).

  3. Complications: A Composite Endpoint of Death, Myocardial Infarction, Bleeding, Amputation

    Time frame: Three years

    Comparison of the perioperative (30-day postoperative) composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, bleeding, amputation between the two study groups

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

VA Office of Research and Development

Fed

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2013
Primary completion
2015
Study completion
2016
First posted
Jul 8, 2013
Registry last updated
Jan 2, 2018

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.