Search

Background  Few studies address the cost of treating prolactinomas. We performed a cost-utility analysis of surgical versus medical treatment for prolactinomas. Materials and Methods  We determined total hospital costs for surgically and medically treated prolactinoma patients. Decision-tree analysis was performed to determine which treatment produced the highest quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Outcome data were derived from published studies. Results  Average total costs for surgical patients were $19,224 ( ± 18,920). Average cost for the first year of bromocriptine or cabergoline treatment was $3,935 and $6,042, with $2,622 and $4,729 for each additional treatment year. For a patient diagnosed with prolactinoma at 40 years of age, surgery has the lowest lifetime cost ($40,473), followed by bromocriptine ($41,601) and cabergoline ($70,696). Surgery also appears to generate high health state utility and thus more QALYs. In sensitivity analyses, surgery appears to be a cost-effective treatment option for prolactinomas across a range of ages, medical/surgical costs, and medical/surgical response rates, except when surgical cure rates are ≤ 30%. Conclusion  Our single institution analysis suggests that surgery may be a more cost-effective treatment for prolactinomas than medical management for a range of patient ages, costs, and response rates. Direct empirical comparison of QALYs for different treatment strategies is needed to confirm these findings.

Importance: Despite the significant contribution of surgical spending to health care costs, most surgeons are unaware of their operating room costs., Objective: To examine the association between providing surgeons with individualized cost feedback and surgical supply costs in the operating room., Design, Setting, and Participants: The OR Surgical Cost Reduction (OR SCORE) project was a single-health system, multihospital, multidepartmental prospective controlled study in an urban academic setting. Intervention participants were attending surgeons in orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, and neurological surgery (n = 63). Control participants were attending surgeons in cardiothoracic surgery, general surgery, vascular surgery, pediatric surgery, obstetrics/gynecology, ophthalmology, and urology (n = 186)., Interventions: From January 1 to December 31, 2015, each surgeon in the intervention group received standardized monthly scorecards showing the median surgical supply direct cost for each procedure type performed in the prior month compared with the surgeon's baseline (July 1, 2012, to November 30, 2014) and compared with all surgeons at the institution performing the same procedure at baseline. All surgical departments were eligible for a financial incentive if they met a 5% cost reduction goal., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was each group's median surgical supply cost per case. Secondary outcome measures included total departmental surgical supply costs, case mix index-adjusted median surgical supply costs, patient outcomes (30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and discharge status), and surgeon responses to a postintervention study-specific health care value survey., Results: The median surgical supply direct costs per case decreased 6.54% in the intervention group, from $1398 (interquartile range [IQR], $316-$5181) (10 637 cases) in 2014 to $1307 (IQR, $319-$5037) (11 820 cases) in 2015. In contrast, the median surgical supply direct cost increased 7.42% in the control group, from $712 (IQR, $202-$1602) (16 441 cases) in 2014 to $765 (IQR, $233-$1719) (17 227 cases) in 2015. This decrease represents a total savings of $836 147 in the intervention group during the 1-year study. After controlling for surgeon, department, patient demographics, and clinical indicators in a mixed-effects model, there was a 9.95% (95% CI, 3.55%-15.93%; P = .003) surgical supply cost decrease in the intervention group over 1 year. Patient outcomes were equivalent or improved after the intervention, and surgeons who received scorecards reported higher levels of cost awareness on the health care value survey compared with controls., Conclusions and Relevance: Cost feedback to surgeons, combined with a small departmental financial incentive, was associated with significantly reduced surgical supply costs, without negatively affecting patient outcomes.

Background: There is high variability in neurosurgical costs, and surgical supplies constitute a significant portion of cost. Anecdotally, surgeons use different supplies for various reasons, but there is little understanding of how supply choices affect outcomes. Our goal is to evaluate the effect of patient, procedural, and provider factors on supply cost and to determine if supply cost is associated with patient outcomes., Methods: We obtained patient information (age, gender, payor, case mix index [CMI], body mass index, admission source), procedural data (procedure type, length, date), provider information (name, case volume), and total surgical supply cost for all inpatient neurosurgical procedures from 2013 to 2014 at our institution (n = 4904). We created mixed-effect models to examine the effect of each factor on surgical supply cost, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality., Results: There was significant variation in surgical supply cost between and within procedure types. Older age, female gender, higher CMI, routine/elective admission, longer procedure, and larger surgeon volume were associated with higher surgical supply costs (P < 0.05). Routine/elective admission and higher surgeon volume were associated with lower readmission rates (odds ratio, 0.707, 0.998; P < 0.01). Only patient factors of older age, male gender, private insurance, higher CMI, and emergency admission were associated with higher mortality (odds ratio, 1.029, 1.700, 1.692, 1.080, 2.809). There was no association between surgical supply cost and readmission or mortality (P = 0.307, 0.548)., Conclusions: A combination of patient, procedural, and provider factors underlie the significant variation in neurosurgical supply costs at our institution. Surgical supply costs are not correlated with 30-day readmission or mortality., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: On-time starts for the first case of the day are critical to maintaining efficiency in operating rooms (ORs). We studied whether a resident-led initiative to ensure on-time site marking and documentation of surgical consent could lead to improved first-case start time., Design and Setting: In a resident-led initiative at a large 600-bed academic hospital with 25 ORs, we aimed to complete site marking and surgical consents half an hour before the scheduled start time for all first-case neurosurgical patients. We monitored the occurrence of delayed first starts and the length of delay during our initiative, and compared these cases to neurosurgical cases 3 months before the implementation of the initiative and to first-start nonneurosurgical cases., Results: In the year of the initiative, both site marking and surgical consents were completed 30 minutes before the case start in 97% of neurosurgical cases. The average delay across all first-case starts was reduced to 7.17 minutes (N = 1271), compared with 9.67 minutes before the intervention (N = 345). During the study period, non-neurosurgical cases were delayed on average 10.3 minutes (N = 3592). There was a significant difference in latencies between the study period and the period before the initiative (p < 0.001), and also between neurosurgical cases and nonneurosurgical cases (p < 0.001). There was no reduction in delay times seen on the non-neurosurgical services in the study period when compared to the case 3 months before. Considering its effect across 1271 cases, this initiative over 1 year resulted in a total reduction of 52 hours and 57 minutes in delays., Conclusions: Through a resident-led quality improvement program, neurosurgical trainees successfully reduced delays in first-case starts on a surgical service. Engaging physician trainees in quality improvement and enhancing OR efficiency can be successfully achieved and can have a significant clinical and financial effect., (Copyright © 2015 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Central nervous system (CNS) teratomas are very rare neoplasms that contain tissues derived from all three germ cell layers (endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm). Patients with teratomas usually have a good prognosis. Given the paucity of cases in the literature, we present a retrospective review of 15 CNS teratomas treated over a 25 year period at the University of California, San Francisco. We describe the presentation, location, treatment, and adjuvant therapy for these patients, and highlight three unique cases that emphasize the diverse presentation and treatment of these rare tumors., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Medical errors cause nearly 100,000 deaths per year and cost billions of dollars annually. In order to rationally develop and institute programs to mitigate errors, the relative frequency and costs of different errors must be documented. This analysis will permit the judicious allocation of scarce healthcare resources to address the most costly errors as they are identified., Methods: Here, we provide a systematic review of the neurosurgical literature describing medical errors at the departmental level. Eligible articles were identified from the PubMed database, and restricted to reports of recognizable errors across neurosurgical practices. We limited this analysis to cross-sectional studies of errors in order to better match systems-level concerns, rather than reviewing the literature for individually selected errors like wrong-sided or wrong-level surgery., Results: Only a small number of articles met these criteria, highlighting the paucity of data on this topic. From these studies, errors were documented in anywhere from 12% to 88.7% of cases. These errors had many sources, of which only 23.7-27.8% were technical, related to the execution of the surgery itself, highlighting the importance of systems-level approaches to protecting patients and reducing errors., Conclusions: Overall, the magnitude of medical errors in neurosurgery and the lack of focused research emphasize the need for prospective categorization of morbidity with judicious attribution. Ultimately, we must raise awareness of the impact of medical errors in neurosurgery, reduce the occurrence of medical errors, and mitigate their detrimental effects.