Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A discrete event simulation model for coordinating inventory management and material handling in hospitals

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inventory management of surgical instruments and material handling decisions of perioperative services are critical to hospitals’ and operating rooms’ (ORs) service levels and costs. However, efficiently coordinating these decisions is challenging due to their interdependence and the uncertainties faced by hospitals. These challenges motivated the development of this study to answer the following research questions: (R1) How does the inventory level of surgical instruments, including owned, borrowed and consigned, impact the service level provided by ORs? (R2): How do material handling activities impact the service level provided by ORs? (R3): How do integrating decisions about inventory and material handling impact the service level provided by ORs? Three discrete event simulation models are developed here to address these questions. Model 1, Current, assumes no coordination of material handling and daily inventory management operations. Model 2, Two Batch, assumes partial coordination, and Model 3, Just-In-Time (JIT), assumes full coordination. These models are verified and validated using real life-data from a partnering hospital. A thorough numerical analysis indicates that, in general, coordination of inventory management of surgical instruments and material handling decisions has the potential to improve the service level provided by ORs. More specifically, a JIT delivery of instruments used in short-duration surgeries leads to lower inventory levels without jeopardizing the service level provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, S., Scherrer, M., Rückauer, K. D., & Daschner, F. D. (2005). Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, 19(2), 268–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmadi, E., Masel, D. T., Metcalf, A. Y., & Schuller, K. (2018). Inventory management of surgical supplies and sterile instruments in hospitals: A literature review. Health Systems, 8, 134–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmadi, E., Masel, D. T., Schwerha, D., & Hostetler, S. (2019). A bi-objective optimization approach for configuring surgical trays with ergonomic risk consideration. IISE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering, 9, 327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaran, S., Sahinidis, N. V., Sharda, B., & Bury, S. J. (2016). Simulation optimization: A review of algorithms and applications. Annals of Operations Research, 240(1), 351–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arifin, R., & Egbelu, P. J. (2000). Determination of vehicle requirements in automated guided vehicle systems: A statistical approach. Production Planning and Control, 11(3), 258–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avansino, J. R., Goldin, A. B., Risley, R., Waldhausen, J. H. T., & Sawin, R. S. (2013). Standardization of operative equipment reduces cost. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 48(9), 1843–1849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benzidia, S., Ageron, B., Bentahar, O., & Husson, J. (2019). Investigating automation and AGV in healthcare logistics: A case study based approach. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 22(3), 273–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhosekar, A., Eksioglu, S., & Isik, T. (2018). Optimization of automated guided vehicle system in health care facility. In Proceedings of the 2018 IISE annual conference (pp. 636–641). Orlando, Florida.

  • Chasseigne, V., Leguelinel-Blache, G., Nguyen, T. L., de Tayrac, R., Prudhomme, M., Kinowski, J. M., et al. (2018). Assessing the costs of disposable and reusable supplies wasted during surgeries. International Journal of Surgery, 53, 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chikul, M., Maw, H. Y., & Soong, Y. K. (2017). Technology in healthcare: A case study of healthcare supply chain management models in a general hospital in singapore. Journal of Hospital Administration, 6(6), 63–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers, C. P., & Maggard-Gibbons, M. (2018). Understanding costs of care in the operating room. JAMA Surgery, 153(4), e176233–e176233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chobin, N. (2015). Best practices for loaner surgical instruments. Sterile Processing University. http://www.spdceus.com/ceus/pdf/loaner_instrumentation.pdf.

  • Choobineh, F. F., Asef-Vaziri, A., & Huang, X. (2012). Fleet sizing of automated guided vehicles: A linear programming approach based on closed queuing networks. International Journal of Production Research, 50(12), 3222–3235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demoulin, L., Kesteloot, K., & Penninckx, F. (1996). A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy, 10(5), 520–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, G., Seidmann, A., Tilson, V., & Froix, A. (2015). Configuring surgical instrument trays to reduce costs. IIE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering, 5(4), 225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollevoet, T., van Essen, J. T., & Glorie, K. M. (2018). Solution methods for the tray optimization problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 271(3), 1070–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyas, A. R., Lovell, K. M., Balentine, C. J., Wang, T. N., Porterfield, J. R, Jr., Chen, H., et al. (2018). Reducing cost and improving operating room efficiency: Examination of surgical instrument processing. Journal of Surgical Research, 229, 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eddie, G., & White, S. (1996). A comparison of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instrument costs. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, 66(10), 671–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egbelu, P. J. (1987). The use of non-simulation approaches in estimating vehicle requirements in an automated guided vehicle based transport system. Material Flow, 4(1), 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrelly, J. S., Clemons, C., Witkins, S., Hall, W., Christison-Lagay, E. R., Ozgediz, D. E., et al. (2017). Surgical tray optimization as a simple means to decrease perioperative costs. Journal of Surgical Research, 220, 320–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fragapane, G. I., Bertnum, A. B., Hvolby, H.-H., & Strandhagen, J. O. (2018). Material distribution and transportation in a Norwegian Hospital: A case study. IFAC-PapersOnline, 51(11), 352–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, M. C. (1994). Optimization via simulation: A review. Annals of Operations Research, 53(1), 199–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganesharajah, T., Hall, N. G., & Sriskandarajah, C. (1998). Design and operational issues in AGV-served manufacturing systems. Annals of Operations Research, 76, 109–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gitelis, M., Vigneswaran, Y., Ujiki, M. B., Denham, W., Talamonti, M., Muldoon, J. P., et al. (2015). Educating surgeons on intraoperative disposable supply costs during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A regional health system’s experience. The American Journal of Surgery, 209(3), 488–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenevelt, H. (1993). The just-in-time system. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, 4, 629–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, D., & Denton, B. (2008). Appointment scheduling in health care: Challenges and opportunities. IIE Transactions, 40(9), 800–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, N. G., Sriskandarajah, C., & Ganesharajah, T. (2001). Operational decisions in AGV-served flowshop loops: Scheduling. Annals of Operations Research, 107(1–4), 161–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L. F. B., Smith, K. A., & Curlin, H. (2017). Physician engagement in improving operative supply chain efficiency through review of surgeon preference cards. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 24(7), 1116–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazır, Ö., & Kedad-Sidhoum, S. (2014). Batch sizing and just-in-time scheduling with common due date. Annals of Operations Research, 213(1), 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. R., Eavey, R. D., & Francis, D. O. (2016). Surgeon awareness of operating room supply costs. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 125(5), 369–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katevas, N. (2001). Mobile robotics in healthcare (Vol. 7). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubiak, W., Steiner, G., & Yeomans, J. S. (1997). Optimal level schedules for mixed-model, multi-level just-in-time assembly systems. Annals of Operations Research, 69, 241–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le-Anh, T., & De Koster, M. B. M. (2006). A review of design and control of automated guided vehicle systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 171(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manatakis, D. K., & Georgopoulos, N. (2014). Reducing the cost of laparoscopy: Reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instruments. Minimally Invasive Surgery, 2014, 39–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandava, S. (2017). How much is consignment costing your hospital?http://www.mobileaspects.com/how-much-is-consignment-costing-your-hospital.

  • Maxwell, W. L., & Muckstadt, J. A. (1982). Design of automatic guided vehicle systems. IIE Transactions, 14(2), 114–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, P., Cruz, M. D., & Gascon, V. (1994). Using the tabu search method for the distribution of supplies in a hospital. Annals of Operations Research, 50(1), 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moons, K., Waeyenbergh, G., & Pintelon, L. (2019). Measuring the logistics performance of internal hospital supply chains: A literature study. Omega, 82, 205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nast, K., & Swords, K. A. (2019). Decreasing operating room costs via reduction of surgical instruments. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 15(2), 153-e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedan, M., Gregor, M., & Plinta, D. (2017). Implementation of automated guided vehicle system in healthcare facility. Procedia Engineering, 192, 665–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pichitlamken, J., & Nelson, B. L. (2003). A combined procedure for optimization via simulation. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS), 13(2), 155–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, J. L. Q., Matias, J. C. O., Pimentel, C., Azevedo, S. G., & Govindan, K. (2018). Introduction to lean and just-in-time manufacturing. In Just in time factory (pp. 1–4). Springer.

  • Polyakovskiy, S., Thiruvady, D., & M’Hallah, R. (2020). Just-in-time batch scheduling subject to batch size. In Proceedings of the 2020 genetic and evolutionary computation conference (pp. 228–235).

  • Rajotia, S., Shanker, K., & Batra, J. L. (1998). Determination of optimal AGV fleet size for an FMS. International Journal of Production Research, 36(5), 1177–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reymondon, F., Pellet, B., & Marcon, E. (2008). Optimization of hospital sterilization costs proposing new grouping choices of medical devices into packages. International Journal of Production Economics, 112(1), 326–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossetti, M. D., Felder, R. A., & Kumar, A. (2000). Simulation of robotic courier deliveries in hospital distribution services. Health Care Management Science, 3(3), 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossetti, M. D., & Selandari, F. (2001). Multi-objective analysis of hospital delivery systems. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 41(3), 309–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargent, R. G. (2010). Verification and validation of simulation models. In Proceedings of the 2010 winter simulation conference (pp. 166–183). IEEE.

  • Schaer, G. N., Koechli, O. R., & Haller, U. (1995). Single-use versus reusable laparoscopic surgical instruments: A comparative cost analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 173(6), 1812–1815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seavey, R. (2010). Reducing the risks associated with loaner instrumentation and implants. AORN Journal, 92(3), 322–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinriech, D., & Tanchoco, J. M. A. (1992). An economic model for determining AGV fleet size. International Journal of Production Research, 30(6), 1255–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skarda, D. E., Rollins, M., Andrews, S., McFadden, M., Barnhart, D., Meyers, R., et al. (2015). One hospital, one appendectomy: The cost effectiveness of a standardized doctor’s preference card. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 50(6), 919–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, E., & Nelson, B. L. (2019). Input-output uncertainty comparisons for discrete optimization via simulation. Operations Research, 67(2), 562–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockert, E. W., & Langerman, A. (2014). Assessing the magnitude and costs of intraoperative inefficiencies attributable to surgical instrument trays. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 219(4), 646–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanchoco, J. M. A., Egbelu, P. J., & Taghaboni, F. (1987). Determination of the total number of vehicles in an AGV-based material transport system. Material Flow, 4(1), 33–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Klundert, J., Muls, P., & Schadd, M. (2008). Optimizing sterilization logistics in hospitals. Health Care Management Science, 11(1), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vis, I. F. A. (2006). Survey of research in the design and control of automated guided vehicle systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 170(3), 677–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volland, J., Fügener, A., Schoenfelder, J., & Brunner, J. O. (2017). Material logistics in hospitals: A literature review. Omega, 69, 82–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wubben, I., van Manen, J. G., Van den Akker, B. J., & Vaartjes, S. R. (2010). Equipment-related incidents in the operating room: an analysis of occurrence, underlying causes and consequences for the clinical process. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(6), e64–e64.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is partially funded via a Spark Research Grant awarded by Material Handling Institute (MHI) and College-Industry Council on Material Handling Education (CICMHE). The authors are grateful to HMI and CICMHE for their support. The authors are thankful to the staff of Greenville Memorial Hospital for their continuous support in this research by providing the data, and the expertise necessary to verify and validate the models developed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Ekşioğlu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Material handling process The research team collaborated with the Perioperative Services Department (PSD) of Greenville Memorial Hospital (GMH). The PSD consists of three departments: the Materials Department (MD) and the Central Sterile Storage Department (CSSD), both of which are located on the mezzanine floor (see Fig. 2), and the Operating Room Department (ORD) located on the second floor. GMH has 46 AGVs that are used to complete tasks such as, the delivery of food, linen, trash, sterile surgical material (instruments and supplies), etc. Each task is assigned a priority level, which changes during the day. This assignment is an effort to balance the use of AGVs. For example, the movement of sterile surgical material from MD to ORD has the highest priority during 3-6pm. Thus, a total of 10 AGVs are dedicated to the delivery of sterile surgical material during this time period.

Every day, MD receives a list of instruments and soft goods that should be delivered to ORD between 3 and 6pm. This list is generated based on doctors’ preferences and will be used in surgeries scheduled the next day. Instruments and soft goods are loaded manually into clean case carts. A team of 5 employees is tasked with loading the AGVs. This team is assigned to other tasks during the second shift. Carts are then manually moved to one of the 4 detents available at MD. Detents are areas equipped with the rails necessary for loading and unloading an AGVs. Once a request for an AGV is submitted to AGV control system, an available AGV, closest to the MD, is assigned to the case cart. The case cart is loaded on an AGV. This movement of the AGV is depicted in Fig. 1 as “Path of AGV with Clean Cart.” To move the case cart to the 2nd floor, this AGV uses elevator J. The clean case cart is then dropped off at one of the 2 detents in the case cart storage area (CCSA). Since CCSA is located next to elevator J on the 2nd floor. The CCSA is not shown in Fig. 2. Since, delivery of food and linen take priority after 6pm, AGVs become increasingly unavailable for the movement of surgical case during those times. Thus, it is expected that the delivery of surgical case carts is completed before other services take priority. The case carts are stored at the CCSA overnight. The case cart is then moved manually to the OR. After the surgery, the soiled cart is moved manually to the detents on the second floor. Once a request for an AGV is submitted to AGV control system, the assigned AGV moves the soiled cart to the CSSD using the path “Path of AGV with Clean and Soiled Cart” depicted in Fig. 2. The soiled instruments are washed and sterilized at the CSSD, a process that takes up to 3 or 4 h. The sterilized instruments are loaded to a clean case cart and moved to MD for storage. The soiled case carts are washed at the cart washer. The washed case cart is moved to MD for the next cycle. The movement of AGVs with washed case carts is depicted in Fig. 2 as “Path of AGVs with Washed Cart”.

AGV scheduling and operations The scheduling of AGVs is completed in 2 steps: First, a fleet of AGVs is assigned to tasks during the day based on task priority. Tasks are the delivery of food, delivery of trash, delivery of linen, delivery of surgical carts, etc. Task priorities change during the day. Next, tasks are assigned to AGVs based on a version of the first-come-first-serve rule. For example, if case cart 1 Is ready for pick-up, the 1st available AGV which is located closest to the case cart, will be assigned to deliver the cart.

The operation of AGVs follows certain guidelines, such as, (1) AGVs are not allowed to pass each other; (2) if an AGV stops, then other AGVs following will also stop and maintain a safe distance; (3) at most 2 AGVs can use an elevator at the same time; (4) an AGV will not seize elevator J if every detent in the second floor is busy. These operational practices lead to congestion; (5) if no task are available, the AGV is moved to the parking area.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhosekar, A., Ekşioğlu, S., Işık, T. et al. A discrete event simulation model for coordinating inventory management and material handling in hospitals. Ann Oper Res 320, 603–630 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03865-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03865-5

Keywords

Navigation