In our last post, we explored why block scheduling often feels more political than collaborative. We unpacked the tension between perioperative leaders and surgical teams and found common ground in a shared challenge: the data guiding these decisions often isn’t trusted.
That mistrust stalls progress. Leaders hesitate to act. Surgeons push back. And even well-intentioned efforts to improve access or efficiency get caught in a cycle of resistance. But there’s a better way forward. And it starts with changing the foundation on which those decisions are built.
The real problem with today’s OR data
Despite the complexity of modern ORs, many hospitals still base major block scheduling decisions on data from the EHR — a system designed for billing and documentation, not OR operations. That creates problems:
- Subjective inputs. Case durations are often estimated by surgeons or based on manually-entered EHR timestamps, which vary widely in accuracy and consistency.
- Limited granularity. Turnover times are often treated as blanket averages. And key details — like whether delays were due to anesthesia prep or surgical team readiness — aren’t captured.
- Delayed visibility. Reporting on block utilization often happens monthly and retrospectively, limiting the ability to proactively adjust or release unused time.
The result? Decisions are made using an incomplete and sometimes misleading picture of OR performance. OR leaders are forced to defend decisions without full context. Surgeons feel unfairly scrutinized. Perioperative team members get blamed. And everyone ends up in reactive mode, trying to fix problems after the fact rather than managing them in real time (or anticipating them based on data-informed predictions).
Why predictive models alone aren’t enough
Some hospitals have turned to predictive models to improve scheduling. But even the best algorithms can’t fix broken inputs. When models are fed incomplete or inconsistent data, they risk reinforcing the same inefficiencies they’re meant to solve. In other words: better math can’t fix bad measurements.
It’s like flying with a powerful navigation system… hooked up to a faulty compass. What ORs need isn’t just better algorithms. It’s a smarter foundation: consistent, objective, directly observed data that reflects what’s actually happening in the OR.
Check out our case study on How Houston Methodist Built Team Trust and Cut Costs with Data Accuracy and reduced errors by 93.8% to drive coordination and prioritize patient care.
What ‘ground-truth’ OR data makes possible
EHR data continues to be reliant on manual entry from circulating nurses dividing their attention between their clinical duties and documentation. Instead, hospitals increasingly can tap into ambient sensing technologies to collect ground-truth data in the OR. By ‘ground-truth data’, we mean a verified, objectively observed timeline of OR activity, not estimates manually entered into the EHR. This unlocks a new level of clarity and control:
- More accurate case durations, measured from patient-in to wheels-out
- Turnover duration predictions, based on surgeon, service line, and case complexity
- Complete operational context, from room readiness to staff availability
- Real-time visibility, enabling proactive adjustments rather than reactive reports
By starting from data collected directly and automatically — without dependency on busy team members whose primary focus is not documentation — every stakeholder is working from a shared, trusted source of truth.
Why it changes the conversation
When data is traceable, objective, and reflects real OR behavior, the entire tone of block scheduling conversations changes:
- Surgeons no longer feel the need to defend against questionable metrics — they can see their performance in full context
- Schedulers and perioperative leaders gain the credibility to make timely, well-supported adjustments
- Block allocation discussions shift from tension to transparency
Yes, surgical scheduling will always involve tradeoffs. But with ground-truth data, those tradeoffs feel grounded, not arbitrary. They’re visible, explainable, collaborative, and far more likely to earn surgeon support.
Want to learn more? Read this case study to learn how hospitals like Houston Methodist improved team trust among surgeons and OR staff by building scheduling decisions on better, ground-truth data.