Structured evaluation of SurgiSync optimization
Verentia’s initial simulation work evaluated SurgiSync optimization against a conventional FIFO baseline using 1,236 de-identified real-world surgical encounters across 31 days.
Results are presented to highlight comparative performance, operational relevance, and scenario progression across increasingly flexible simulation conditions.
Supporting detail and secondary metrics
Headline results summarize the strongest comparative findings across tiers. Supporting metrics shown below provide additional context for how performance was evaluated within the simulation framework.
How these results should be interpreted
These findings are based on retrospective simulation and Monte Carlo stress-testing using 1,236 de-identified real-world surgical encounters across a 31-day operating window. The results are intended to demonstrate structured comparative testing, robustness under repeated pilot sampling, and directional performance signals—not universal generalizability across all facilities or operating environments.
The strongest public interpretation of this work is that Verentia has performed disciplined initial evaluation of SurgiSync optimization, observed reproducible comparative improvements under modeled assumptions, and generated a technical basis for further facility-specific evaluation, collaboration, and real-world testing.
Headline results across three simulation tiers
Conservative envelope
Most constrained scenario. Directional uplift still present across both 1 OR and 3 OR simulations.
Moderate flexibility
Broader candidate access produced stronger comparative gains across both configurations.
Broadest access / highest uplift
Widest candidate access produced the largest observed comparative uplift across the simulation set.
Monte Carlo robustness check
To evaluate whether the observed optimization effect persisted under repeated pilot sampling, Verentia ran 5,000 paired Monte Carlo simulations of 31-day operating windows. Each replication compared FIFO proxy scheduling against SurgiSync's optimization using identical sampled case pools, cancellation assumptions, turnover assumptions, and effective OR capacity.
| Metric | FIFO proxy | SurgiSync Optimization | Difference / uplift |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean margin per 31-day pilot | $142,750 | $168,153 | +$25,402 |
| Mean margin efficiency | $11.67/min | $13.64/min | +17.03% |
| Mean OR minutes used | 12,234 | 12,325 | +0.76% |
| Mean scheduled cases | 78.8 | 93.7 | +14.9 cases |
| 95% CI for efficiency uplift | — | — | +16.92% to +17.14% |
| 95% CI for clipped uplift | — | — | $24,016 to $24,299 |
| Equal-minutes clipped uplift | — | — | +$24,157 |
Results are based on retrospective simulation across 1,236 de-identified surgical encounters over a 31-day operating window, comparing FIFO proxy scheduling against SurgiSync optimization under tier-specific TRS thresholds and defined operational constraints. A separate Monte Carlo robustness check used 5,000 paired 31-day pilot replications. In each replication, FIFO and SurgiSync were evaluated under identical sampled case pools, cancellation assumptions, turnover assumptions, and effective OR capacity.
Financial values shown are derived from specialty-aware proxy coefficients used for comparative simulation and prioritization only. They do not represent actual realized reimbursement, profit, or net margin, and should be interpreted as directional financial-efficiency signals.