Case Study: Simulation Modeling

Case Study: Simulation Modeling A Deeper Look Industrial Engineers traditionally perform detailed facility planning in manufacturing, aviation and other industries. Today, as the healthcare industry looks to provide higher quality and more cost effective care, Industrial and Systems Engineers are playing a more prominent role in this area.

One tool that is often used to test new systems without physically changing the current process is simulation. In healthcare facility planning, simulation can be used to determine the impact of different layouts and new workflows before knocking down a single wall, saving valuable time and money.

Recently, an outpatient spinal surgery center decided to extend its services by building satellite facilities in different parts of the country.

These new facilities will be smaller than the existing facility and operate using a slightly altered process flow. In order to determine the appropriate space requirements for the new, smaller scale model, a simulation model was built using Arena Simulation software. The model was developed using process time data from the headquarters facility. Two major goals of this project were confirming patients could recover completely in a PACU room, without causing other patients to wait in the operating room, and determining whether the space was large enough to bring in an additional surgeon, potentially leading to the treatment of more patients.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Simulation Modeling CHALLENGE An outpatient spinal surgery center has experienced exponential growth over the past 10 years. Today, this institution has expanded to over 450 employees who help

SIMULATION IN FACILITY DESIGN Many times, simulation is used for improving workflows and processes that involve ordered steps, such as production lines. A hospital

perform over 400 surgeries each month. The growing demand

generally follows the same type of processes, but the entities flowing

for minimally invasive outpatient surgery led this surgery

through the system are people instead of parts and it is often much

center to expand their reach by offering services in additional

more difficult to reduce variation, especially when surgery is involved.

locations. Because these new locations will be smaller, they will

Healthcare personnel typically do not initially trust a simulated system

use fewer resources. The administration also hopes that the

because they believe the system is unable to properly factor human

new locations will have more efficient spaces and processes.

error and human reaction times into the system. Therefore, when using

SOLUTION

simulation as a tool to recreate a system, it is very important to clearly

A simulation study will determine if the newly designed

It is also critical to stress that the simulation is a simplified version of

process is optimal and if the number of rooms is adequate for

the actual system that takes into account the specific variables that

the volume of patients the outpatient spinal surgery center hopes to serve.

The results of the simulation study showed that four PACU rooms are adequate, as long as PRE-OP rooms are used for recovery when there is a full PACU. Additionally, adding a surgeon negligibly increases time spent waiting for a PACU room, but decreases the average total waiting time when the same quantity of patients is seen. Further research involving

show how the simulated system is working in relation to the actual one.

can affect the process being studied. In order to obtain complete client buy-in for a simulation model, all assumptions concerning the actual system that are developed into the model should be discussed at length. Healthcare is a great place for simulation to be used in facility design because it allows for spaces to be planned more efficiently when they are built. Basing the layouts on more efficient practices leads to an easier implementation of more productive workflows, staff movement and patient routing.

optimal patient scheduling, maximum capacity, personnel utilization, and cost analysis can be done using simulation and other operations research tools.

PAGE 2 | simulation modeling \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ OBJECTIVES FOR THE SIMULATION STUDY The project architect and the client have defined three objectives for this simulation study:

1. Confirm that full recovery (phase 1 and phase 2) can take place in the PACU with out blocking patients exiting the operating room.

2. Optimize the number of PACUs needed for an outpatient spinal surgery center while minimizing the amount of time a patient must wait for a PACU. 3. Determine if this optimal space program will be adequate if an additional surgeon is added to the team.

The first objective involves determining which resources would be affected if patients are allowed to recover completely in a PACU room. The second objective involves two goals; the first is to determine the optimal number of PACU rooms needed to operate the surgery center using the new patient flow. The second goal requires that the time patients spend waiting in the operating room for a PACU room is reduced to zero, if possible. Any time a patient spends in the operating room that is not related to their surgery is considered non-value added time. The third and final objective is to determine if this optimal space program will be adequate if an additional surgeon is added to the team. Discrete event simulation will be used to investigate potential solutions to each of the aforementioned objectives.

ASSUMPTIONS When a simulation model is developed, it is not meant to replicate every detail of the actual system. The main goal is to incorporate the relevant parts of the system in a simplified model. By removing extra steps and resources, the model can be designed to answer specific questions. This simplification process is one characteristic of simulation modeling that makes it such a powerful tool. As complexity increase, the model becomes more difficult to work with, leading to a greater chance of mistakes and over-development.

To prevent unnecessary work, an assumptions document is generated to account for any elements that are intentionally removed from the simulation model. The following selection of assumptions was incorporated into the simulation model:

•

The previously described current operating conditions are accurate

•

There are strictly three operating rooms

•

All areas will be appropriately staffed.

•

The maximum number of patients treated in one day is ten

•

Patients arrive on time

•

All pre-operative activities, including meeting with a PRE-OP nurse, anesthesiologist, and surgeon, using the restroom, and being prepared for surgery, are consolidated into one process

•

Additional ancillary services are not pertinent to this study

These assumptions, along with several others, were carefully considered when building the model. This list provided a starting point for validation of the model, once the initial prototype was completed.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

simulation modeling | PAGE 3

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ INPUT DATA ANALYSIS Many times, it is difficult to obtain actual data from the healthcare system whose process is being analyzed. The difficulties are typically caused by a lack of available data or wariness about sharing confidential patient information. In this study, the client was able to provide six months of de-identified patient data. After obtaining the data, it needed to be prepared before it could be applied to the simulation model. The raw data contained “start” and “finish” times for five different processes, including PRE-OP, surgery, operating room, phase 1 and phase 2. Some records only contained a PRE-OP start time and no other times. These records and others with similar characteristics were removed from the data set because there was not enough information to use them.

Once the data records were prepared, regression analysis tests were used to determine if the data was accurate. It was assumed that there should be high correlation between the amount of time patients spend in the operating room and the amount of time the surgeon takes to perform the operation. It was also assumed that there should be little correlation between the amount of time spent preparing for surgery and the amount of time it takes to perform the operation. Both of these assumptions were correct. The graph below with an R2 value of .0052, confirms the second assumption.

RELATION BETWEEN SURGERY LENGTH OF STAY

TIME SPENT IN SURGERY

AND PRE-OP LENGTH OF STAY

TIME SPENT IN PRE-OP PATIENTS

LINEAR REGRESSION

After determining that the data was accurate, the histogram for each process was fit to an empirical distribution using the Input Analyzer included with the Arena Simulation software package. Before fitting the data, some conclusions could be made about the general shape of the distribution based on the qualities of the data. For instance, the data is a list of process times, therefore, it would be impractical to include distributions that contain numbers less than zero. Additionally, time is continuous, so all discrete distributions could be eliminated. After eliminating a number of distributions, a few candidates remained to decide between. As expected, all of the process times followed a log-normal distribution.

EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION OVERLAID ON PRE-OP LENGTH OF STAY DATA

PAGE 4 | simulation modeling \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ SIMULATION LOGIC Many different parts go into a simulation model before it is even built. After learning about the process that is being studied, making the necessary assumptions and gathering all of the data needed to run a proper simulation model, the model needs to be put together. Experienced model builders might call this the easy part, but no matter how seasoned the builder, creating a model still takes time.

Techniques presented by Law in Simulation Modeling and Analysis were used to validate and verify the simulation model.

Verification techniques used to confirm that the assumptions are suitably applied to the simulation model include creating the simulation in modules with increasing complexity, observing animations of the output, and reviews by an unbiased colleague familiar with simulation modeling. Animation, when used prop-

A great starting point for building a simulation model is the

erly, is useful because it show the entities moving through the

process flow chart. This chart shows all of the major parts

system in real time. Throughout the creation of this model, rudi-

that need to be included in the simulation in a more simplified

mentary animations were used to track entities and determine

way. After translating the flow chart into a proper sequence

why different problems were occurring. The Arena Simulation

of events in the model, process time distributions are added.

software also uses a program language- based debugging tool

Relevant variables are adjusted so the elements of the model

to show where discrepancies in variable names and other logic

correlate with the elements of the actual system.

can be found. This tool was useful for correcting technical imper-

Throughout the simulation, the Arena Simulation software

fections involving the terminology used in the model.

automatically keeps statistics. Additionally, the modeler uses a

Law’s validation techniques were also used to confirm the accu-

specific element to keep track of some statistics manually. All of

racy of the model. Since a similar system already exists, a model

the data collected from this baseline model was used to ensure

was developed based on the existing system. A paired-t confi-

the model was appropriately representing the actual system.

dence test was used to determine, with approximately 99.9%

Verification and validation methods confirmed the accuracy

confidence, that there was not a significant difference between

of the model. Once the model was verified and validated, small

data collected from the existing system and output data from

changes were made so that different scenarios could be tested.

the simulation model. In addition to this mathematical validation, the graph below clearly shows that the actual values and simu-

VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION After developing a simulation model using appropriate assumptions and input data, it was imperative to ensure that the model was performing accurately. Process time distributions and faulty model logic were two potential sources of variation between the actual system and the simulated system. Two different techniques, validation and verification, help check the performance level of a simulation model and ensure that it properly rep-

lated values are almost exactly the same. Additionally, a written assumptions document was kept, the system was observed, the modeler had conversations with subject-matter experts, such as nurses, physicians and other support staff, and existing theory regarding patient procedure and waiting times was explored.

After confirming the design using validation and verification techniques, different options and scenarios could be tested.

resents the actual system.

PROCESS TIMES (HOURS)

EXPECTED SYSTEM VALUES VS. ACTUAL SIMULATED VALUES

PROCESS CATEGORY EXPECTED (TIME STUDY VALUES)

ACTUAL (SIMULATION VALUES)

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

simulation modeling | PAGE 5

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

SCENARIOS

OPTIONS

Current operating conditions (Validation Model)

Change nothing

1. Complete recovery in PACU; no overflow

A. Add a surgeon

2. Complete recovery in PACU; overflow directly from surgery to PRE-OP

B. Add a PACU room

3. Complete recovery in PACU; overflow from PACU to discharge chair for phase 2 recovery

C. Add a surgeon and a PACU room

SCENARIOS AND OPTIONS

one PACU room could be measured in decreased patient

Three different scenarios were developed along with three

waiting time. The third option combined the first two by adding

options to be tested in each scenario. The data obtained from

one surgeon and one PACU room. The goal of this option was to

the client based off of the situation in which patients complete

determine if more patients could be treated and if rooms were

phase 1 recovery in the PACU and then move to a discharge

better utilized.

recliner for phase 2 recovery. Therefore, this situation was used as the validation model. The first scenario requires that a patient complete phase 1 and phase 2 recovery in the PACU, with no specified location for overflow. If the PACU is full when a patient is finished with surgery, that patient must wait in the operating room until a PACU room is available. Obviously, this

Each of these scenarios, combined with the three options led to a wide range of results to compare. Some of the results were surprising; others were expected. The analysis of these results led to a better idea of how different resources impact the waiting time of patients at an outpatient surgery center.

non-value added use of the operating room does not seem like an ideal situation, but the Healthcare Systems Engineer included it to determine whether an overflow plan was actually necessary. The second scenario requires that a patient fully recovers in the PACU and specifies open PRE-OP rooms as the designated overflow location. This scenario requires that patients be moved from the operating room directly to a PRE-OP room if the PACU is full. The third scenario once again requires that a patient complete phase 1 and phase 2 recovery in the PACU and specifies that discharge recliners be used for overflow recovery. In this case, when the PACU reaches capacity, a patient who has transitioned into phase 2 recovery may be moved to a discharge recliner to create a vacancy in a PACU room for a patient just exiting the operating room. These three scenarios directly relate to the change in patient flow that the client is considering.

In addition to these three scenarios, three options were also created to test the proposed objectives. Each of these three options was applied separately to the individual scenarios, leading to the creation of twelve different simulation models.

The first option simply added one surgeon to the team. The goal of this option was to determine if hiring an additional surgeon decreased waiting times at any of the process steps. The second option added one PACU to the center. Once again, the goal of this option was to determine if the returns for adding

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

simulation modeling | PAGE 6

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ OUTPUT DATA ANALYSIS

is clear from this comparison of recovery waiting times that

In each of the simulation models, including the baseline model,

scenario 1 was, in three out of four of the options, worse than

40 replications were simulated to ensure that the modeled

the validation model.

system mimicked the actual system. Producing this many replications allowed for a very small half width to be achieved when determining confidence intervals based on the output data.

The first scenario was created to show that it was possible to allow patients to recover completely in the PACU without moving to a discharge recliner upon reaching phase 2 recovery.

This scenario was also used to determine if an overflow plan was not needed. The results show that, with approximately

overflow of patients. In scenario two, patients were moved to PRE-OP rooms after surgery if the PACU was full, which proved to be a much better solution. The results of this scenario were excellent, with no non-value added time spent in the operating room, leading to the hypothesis that scenario 2 is better than scenario 1, which was proven at approximately 99.9% confidence using a paired-t comparison test. This

99.9% confidence, scenario 1 is worse than the current operating conditions and an overflow area is essential to the patient flow in this outpatient surgery center. The calculation for the preceding confidence interval can be found in Appendix IV. Adding a surgeon does not improve the results of this scenario; in fact, it worsens them. Increasing the number of PACU rooms helps mitigate the problem of not having an

outcome aligns perfectly with the one of the objectives proposed by the client. When looking at the total waiting time, scenarios 2 and 2B had much longer total waiting times when compared to scenarios 2A and 2C. In fact, it can be stated with approximately 99.9% confidence that there is a statistically significant different between these two scenarios, and that 2A and 2C have the better outcome. In addition, there is no

overflow area, but not any more than having the discharge recliners, as was the case in the current operating conditions.

The addition of a surgeon and a PACU room only reduces the amount of time a patient spends waiting for a surgeon; it does not help reduce the time spent waiting for a PACU room. It

Recovery OR

The second scenario was the first option that allowed for an

Surgeon

statistically significant difference between the recovery waiting times in each of these scenarios. Scenario 2 provides solid evidence for all three objectives, but scenario 3 must be presented before drawing conclusions.

Person in Front PreOp

Total PT Waiting Time (min)

Validation

0.56

5.66

44.99

42.59

0.18

93.98

Scenario 1

9.94

5.44

45.62

40.86

0.39

102.25

Scenario 1A

18.78

11.71

27.58

19.71

0.02

77.80

Scenario 1B

0.47

5.40

45.73

40.67

0.39

92.66

Scenario 1C

5.99

11.79

26.95

19.41

0.02

64.17

Scenario 2

0.00

5.43

45.39

40.38

0.39

91.59

Scenario 2A

0.07

11.73

27.13

19.17

0.02

58.13

Scenario 2B

0.00

5.43

45.39

40.38

0.39

91.59

Scenario 2C

0.01

11.75

27.09

18.95

0.02

57.82

Scenario 3

6.11

4.90

45.11

42.22

0.29

98.62

Scenario 3A

10.45

11.22

24.29

14.31

0.00

60.28

Scenario 3B

0.13

5.70

45.49

38.77

0.35

90.44

Scenario 3C

1.69

11.40

26.39

18.40

0.02

57.90

PAGE 7 | simulation modeling \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

SIMULATION STUDIES document & deliver

refine the outcome

REDEFINITION OF A CARE MODEL

PROCESS SIMULATION

It was determined that the desired future state could

After confirming accuracy, the simulation model was varied to

be achieved. An example of a partial floor plan to

address the objectives of the study. Three scenarios were tested to

understand the future

accommodate this workflow can be seen in Fig. 5. The

determine which overflow pattern would work best and four options

three scenarios were combined with each of the four

were added resulting in 12 different simulation models.

options and tested. Four Pre-Op rooms and four PACU

CURRENT AND FUTURE STATE

rooms will provide adequate space for up to ten patients to

SCENARIOS TESTED

In the current state of the surgery center, patients moved from PACU rooms to discharge recliners once they transitioned out of phase 1 recovery. The desired future state hopes to Discrete Event Simulation

see patients recover completely in PACU rooms with overflow

provides a virtual environment to track and

available in Pre-Op. Patients do not need to be held in the OR

define the inputs

visualize patients, equipment and providers

until a PACU becomes available (non-value activity added.)

be treated in this future state with no non-value added use of the operating room (Fig. 6). Adding one surgeon resulted

1

Complete recovery in PACU; no overflow

2

Complete recovery in PACU; overflow directly from surgery to Pre-Op

3

Recover in PACU; overflow from PACU to discharge chair for phase 2 recovery

in a negligible increase in time spent waiting for a PACU room, coupled with a reduced overall waiting time (Fig. 7).

(Fig. 5)

as they move through the steps of care.

LASER SPINE INSTITUTE Desiring significant growth, Laser Spine Institute, an Outpatient Surgery Center, needed to reconsider their operational model to fulfill their business (Left Image)

goals. They wanted to enhance the patient and family experience and increase

The simulation was built so that patients must stay

staff efficiency- two sometimes conflicting goals. The new space will be built

in the Pre-Op room until there is a doctor and OR available for them. Time spent waiting for these

with 3 ORs, Pre-Op unit, PACU, diagnostic imaging, clinic, cafĂŠ, and other

VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION

the number of Pre-Op and PACU rooms needed per operating suite. Array requested that discrete event simulation be used to determine if there are

OBJECTIVES Optimize the number of PACUs needed for an outpatient spinal surgery center while minimizing the amount of time a patient must wait for a PACU.

OBSERVATION

DATA ANALYSIS

increasing complexity, using animations (Fig. 3) and checking

Data was extracted from client’s EMR,

outputs for reasonable results. Model validation included a written

cleaned up (approx. 2,400 records) and

assumptions document, which was confirmed by the client,

tested for accuracy (Fig. 2)

observations and conversations with current staff, literature review

Determine if this optimal space program will be adequate if an additional surgeon is added to the team.

OPTIONS

and a paired-t confidence test (Fig. 4) to check the relationship

Observation helped us understand the day-to-day operations

2

(Fig. 3)

Verification of the model included colleague reviews, building with

other scenarios that might lead to a more efficient and effective use of space.

1

(Fig. 6)

resources was tracked for each patient.

necessary support areas. There are certain guidelines that exist regarding

between the existing system and the model output.

A

No Changes

B

Add a Surgeon

C

Add a PACU Bay

D

Add a Surgeon and a PACU Bay

(Fig. 7)

of an LSI surgery center. Staff and patient movement were assessed using spaghetti diagrams (Fig. 1) so we could minimize

3

Confirm there are enough rooms for full recovery (phase 1 and phase 2) to take place in a single place.

any wasteful activities in the future layout. A value stream map showing the high-level patient experience was also defined

(Fig. 4) We can see in this graph that the expected

Length of time in Pre-oP DistriBution

though observation and staff interviews.

values for processing found in the actual data

LOGN (1.5,0.736)

match very closely with the processing values produced in the simulation. Also note, that when developing a simulation, there should not be a one-to-one correspondence between the

Site Visits

model and the actual system.

were arranged to allow for process map validation and to give the healthcare systems engineer an

(Fig. 2)

opportunity to speak with front-line employees.

The Pre-Op data follows a lognormal distribution, as found

RESULTS: ThE SIMuLATION wILL bE A uSEFuL AID FOR ThE DECISION MAkINg TEAM. FuTuRE STuDIES INVOLVINg OPTIMAL SChEDuLINg, MAxIMuM CAPACITY, AND PERSONNEL uTILIzATION ARE RECOMMENDED.

by the Input Analyzer tool from Arena. Data was tested assuming there is no correlation between Pre-Op and Surgery (Fig. 1) Spaghetti diagram showing patient and staff movement.

time and there is no high correlation between length of surgery and time spent in OR. Once the data was known to be accurate, each set of process time data was fit to theoretical distribution to be used in the simulation.

In the third scenario, patients who were in phase 2 recovery

significantly; proving that scenario 3 fails to meet all of the

could be moved from a PACU room to a discharge recliner if a

objectives provided by the client.

patient exiting the operating room needed a PACU room.

The results presented in this section highlight scenario 2 as the best option, but there are other factors that need to be considered when making recommendations. These additional variables will be recognized in the final section of this report.

CONCLUSION There are a number of variables that go into a decision about a large capital investment such as this, including time and money. While certain conclusions can be made about this study based solely on the numerical outcomes, the results may lead the client to an entirely different solution due to the previously mentioned decision variables. The conclusions

Two options in this scenario had poor recovery waiting times.

Overall, scenario 3 did not provide any added benefit over the other scenarios. There is not a statistically significant difference between the recovery times in option 3C when compared to option 2C, which was proven at approximately 99.9% confidence using a paired-t comparison test. There is also not a statistically significant difference between the total patient waiting time when comparing any of the options in scenario 3 to the parallel options in the other scenarios, as proven by inferring from the results of the previous comparison tests. Additionally, when a surgeon is added to the team, the recovery waiting time in scenario 3 actually increases

are based off of pure data and the project objectives, and are ignorant of monetary or time constraints.

It was determined that the desired future state could be achieved. In this future state, where patients are moved to a PRE-OP room if the PACU is full, four PRE-OP rooms and four PACU rooms will provide adequate space for up to ten patients to be treated. This workflow was referred to as Scenario 2 throughout the study. When adding a single surgeon, Scenario 2 once again proved to be the best solution for minimizing time spent waiting for a recovery room. This minimized waiting time is slightly higher than zero, but the change is not statistically significant. Based strictly on the three objectives presented by

PAGE 8 | simulation modeling \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Who We Are

the client, Scenario 2A as the recommended optimal solution.

ARRAY-ARCHITECTS.COM

This scenario is able to handle a third surgeon and it has eliminated all but an insignificant amount of non-value added use of the operating room at the surgery center, while reducing overall patient waiting time when compared to the current operating conditions.

This solution leads to an improved patient experience, a more effective use of surgery center space, and a decrease in patient waiting times.

FUTURE STUDIES After analyzing these three objectives and determining a potential solution, it became clear that there are a number of opportunities for future study the client could pursue. An extension of the current study involving cost analysis for each of the scenarios presented could be performed. This cost analysis could determine if there would be additional revenue gained from hiring a third surgeon and performing additional surgeries. It could also focus on how much it would cost to build an additional PACU and compare that cost with the potential revenue from performing additional surgeries. Taking the time to study the scheduling of surgery times and case mix could

We Are Healthcare Architects We are a team of architects and designers with unique backgrounds, but we all have one thing in common - we share a strong desire to use our expertise and knowledge to design solutions that will help people in moments that matter most.

This focus makes us leaders in our field. There’s a degree of compassion, empathy, and sensitivity that goes into every project that we touch. It’s designing a nurse station with sight lines to every patient. It’s building a Behavioral Health facility without corners, so that patients are safe. It’s translating the operational needs through the technical details to fine tune the lighting system in a neonatal unit so caregivers can match the lighting to each baby’s stage of development. It is a deeper understanding, honed through relationships spanning decades.

Together, we discover optimal solutions with our clients. It is our four decades of specialization that allows for effective communication, collaboration and precision in the complex, changing world of healthcare.

lead to a more productive surgery center with even less idle time for surgeons, nurses and patients. If the scheduling is optimized, the surgery center may be able to perform additional procedures without increasing the patient waiting time at any point in the workflow, thus leading to increased revenue and patient satisfaction. By optimizing the patient schedule, a more specific maximum capacity could also be defined. Additionally, once the patient schedule is optimized, the staff schedule could also be optimized, leading to more effective personnel

Array’s Knowledge Communities We believe strongly in sharing our expertise and knowledge with others. We invite you to explore each of our thought leaders and share your thoughts with the healthcare design community.

Click here to visit our blog.

utilization. The cost analysis previously described could also be performed after the capacity and staff utilization studies are performed to further the understanding of the monetary implications of each of these studies.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ simulation modeling | PAGE 9

Click here

to sign up for Laura’s webinar on Simulation

Boca Raton / Boston / New York City / Philadelphia / Washington