Suppr超能文献

内镜科的时间与动作——一所大学医院的经验

Time and Motion at the Endoscopy Unit-A University Hospital Experience.

作者信息

Söderberg Simon, Nyhlin Nils, Moro Axelina, Figaro Christina, Fransson Emelie, Stefansdotter Jennie, Schagerström Malin, Lindblad Maria, Ahlzén Martin, Zukovets Olga, Borell Sofia, Johansson Viktoria, Axman Marianne, Wendt Anette, Falck Hanna, van Nieuwenhoven Michiel A

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.

出版信息

Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2023 Mar 9;10:23333928231159808. doi: 10.1177/23333928231159808. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: An effective workflow at the endoscopy unit is important for optimal production. We conducted a time-and-motion study to identify the amount of time that patients spend during the different steps of a regular endoscopy procedure and compared propofol with midazolam sedation.

METHODS

Data from 376 patients were prospectively collected. Durations of the different procedure steps were measured. Correlations between recovery times, age, and dose of sedative were calculated. Multiple regression analysis was performed to evaluate how various factors affect recovery time.

RESULTS

The use of midazolam resulted in significantly shorter procedure duration for gastroscopy (5.1 vs 8.3 min), shorter endoscopist delay duration for either types of endoscopy (5.9 vs 8.3 min for gastroscopy and 6.7 vs 11.4 min for colonoscopy), shorter endoscopy room duration for gastroscopy (22.2 vs 30.0 min), shorter recovery time for colonoscopy (23.4 vs 27.4 min) and shorter Endoscopy Unit Duration for either type of endoscopy (77.1 vs 101.4 min for gastroscopy and 99.6 vs 123.2 min for colonoscopy). There was a weak correlation between dose of midazolam and recovery time.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to other studies, propofol administration leads to more time spent at different steps in the workflow at our unit. Implementing propofol sedation will not improve efficacy if other steps in the workflow are not taken into account.

摘要

背景/目的:在内镜检查科室建立有效的工作流程对于实现最佳工作效率至关重要。我们进行了一项时间与动作研究,以确定患者在常规内镜检查不同步骤中所花费的时间,并比较丙泊酚与咪达唑仑镇静效果。

方法

前瞻性收集了376例患者的数据。测量了不同操作步骤的持续时间。计算了恢复时间、年龄和镇静剂剂量之间的相关性。进行多元回归分析以评估各种因素如何影响恢复时间。

结果

使用咪达唑仑可显著缩短胃镜检查的操作时间(5.1分钟对8.3分钟),缩短两种内镜检查中内镜医师的延迟时间(胃镜检查为5.9分钟对8.3分钟,结肠镜检查为6.7分钟对11.4分钟),缩短胃镜检查的内镜室停留时间(22.2分钟对30.0分钟),缩短结肠镜检查的恢复时间(23.4分钟对27.4分钟)以及缩短两种内镜检查的内镜科室停留时间(胃镜检查为77.1分钟对101.4分钟,结肠镜检查为99.6分钟对123.2分钟)。咪达唑仑剂量与恢复时间之间存在弱相关性。

结论

与其他研究不同,在我们科室,使用丙泊酚会导致工作流程中不同步骤花费更多时间。如果不考虑工作流程中的其他步骤,实施丙泊酚镇静不会提高效率。

相似文献

1
Time and Motion at the Endoscopy Unit-A University Hospital Experience.内镜科的时间与动作——一所大学医院的经验
Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2023 Mar 9;10:23333928231159808. doi: 10.1177/23333928231159808. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec.

本文引用的文献

9
Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues.胃肠内镜检查中的镇静:当前问题。
World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jan 28;19(4):463-81. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i4.463.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验