Improving Operating Room Access and Utilization at an Academic Ophthalmology Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A quality improvement project was conducted to improve operating room (OR) access and utilization for elective ophthalmic cases at a university-affiliated eye center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, interventional case series assessed OR utilization across three ORs during a baseline 3-month period. Case scheduling protocols were reviewed, and key drivers of inefficiency were identified. Targeted interventions were implemented to address these barriers. RESULTS: During the baseline period, a mean of 290 surgeries were performed monthly. Scheduling delays were attributed to the lack of standardized order forms for special preoperative/operative needs, untimely completion of special preoperative tests, poor communication regarding open OR times, and inadequate enforcement of an established 14-day block time release. Following interventions, OR utilization increased by 20% and average monthly case volume rose to 350, adding approximately 60 surgeries per month. These improvements were accompanied by a more than twofold increase in use of the standardized EPIC surgical order with laterality (from 39 to 97 cases per month), demonstrating measurable adoption of workflow changes. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted, multidisciplinary interventions improved OR utilization by 20%. Quality improvement projects enhance patient access and optimize the use of institutional resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".