MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398183191 · doi:10.1002/ohn.822

Improving Operating Room Efficiency in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4398183191 on OpenAlexaff
Kalpesh Hathi, You Sung Nam, James Fowler, Brad Dishan, Edward Madou, Leigh J. Sowerby, S. Danielle MacNeil, Anthony C. Nichols, Julie E. Strychowsky

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversitySaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOtorhinolaryngologyHead and neck surgeryMedicineHead and neckGeneral surgeryHead (geology)Medical physicsSurgeryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: One minute of operating room (OR) time costs $36 to 37. However, ORs are notoriously inefficient. There is growing literature on improving OR efficiency, but no formal review of this topic within otolaryngology has been performed. This study reviews and synthesizes the current literature on improving OR efficiency within otolaryngology. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, preprints.org, and medRxiv were searched on November 4, 2022. REVIEW METHODS: Published English studies were included if they reported on metrics for improving OR efficiency within otolaryngology. There were no publication date restrictions. Articles were screened by 2 reviewers. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis reporting for scoping reviews was followed. RESULTS: The search yielded 9316 no-duplicate articles; 129 articles were included. Most of the studies reported on head and neck procedures (n = 52/129). The main tactics included surgical considerations: hemostatic devices, techniques, and team/simultaneous approaches; anesthetic considerations: local anesthetic and laryngeal mask airways; procedure location considerations: procedures outside of the OR and remote technologies; standardization: equipment, checklists, and personnel; scheduling considerations: use of machine learning for booking, considering patient/surgeon factors, and utilizing dedicated OR time/multidisciplinary teams for on-call cases. CONCLUSION: The current literature brings to attention numerous strategies for improving OR efficiency within otolaryngology. Applying these strategies and implementing novel techniques to manage surgical cases may assist in offloading overloaded health care systems and improving access to care while facilitating patient safety and outcomes. Anticipated barriers to implementation include resistance to change, funding, and the current strain on health care systems and providers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0190.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtolaryngologySame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207