It's a recurring theme we hear at nearly every hospital. Surgeons distrust - or actively refute the accuracy of - reported utilization statistics. Do they have good reason for this doubt? Regardless, hospitals continue to rely heavily on utilization statistics when making decisions about allocating block time. Is this a sensible thing for hospitals to do? What are the implications?
Let's start with the accuracy of utilization statistics. Dexter et al. demonstrated in Anesthesia 2003 that utilization for blocks allocated to individual surgeons varies widely over time:
"If during a 3-month period a surgeon's measured adjusted utilization is 65%, there is a 95% chance that the surgeon's average adjusted utilization is as low as 38% or as high as 83%."
Service-level blocks offer some variability protection, but often at their core, are really just a collection of either implicit or explicit sub-blocks with the same sort of variability mentioned above.
We also know from playing the game of Tetris that it is much easier to fill open block time with smaller chunks of time rather than larger chunks. As such, surgeons with longer-than-average case durations will, all else being equal, have lower utilization simply due to this Tetris-related challenge. This can lead to sub-optimal block allocation decisions. How and why?
The "why" is that block allocation decisions are often not driven by a hospital's true strategic imperatives. The "how" comes from a variety of sources, including:
Optimizing block allocation is a bigger topic than we'll cover in this blog post.
The takeaways for now are: