Theoren Loo, Brandon Mcglennen, Stephen Incavo, Nate Hilger
{"title":"Measuring provider-level differences in perioperative workflow using computer vision-based artificial intelligence.","authors":"Theoren Loo, Brandon Mcglennen, Stephen Incavo, Nate Hilger","doi":"10.1136/bmjhci-2025-101591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate provider-level variability across the full perioperative workflow using a computer vision-based artificial intelligence (AI) system that automatically detects and timestamps operating room events.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study of total knee arthroplasty cases performed between September 2022 and March 2025 at a regional health system was conducted. An ambient surgical platform equipped with wall-mounted cameras continuously captured perioperative activity. A YOLO-based model identified patients, staff and equipment, and a transformer-based event detector predicted key perioperative events in real time. Detected events were used to segment cases into eight workflow phases: anaesthesia induction, patient preparation, final preparation, active procedure, postoperation, patient exit, room cleanup and room setup. Provider-level variability in segment durations was evaluated after adjusting for case characteristics, daily surgical volume and team composition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The computer vision event detection system achieved high agreement with ground truth annotations. Across 2502 surgical cases, significant provider-level variability was observed in all workflow segments except for room exit. Active procedure showed the greatest variation among surgeons (F=28.4, p<0.001; β IQR=-20.9 to 8.8 min) followed by room setup among circulating nurses (F=1.3, p<0.001; β IQR=-5.2 to 4.4 min) and room setup among scrub nurses (F=1.4, p<0.001; β IQR=-3.7 to 3.2 min).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Automated workflow segmentation using computer vision provides a scalable method to evaluate perioperative efficiency with greater granularity. Broader case segmentation may support more targeted and effective surgical quality improvement initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":9050,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Health & Care Informatics","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12718557/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Health & Care Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2025-101591","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate provider-level variability across the full perioperative workflow using a computer vision-based artificial intelligence (AI) system that automatically detects and timestamps operating room events.
Methods: A cross-sectional study of total knee arthroplasty cases performed between September 2022 and March 2025 at a regional health system was conducted. An ambient surgical platform equipped with wall-mounted cameras continuously captured perioperative activity. A YOLO-based model identified patients, staff and equipment, and a transformer-based event detector predicted key perioperative events in real time. Detected events were used to segment cases into eight workflow phases: anaesthesia induction, patient preparation, final preparation, active procedure, postoperation, patient exit, room cleanup and room setup. Provider-level variability in segment durations was evaluated after adjusting for case characteristics, daily surgical volume and team composition.
Results: The computer vision event detection system achieved high agreement with ground truth annotations. Across 2502 surgical cases, significant provider-level variability was observed in all workflow segments except for room exit. Active procedure showed the greatest variation among surgeons (F=28.4, p<0.001; β IQR=-20.9 to 8.8 min) followed by room setup among circulating nurses (F=1.3, p<0.001; β IQR=-5.2 to 4.4 min) and room setup among scrub nurses (F=1.4, p<0.001; β IQR=-3.7 to 3.2 min).
Conclusions: Automated workflow segmentation using computer vision provides a scalable method to evaluate perioperative efficiency with greater granularity. Broader case segmentation may support more targeted and effective surgical quality improvement initiatives.