4 research outputs found

    The development and validation of a scoring tool to predict the operative duration of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

    Get PDF
    Background: The ability to accurately predict operative duration has the potential to optimise theatre efficiency and utilisation, thus reducing costs and increasing staff and patient satisfaction. With laparoscopic cholecystectomy being one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide, a tool to predict operative duration could be extremely beneficial to healthcare organisations. Methods: Data collected from the CholeS study on patients undergoing cholecystectomy in UK and Irish hospitals between 04/2014 and 05/2014 were used to study operative duration. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was produced in order to identify significant independent predictors of long (> 90 min) operations. The resulting model was converted to a risk score, which was subsequently validated on second cohort of patients using ROC curves. Results: After exclusions, data were available for 7227 patients in the derivation (CholeS) cohort. The median operative duration was 60 min (interquartile range 45–85), with 17.7% of operations lasting longer than 90 min. Ten factors were found to be significant independent predictors of operative durations > 90 min, including ASA, age, previous surgical admissions, BMI, gallbladder wall thickness and CBD diameter. A risk score was then produced from these factors, and applied to a cohort of 2405 patients from a tertiary centre for external validation. This returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.708 (SE = 0.013, p  90 min increasing more than eightfold from 5.1 to 41.8% in the extremes of the score. Conclusion: The scoring tool produced in this study was found to be significantly predictive of long operative durations on validation in an external cohort. As such, the tool may have the potential to enable organisations to better organise theatre lists and deliver greater efficiencies in care

    The motivation and process for developing a consortium‐wide time and motion study to estimate resource implications of innovations in the use of genome sequencing to inform patient care

    No full text
    Abstract Costs of implementing genomic testing innovations extend beyond the cost of sequencing, affecting personnel and infrastructure for which little data are available. We developed a time and motion (T&M) study within the Clinical Sequencing Evidence‐Generating Research (CSER) consortium to address this gap, and herein describe challenges of conducting T&M studies within a research consortium and the approaches we developed to overcome them. CSER investigators created a subgroup to carry out the T&M study (authors). We describe logistical and administrative challenges associated with resource use data collection across heterogeneous projects conducted in real‐world clinical settings, and our solutions for completing this study and harmonizing data across projects. We delineate processes for feasible data collection on workflow, personnel, and resources required to deliver genetic testing innovations in each CSER project. A critical early step involved developing detailed project‐specific process flow diagrams of innovation implementation in projects' clinical settings. Analyzing diagrams across sites, we identified common process‐step themes, used to organize project‐specific data collection and cross‐project analysis. Given the heterogeneity of innovations, study design, and workflows, which affect resources required to deliver genetic testing innovations, flexibility was necessary to harmonize data collection. Despite its challenges, this heterogeneity provides rich insights about variation in clinical processes and resource implications for implementing genetic testing innovations

    Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (vol 33, pg 110, 2019)

    No full text

    Preoperative risk factors for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy: a validated risk score derived from a prospective U.K. database of 8820 patients

    No full text
    corecore