ABSTRACT
The objective of this study is to analyze noise patterns during 599 visceral surgical procedures. Considering work-safety regulations, we will identify immanent noise patterns during major visceral surgeries. Increased levels of noise are known to have negative health impacts. Based on a very fine-grained data collection over a year, this study will introduce a new procedure for visual representation of intra-surgery noise progression and pave new paths for future research on noise reduction in visceral surgery. Digital decibel sound-level meters were used to record the total noise in three operating theatres in one-second cycles over a year. These data were matched to archival data on surgery characteristics. Because surgeries inherently vary in length, we developed a new procedure to normalize surgery times to run cross-surgery comparisons. Based on this procedure, dBA values were adjusted to each normalized time point. Noise-level patterns are presented for surgeries contingent on important surgery characteristics: 16 different surgery types, operation method, day/night time point and operation complexity (complexity levels 1-3). This serves to cover a wide spectrum of day-to-day surgeries. The noise patterns reveal significant sound level differences of about 1 dBA, with the most-common noise level being spread between 55 and 60 dBA. This indicates a sound situation in many of the surgeries studied likely to cause stress in patients and staff. Absolute and relative risks of meeting or exceeding 60 dBA differ considerably across operation types. In conclusion, the study reveals that maximum noise levels of 55 dBA are frequently exceeded during visceral surgical procedures. Especially complex surgeries show, on average, a higher noise exposure. Our findings warrant active noise management for visceral surgery to reduce potential negative impacts of noise on surgical performance and outcome.
Subject(s)
Noise, Occupational , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Surgical Procedures, Operative/adverse effects , Viscera/surgery , Humans , Operating Rooms , Risk , Time FactorsABSTRACT
Due to increasing medical costs and yet limited financial resources, medical treatment and economic analyses can no longer be separated; therefore, direct costing and cost unit accounting become more and more relevant as controlling tools in hospital management. Transthoracic esophagectomy is an integral part of the current treatment concept in patients with esophageal carcinoma. The question of the present study was whether the present diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system is a cost-effective tool to represent transthoracic esophagectomy. In this retrospective study at a high-volume center, 161 consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma were included. All patients were surgically treated according to the current S3 guidelines by a transthoracic esophagectomy. Detailed and standardized documentation of the postoperative complications was made according to the classification of Clavien-Dindo and the guidelines of the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). For each individual patient, the respective actual costs were analyzed according to the Institute for the Remuneration System in Hospitals (InEK) cost accounting approach comparing DRG payments (DRG G03A) on a case level including all extra fees per DRG catalogue. The mean costs per case of all included 161 patients were 24,338⯠(median: 19,210â¯, range: 12,149-127,376â¯), while mean payments per case of 22,591⯠were recorded. For the entire study population, the profit margin was -281,330⯠(mean: -1747â¯). Only patients with an uncomplicated course (Clavien-Dindo 0) yielded a slightly positive profit margin of 2514â¯. With increasing complication score the profit margin became increasingly negative (Clavien-Dindo I: -2878â¯, Clavien-Dindo IVb: -58,543â¯). Within the analysis of the InEK target cost matrix, main cost drivers can be identified as medical services (22.3%) and non-medical infrastructure (18.7%). Surgical treatment according to the existing guidelines of patients with esophageal carcinoma is not cost-covering in high-volume centers and cannot be solely financed by existing DRG revenues.
