Understanding the Costs of Surgery: A Bottom-Up Cost Analysis of Both a Hybrid Operating Room and Conventional Operating Room

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

2 Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer InstituteAntoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

3 Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

4 Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

5 Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

6 Department of Medical Technology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background
Over the past decade, many hospitals have adopted hybrid operating rooms (ORs). As resources are limited, these ORs have to prove themselves in adding value. Current estimations on standard OR costs show great variety, while cost analyses of hybrid ORs are lacking. Therefore, this study aims to identify the cost drivers of a conventional and hybrid OR and take a first step in evaluating the added value of the hybrid OR.
 
Methods
A comprehensive bottom-up cost analysis was conducted in five Dutch hospitals taking into account: construction, inventory, personnel and overhead costs by means of interviews and hospital specific data. The costs per minute for both ORs were calculated using the utilization rates of the ORs. Cost drivers were identified by sensitivity analyses.

Results
The costs per minute for the conventional OR and the hybrid OR were €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10-€23.07), respectively. Total personnel and total inventory costs had most impact on the conventional OR costs. For the hybrid OR the costs were mostly driven by utilization rate, total inventory and construction costs. The results were incorporated in an open access calculation model to enable adjustment of the input parameters to a specific hospital or country setting.

Conclusion
This study estimated a cost of €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10-€23.07) for the conventional and hybrid OR, respectively. The main factors influencing the OR costs are: total inventory costs, total construction costs, utilization rate, and total personnel costs. Our analysis can be used as a basis for future research focusing on evaluating value for money of this promising innovative OR. Furthermore, our results can inform surgeons, and decision and policy-makers in hospitals on the adoption and optimal utilization of new (hybrid) ORs.

Highlights

 

Supplementary File 1 (Download)

Supplementary File 2 (Download)

Supplementary File 3 (Download)

Supplementary File 4 (Download)

 

Keywords

References

  1. Market Research Future. Global Hybrid Operating Room Market Insights, forecast to 2023. https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/hybrid-operating-room-market-862.  Accessed July 15, 2020.
  2. Kpodonu J. Hybrid cardiovascular suite: the operating room of the future. J Card Surg. 2010;25(6):704-709. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8191.2010.01111.x
  3. Hertault A, Sobocinski J, Spear R, et al. What should we expect from the hybrid room? J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017;58(2):264-269. doi:10.23736/s0021-9509.16.09845-1
  4. Kaneko T, Davidson MJ. Use of the hybrid operating room in cardiovascular medicine. Circulation. 2014;130(11):910-917. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.006510
  5. Cabo R, McIff GB, Abate E, Amato SF. PHP51 review of the clinical and economic value in the use of hybrid operating room. Value Health. 2012;15(4):A22. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.03.127
  6. Smeltzer HG, Scott JR, Frey SA, et al. Collaboration between interventional neurosurgery and vascular surgery in the hybrid operating room. J Radiol Nurs. 2014;33(3):127-131. doi:10.1016/j.jradnu.2014.02.002
  7. Singhal S. The future of surgical oncology: image-guided cancer surgery. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(2):184-185. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.3604
  8. Babaliaros V, Devireddy C, Lerakis S, et al. Comparison of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed in the catheterization laboratory (minimalist approach) versus hybrid operating room (standard approach): outcomes and cost analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(8):898-904. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2014.04.005
  9. Varu VN, Greenberg JI, Lee JT. Improved efficiency and safety for EVAR with utilization of a hybrid room. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;46(6):675-679. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2013.09.023
  10. Muñoz E, Muñoz W, 3rd, Wise L. National and surgical health care expenditures, 2005-2025. Ann Surg. 2010;251(2):195-200. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181cbcc9a
  11. Birkmeyer JD, Gust C, Baser O, Dimick JB, Sutherland JM, Skinner JS. Medicare payments for common inpatient procedures: implications for episode-based payment bundling. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(6 Pt 1):1783-1795. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01150.x
  12. Hirst A, Philippou Y, Blazeby J, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: evolution and further development of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Ann Surg. 2019;269(2):211-220. doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000002794
  13. Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M. Understanding costs of care in the operating room. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(4):e176233. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6233
  14. Raft J, Millet F, Meistelman C. Example of cost calculations for an operating room and a post-anaesthesia care unit. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2015;34(4):211-215. doi:10.1016/j.accpm.2014.11.002
  15. Kaplan RS, Porter ME. How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv Bus Rev. 2011;89(9):46-52.
  16. Najjar PA, Strickland M, Kaplan RS. Time-driven activity-based costing for surgical episodes. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(1):96-97. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.3356
  17. Macario A. What does one minute of operating room time cost? J Clin Anesth.   2010;22(4):233-236.  doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2010.02.003
  18. Lievens Y, van den Bogaert W, Kesteloot K. Activity-based costing: a practical model for cost calculation in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57(2):522-535. doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(03)00579-0
  19. Ismail I, Wolff S, Gronfier A, Mutter D, Swanström LL. A cost evaluation methodology for surgical technologies. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(8):2423-2432. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3929-4
  20. Hakkaart-van Roijen L, van der Linden N, Bouwmans C, Kanters T, Swan Tan S. Manual for cost research: methods and standard cost prices for economic evaluations in health care. 2015.
  21. Dutch advisory board on healthcare housing for building costs in a hospital. Handreiking kengetallen benchmark zorgvastgoed (Guidance benchmark indices healthcare property in Dutch). https://www.zorgkennis.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ZK-kennisbank-AcvZ-Bouwkostennota-2017-5277.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2020. Published 2018.
  22. StatLine. Dutch price index numbers. https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83131NED/table?fromstatweb. Published 2019.
  23. Salarisschalen Cao Ziekenhuizen (2018) (Dutch collective labor agreement). Nederlandse Vereniging van Ziekenhuizen (NVZ); 2018.
  24. Collective labor agreement 2018-2020 for academic medical centers. Dutch Federation of Academic Medical Centers; 2018.
  25. Rimestad JM, Christiansen EH, Modrau IS. One-year cost-effectiveness and safety of simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivz083
  26. Attigah N, Demirel S, Hakimi M, et al. [Hybrid operating rooms versus conventional operating rooms: economic comparisons in vascular surgery using the example of endovascular aneurysm repair]. Chirurg. 2017;88(7):587-594. doi:10.1007/s00104-017-0431-2
  27. CADTH. Operating Room versus Interventional Suite for Interventional Radiation Procedures: Cost-Effectiveness. Ottawa: CADTH; 2017.
  28. Siddharth V, Kant S, Chandrashekhar R, Kumar Gupta S. Planning premises and design considerations for hybrid operating room. Int J Res Found Hosp Healthc Adm. 2014;2(1):50-56. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10035-1015
  29. Versteegh MM, Ramos IC, Buyukkaramikli NC, Ansaripour A, Reckers-Droog VT, Brouwer WBF. Severity-adjusted probability of being cost effective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(9):1155-1163. doi:10.1007/s40273-019-00810-8
  30. Lindenberg M, Kramer A, Kok E, Retel VP, Ruers T, van Harten W. Image-guided navigation for locally advanced primary and locally recurrent rectal cancer: Evaluation of its early cost-effectiveness. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:e16015.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 11, Issue 3
March 2022
Pages 299-307

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 06 January 2020
  • Revise Date: 22 May 2020
  • Accept Date: 29 June 2020
  • First Publish Date: 01 March 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics