Endosc Int Open 2016; 04(11): E1140-E1145
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-117217
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Efficiency of endoscopy units can be improved with use of discrete event simulation modeling

Bryan G. Sauer
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
,
Kanwar P. Singh
2   University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA
,
Barry L. Wagner
2   University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA
,
Matthew S. Vanden Hoek
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
,
Katherine Twilley
2   University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA
,
Steven M. Cohn
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
,
Vanessa M. Shami
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
,
Andrew Y. Wang
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted30 March 2016

accepted after revision22 August 2016

Publication Date:
28 October 2016 (online)

Background and study aims: The projected increased demand for health services obligates healthcare organizations to operate efficiently. Discrete event simulation (DES) is a modeling method that allows for optimization of systems through virtual testing of different configurations before implementation. The objective of this study was to identify strategies to improve the daily efficiencies of an endoscopy center with the use of DES.

Methods: We built a DES model of a five procedure room endoscopy unit at a tertiary-care university medical center. After validating the baseline model, we tested alternate configurations to run the endoscopy suite and evaluated outcomes associated with each change. The main outcome measures included adequate number of preparation and recovery rooms, blocked inflow, delay times, blocked outflows, and patient cycle time.

Results: Based on a sensitivity analysis, the adequate number of preparation rooms is eight and recovery rooms is nine for a five procedure room unit (total 3.4 preparation and recovery rooms per procedure room). Simple changes to procedure scheduling and patient arrival times led to a modest improvement in efficiency. Increasing the preparation/recovery rooms based on the sensitivity analysis led to significant improvements in efficiency.

Conclusions: By applying tools such as DES, we can model changes in an environment with complex interactions and find ways to improve the medical care we provide. DES is applicable to any endoscopy unit and would be particularly valuable to those who are trying to improve on the efficiency of care and patient experience.

 
  • References

  • 1 Kirch DG, Henderson MK, Dill MJ. Physician workforce projections in an era of health care reform. Annu Rev Med 2012; 63: 435-445
  • 2 Rosenbaum S. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: implications for public health policy and practice. Public Health Rep 2011; 126: 130-135
  • 3 Law AM, Kelton WD. Simulation modeling and analysis. 3rd edn. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2000
  • 4 Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A et al. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-4. Med Decis Making 2012; 32: 701-711
  • 5 Dexter F, Macario A, Traub RD et al. An operating room scheduling strategy to maximize the use of operating room block time: computer simulation of patient scheduling and survey of patients’ preferences for surgical waiting time. Anesth Analg 1999; 89: 7-20
  • 6 Marcon E, Dexter F. Impact of surgical sequencing on post anesthesia care unit staffing. Health Care Manag Sci 2006; 9: 87-98
  • 7 Tyler DC, Pasquariello CA, Chen CH. Determining optimum operating room utilization. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 1114-1121
  • 8 Stahl JE, Roberts MS, Gazelle S. Optimizing management and financial performance of the teaching ambulatory care clinic. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18: 266-274
  • 9 Berg B, Denton B, Nelson H et al. A discrete event simulation model to evaluate operational performance of a colonoscopy suite. Med Decis Making 2010; 30: 380-387
  • 10 Joustra PE, de Wit J, Struben VM et al. Reducing access times for an endoscopy department by an iterative combination of computer simulation and linear programming. Health Care Manag Sci 2010; 13: 17-26
  • 11 Berg BP, Murr M, Chermak D et al. Estimating the cost of no-shows and evaluating the effects of mitigation strategies. Med Decis Making 2013; 33: 976-985
  • 12 Gellad ZF, Taheri J, Burchfield D et al. Discrete event simulation modeling: a valuable tool to optimize endoscopy unit efficiency. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: AB273-AB274
  • 13 Day LW, Belson D, Dessouky M et al. Optimizing efficiency and operations at a California safety-net endoscopy center: a modeling and simulation approach. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 762-773
  • 14 Kopach-Konrad R, Lawley M, Criswell M et al. Applying systems engineering principles in improving health care delivery. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22 (Suppl. 03) 431-437
  • 15 Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds.) To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000
  • 16 Reid PP, Compton WD, Grossman JH, Fanjiang G et al., eds. Building a better delivery system: a new engineering/health care partnership. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005
  • 17 Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001
  • 18 Gellad ZF, Thompson CP, Taheri J. Endoscopy unit efficiency: quality redefined. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 1046-1049.e1