Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A three-phase approach for operating theatre schedules

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we develop a three-phase, hierarchical approach for the weekly scheduling of operating rooms. This approach has been implemented in one of the surgical departments of a public hospital located in Genova (Genoa), Italy. Our aim is to suggest an integrated way of facing surgical activity planning in order to improve overall operating theatre efficiency in terms of overtime and throughput as well as waiting list reduction, while improving department organization. In the first phase we solve a bin packing-like problem in order to select the number of sessions to be weekly scheduled for each ward; the proposed and original selection criterion is based upon an updated priority score taking into proper account both the waiting list of each ward and the reduction of residual ward demand. Then we use a blocked booking method for determining optimal time tables, denoted Master Surgical Schedule (MSS), by defining the assignment between wards and surgery rooms. Lastly, once the MSS has been determined we use the simulation software environment Witness 2004 in order to analyze different sequencings of surgical activities that arise when priority is given on the basis of a) the longest waiting time (LWT), b) the longest processing time (LPT) and c) the shortest processing time (SPT). The resulting simulation models also allow us to outline possible organizational improvements in surgical activity. The results of an extensive computational experimentation pertaining to the studied surgical department are here given and analyzed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blake JT, Carter MW (2002) A goal programming approach to strategic resource allocation in acute care hospitals. Eur J Oper Res 140:541–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dexter F, Ledolter J, Wachtel RE (2005) Tactical decision making for selective expansion of operating room resources incorporating financial criteria and uncertainty in sub-specialties’ future workloads. Anesth Analg 100:1425–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blake JT, Dexter F, Donald J (2002) Operating room manager's use of integer programming for assigning block time to surgical groups: a case study. Anesth Analg 94:143–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Guinet A, Chaabane S (2003) Operating theatre planning. Int J Prod Econ 85:69–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ozkarahan I (2000) Allocation of surgeries to operating rooms using goal programming. J Med Syst 24(6):339–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sier D, Tobin P, McGurk C (1997) Scheduling surgical procedures. J Oper Res Soc 48:884–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sciomachen A, Tanfani E, Testi A (2005) Simulation Models for optimal schedules of operating theatres. Int J Simul 6(12/13):26–34

    Google Scholar 

  8. Harper PR (2002) A framework for operational modeling of hospital resources. Health Care Manage Sci 5:167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dexter F, Traub RD (2002) How to schedule elective surgical cases into specific operating rooms to maximize the efficiency of use of operating room time. Anesth Analg 94:933–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dexter F, Macario A, Traub RD (1999) Which algorithm for scheduling add-on elective cases maximizes operating room utilization?. Anesthesiology 91:1491–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Darzi E, Vasilakis C, Chaussalet T, Millard PH (1998) A simulation modelling approach to evaluating length of stay, occupancy, emptiness and bed blocking in a hospital geriatric department. Health Care Manage Sci 1:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dexter F, Macario A, O’Neill L (2000) Scheduling surgical cases into over flow block time-computer simulation of the effects of scheduling strategies on operating room labor costs. Anesth Analg 90:980–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bowers J, Mould G (2004) Managing uncertainty in orthopaedic trauma theatres. Eur J Oper Res 154:599–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tyler DC, Pasquariello CA, Chen CH (2003) Determining optimum operating room utilization. Anesth Analg 96(4):1114–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Buchanan D, Wilson B (1996) Re-engineering operating theatres: the perspectives assessed. J Manage Med 10(4):57–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Spangler WE, Strum DP, Vargas LG, Jerrold HM (2004) Estimating procedure times for surgeries by determining location parameters for the lognormal model. Health Care Manage Sci 7:97–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. May JH, Strum DP, Vargas LG (2000) Fitting the lognormal distribution to surgical procedure times. Decis Sci 31:129–148

    Google Scholar 

  18. Weiss EN (1990) Models for determining estimated start times and case orderings in hospital operating rooms. IIE Trans 22:143–150

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dexter F, Traub RD, Lebowitz P (2001) Scheduling a delay between different surgeons’ cases in the same operating room on the same day using upper prediction bounds for case durations. Anesth Analg 92:943–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gerchak Y, Gupta D, Mordechai H (1996) Reservation planning for elective surgery under uncertain demand for emergency surgery. Manage Sci 42:321–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gallivan S, Utley M, Treasure T, Valencia O (2002) Booked inpatient admission and hospital capacity: mathematical modelling study. Br Med J 324:280–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Witness (2004) User guide Lanner Group

  23. Maximal Software, Inc (2000) MPL Modeling System, USA

  24. Kee F, McDonald P, Kirwan JR, Patterson CC, Love AHG (1998) Urgency and priority for cardiac surgery: a clinical judgment analysis. Br Med J 316:925–929

    Google Scholar 

  25. Testi A, Tanfani E (2004) Prioritisation scoring systems for surgical waiting lists. The economics of health reforms. Yfantopoulos J (ed) Athens Institute for Education and Research, Athens, Greece, pp 443–464

  26. Testi A, Tanfani E, Valente R, Ansaldo G, Torre GC (2006) Prioritising surgical waiting list. J Eval Clin Pract, in press

  27. Mullen PM (2003) Prioritising waiting lists: how and why? Eur J Oper Res 150(1):32–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Law AM, Kelton WD (2000) Simulation modeling and analysis, 3rd. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Anderson JG, (2002) Evaluation in health informatics: computer simulation. Comput Biol Med 32:151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rubinstein RY, Melamed B (1998) Modern Simulation and Modeling. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kleijnen JPC (1995) Verification and validation of simulation models. Eur J Oper Res 82:145–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Quantitative Methods (DIEM), University of Genova, Via Vivaldi 5, Genoa, Italy

    Angela Testi & Elena Tanfani

  2. Department of Surgery and Integrated Methodologies (DICMI), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

    Giancarlo Torre

Authors
  1. Angela Testi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elena Tanfani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giancarlo Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Testi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Testi, A., Tanfani, E. & Torre, G. A three-phase approach for operating theatre schedules. Health Care Manage Sci 10, 163–172 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-007-9011-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-007-9011-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation