Surgery-length predictions shortened patient waits at Sloan Kettering

In a 2018 Memorial Sloan Kettering randomized trial of 683 surgeries, a machine learning model cut scheduling error by 9.8 minutes and patient waits by 33.1 minutes.

12
Benefit status
Reported
Evidence
Independently studied
Observed
Sources
2 publications
Download data CiteSuggest a correction

Benefits

Benefit

Fell by 33.1 minutes per patient, from 49.4 to 16.3 minutes

Awaiting review

Outcome identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category

Improved Task Accuracy

Awaiting review

Status

Reported benefit

Awaiting review

Beneficiary groups

People. Organizations.

Awaiting review

Beneficiaries

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Reach

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Distribution and access

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Duration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Expected?

Yes

Awaiting review

Costs and harms

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

AI system

System

Memorial Sloan Kettering machine learning surgical case-duration prediction model

Awaiting review

Model

This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Release

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Provider

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Role

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Configuration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Inputs and outputs

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Autonomy

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Workflow

The model drew on more than 300 data points per case from the EHR. Predictions ran each morning one weekday before surgery and went to schedulers.

Awaiting review

Human oversight

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Relation to AI

Cases were randomized to model-based or usual duration estimates, stratified by surgeon and operating room location, so the comparison isolates the model's estimates.

Awaiting review

AI contribution

Cases were randomized to model-based or usual duration estimates, stratified by surgeon and operating room location, so the comparison isolates the model's estimates.

Awaiting review

Measurement

Studies

Randomized. [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [2]

Study design

Randomized. [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [2]

Measurement

Recorded patient-in-room to patient-out-of-room times against planned durations; presurgical wait times. [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [2]

Setting and sample

683 colorectal and gynecology cases on two Memorial Sloan Kettering campuses. [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [2]

Measures

Mean absolute error of planned case duration; wait time of following patients. [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [2]

Comparison

Usual EHR estimate with surgeon or scheduler input. [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [2]

Results

MAE 49.5 versus 59.3 minutes; wait 16.3 versus 49.4 minutes. [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [2]

Additional value from AI

9.8 minutes less error; 33.1 minutes less waiting. [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [2]

Limitations

Single center, two services, 11 weeks, model built by the same team. [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [2]

Denominators

Half of eligible cases. [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [2]

Materials for replication

Trial protocol and eMethods in supplements. [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [2]

Money

Kind of value

The kind of monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Amount

The monetary value is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Currency and prices

The currency and price basis are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Period and unit

The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Realization

Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Recipients and payers

The recipients and payers are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Gross or net

Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Included costs

The costs included in the estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Comparison

The financial comparison is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Method

The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Return and payback

The return on investment or payback period is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

People and places

Participants

Developer: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Department of Strategy and Innovation). Operator: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Awaiting review

Jurisdictions

Benefit: Memorial Sloan Kettering main campus and Josie Robertson Surgical Center, New York, United States. Developer: United States. Operator: United States.

Awaiting review

Ownership and control

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Dependencies

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Cross-border connections

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Geopolitical implications

The geopolitical implications are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Follow-up

Conditions for replication

Data for each case are available before scheduling. Schedulers apply the predicted durations when they set patient times.

Awaiting review

Replication attempts

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Later findings

27 January 2021. The authors wrote that they planned to extend the model to all surgical cases; the cited sources do not confirm that rollout.

Awaiting review

Availability

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Institutional decision

A relevant institutional decision has not been established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grounds

The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Action and result

The result of an institutional decision is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Success criterion

The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence

Source numbers

AIBD-0611-source-0001–0002

Awaiting review

Citations

Numbered references below.

Awaiting review

Language

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Source relationships

Independent, Developer

Awaiting review

Original evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Access and versions

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Supported findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence strength

Independently studied. Sources: one independent peer-reviewed study and the makers' peer-reviewed study. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Missing evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grades

Assessed benefits

People. Organizations.

Awaiting review

Depth

People: 1. Organizations: 2.

Awaiting review

Reasons

People: Patients waited 33.1 fewer minutes on average in the presurgical area. Organizations: Mean absolute error of planned case duration fell from 59.3 to 49.5 minutes.

Awaiting review

Observed or intended

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Rubric

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Assessor and date

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Alternative assessments

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Fill

Independently studied

Awaiting review

Entry details

Kind

The case describes an evaluation or a study. Randomized clinical trial embedded in operations. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Field

Healthcare.

Awaiting review

Purpose

The model was built to predict how long each operation will take so that schedulers can plan rooms and patient arrival times. Shorter patient waits follow from that purpose.

Awaiting review

Dates

Observed: 25 June 2018. Updated: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Stage

The system was used in a pilot. The model ran in daily scheduling for randomized cases in two services over 11 weeks. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Version

SHA-256: 886af6ac36eb…

Awaiting review

SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.

References

Other identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category mappings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Citable summary

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Revisions

1 revision. Latest: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Sources

  1. Peer-reviewed study Independent author

    Spence C, Shah OA, et al. Machine learning models to predict surgical case duration compared to current industry standards: scoping review. BJS Open 2023;7(6):zrad113. doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrad113. Independent review by authors at the South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre.

  2. Peer-reviewed study Developer

    Strömblad CT, Baxter-King RG, Meisami A, et al. Effect of a Predictive Model on Planned Surgical Duration Accuracy, Patient Wait Time, and Use of Presurgical Resources: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surgery 2021;156(4):315-321. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.6361. Written by the hospital team that built the model.

Cite this case

BibTeX Download BibTeX

Version 886af6ac36eb, archived in the edition of 29 October 2026

Benefit marks

Depth

The number and color show the depth of a benefit.

  1. A convenience, or time or money saved.
  2. A measurable improvement in a result or ability.
  3. A lasting change, an ability restored, or a risk removed.
  4. A serious harm averted or a serious condition resolved in time.
  5. A life or livelihood preserved, or a change documented across a population.

Beneficiary

  • Circle: a person
  • Square: an organization
  • Triangle: society

Evidence

  • Solid. A court or regulator found a benefit, or researchers independently studied it.

  • Hatched. Independent reporting.

  • Outline. Claimed by the parties. Only the people or organizations involved, or sources whose independence has not been assessed, support the benefit.

The fill changes with the evidence. The depth color stays the same.

How benefits are assessed