Cost and efficiency of myringotomy procedures in minor procedure rooms compared to operating rooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Minor pediatric surgeries performed in the minor procedure room (MPR) may be more time efficient and less costly compared to those performed in the operating room (OR). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. METHODS: This was a retrospective study on cost and efficiency differences of bilateral myringotomy with tube insertions performed in the MPR versus the OR. Charts were reviewed from June 2015 to May 2017. Cost data was based on supply cost and case costing of medical personnel including nurses, aides, and anesthesia assistants. RESULTS: Two hundred eighteen patients were included in the study. The median age was 2.7 years (range: 0.8-16.7), and there were no differences in gender between locations. One hundred twenty-three patients had surgery in the MPR (56.4%), and 95 had surgery in the OR (43.6%). The median length of time in the procedure room was 11 minutes shorter for patients who underwent surgery in the MPR (12.0 minutes, range: 3.0-33.0) compared to patients in the OR (23.0 minutes, range: 11.0-52.0; P < .0001). Median hospital stay (2.0 hours vs. 4.3 hours; P < 0.0001) and median patient turnover time (6.0 minutes vs. 14.0 minutes; P < .0001) was shorter in the MPR compared to OR. The total overall cost of a myringotomy with tube insertion, including labor and supply cost, was $189.41 in the MPR compared to $468.56 in the OR, a difference of $279.15 per case. CONCLUSION: Bilateral myringotomy with tube insertions are more time and cost-efficient when performed in the MPR. This study supports the need for increased availability of MPR time for appropriate surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 130:242-246, 2020.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".