Early Assessment of the Likely Cost Effectiveness of Single-Use Flexible Video Bronchoscopes

[Assessment of Flexible Single-Use Rhinolaryngoscopes with Working Channel in the Upper Airways]

Flexible rhinolaryngoscopy is a frequently used ENT examination method. It is usually performed with reusable endoscopy systems. Since 2019, flexible single-use rhinolaryngoscopes from various manufacturers with and without a working channel are available on the German market. In recent years, hygiene requirements and specifications for reprocessing reusable endoscopes have increased significantly.This study uses questionnaires to evaluate user satisfaction with the Ambu disposable endoscopy system with working channel in a bicentre observational study.The overall impression of the disposable endoscopy system with working channel was rated as "very good" in half of the applications. Image quality and handling were predominantly rated as "good" to "very good". The simultaneously usage of instruments through the working channel is a challenge.Single-use rhinolaryngoscopy systems offer excellent handling, image quality and user satisfaction. There is a high level of security with regard to contamination risks and complication rates. Compliance with current hygiene guidelines can lead to increasing expenses in the reprocessing of reusable endoscopy systems and make disposable endoscopes more attractive in the future. In combination with an integrated working channel, single-use endoscopy systems can offer additional value compared to reusable systems regarding hygienic standards.

Technological advances in single-use or disposable bronchoscopy: an evaluation of the Innovative Ambu® aScope™ 5 in a quaternary referral bronchoscopy unit

Background

Single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SUFBs) offer various advantages over reusable bronchoscopes (RBs) including portability and cost-effectiveness, and potentially reduced infection transmission. Our study aimed to review the performance of the Ambu® aScope™ 5 Broncho suite in Cork University Hospital.

Methods

Following ethical approval, data was collected prospectively on procedures performed with the Ambu® aScope™ 5 in Cork University Hospital. Data included patient demographics, procedure details (location, indication, SUFB size, procedures, complications), and user satisfaction and demographics.

Results

There were 98 procedures performed with the Ambu® aScope™ 5, all in the endoscopy suite. There were 42 female patients (42.9%) and 56 male (57.1%). Various sized models were used-2.7/1.2 (n=3), 4.2/2.2 (n=4), 5/2.2 (n=60), 5.6/2.8 (n=31). Infection was the most common indication while others included malignancy, haemoptysis, sarcoidosis, and asthma. The most commonly performed procedure was airway inspection (n=98), while bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) (n=84), brushings (n=3), endobronchial biopsies (n=5), transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) (n=1), and argon plasma coagulation (APC) (n=1) were among others. The average user satisfaction rating (from one to five in ascending order of satisfaction) was 4.8 [5 (n=85), 4 (n=9), 3 (n=1), 2 (n=3), 1 (n=0)]. The most common reason for user dissatisfaction was related to suction (n=3). Conversion from single-use to RB was not required in any case. There were no bronchoscope-related patient complications.

Conclusions

Within this cohort of patients, the Ambu® aScope™ 5 was both safe and versatile with a high level of user satisfaction.

Bronchoscopy-related outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and report the pathogens and sources of contamination associated with bronchoscopy-related outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Inpatient and outpatient outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks after bronchoscopy.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline databases were searched according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, using the search terms "bronchoscopy," "outbreak," and "pseudo-outbreak" from inception until December 31, 2022. From eligible publications, data were extracted regarding the type of event, pathogen involved, and source of contamination. Pearson correlation was used to identify correlations between variables.

RESULTS

In total, 74 studies describing 23 outbreaks and 52 pseudo-outbreaks were included in this review. The major pathogens identified in these studies were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), Klebsiella pneumoniae, Serratia marcescens, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Legionella pneumophila, and fungi. The primary sources of contamination were the use of contaminated water or contaminated topical anesthetics, dysfunction and contamination of bronchoscopes or automatic endoscope reprocessors, and inadequate disinfection of the bronchoscopes following procedures. Correlations were identified between primary bronchoscope defects and the identification of P. aeruginosa (r = 0.351; P = .002) and K. pneumoniae (r = 0.346; P = .002), and between the presence of a contaminated water source and NTM (r = 0.331; P = .004) or L. pneumophila (r = 0.280; P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Continued vigilance in bronchoscopy disinfection practices remains essential because outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks continue to pose a significant risk to patient care, emphasizing the importance of stringent disinfection and quality control measures.

Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) Guideline for difficult airway management. Part II

The Airway Management section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), and the Spanish Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) present the Guide for the comprehensive management of difficult airway in adult patients. Its principles are focused on the human factors, cognitive processes for decision-making in critical situations, and optimization in the progression of strategies application to preserve adequate alveolar oxygenation in order to enhance safety and the quality of care. The document provides evidence-based recommendations, theoretical-educational tools, and implementation tools, mainly cognitive aids, applicable to airway management in the fields of anesthesiology, critical care, emergencies, and prehospital medicine. For this purpose, an extensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA-R guidelines and was analyzed using the GRADE methodology. Recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE methodology. Recommendations for sections with low-quality evidence were based on expert opinion through consensus reached via a Delphi questionnaire.

Cross-contamination rate of reusable flexible bronchoscopes: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Background

Bronchoscopy is generally a safe and efficient procedure. However, the risk of cross-contamination with reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFB) has been detected in several outbreaks worldwide.

Aim

To estimate the average cross-contamination rate of patient-ready RFBs based on available published data.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review in PubMed and Embase to investigate the cross-contamination rate of RFB. Included studies identified indicator organisms or colony forming units (CFU) levels, and total number of samples >10. The Contamination threshold was defined according to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Nurse and Associates (ESGE-ESGENA) guidelines. To calculate the total contamination rate, a random effects model was applied. Heterogeneity was analysed via a Q-test and illustrated in a forest plot. Publication bias was analysed via the Egger’s regression test and illustrated in a funnel plot.

Results

Eight studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The random effects model included 2169 samples and 149 events (positive tests). The total RFB cross-contamination rate was 8.69% ± 1.86 (standard division [SD]) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.06–12.33%). The result showed significant heterogeneity of 90% and publication bias.

Discussion

Significant heterogeneity and publication bias is likely associated with varying methodology and aversion towards publishing negative findings, respectively. Based on the cross-contamination rate an infection control paradigm shift is needed to ensure patient safety. We recommend to follow the Spaulding classification and classify RFBs as critical items. Accordingly, infection control measures such as obligatory surveillance, and implementing single-use alternatives must be considered where feasible.

Decision-analytic modeling for early health technology assessment of medical devices - a scoping review

Objective

The goal of this review was to identify decision-analytic modeling studies in early health technology assessments (HTA) of high-risk medical devices, published over the last three years, and to provide a systematic overview of model purposes and characteristics. Additionally, the aim was to describe recent developments in modeling techniques.

Methods

For this scoping review, we performed a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase including studies published in English or German. The search code consisted of terms describing early health technology assessment and terms for decision-analytic models. In abstract and full-text screening, studies were excluded that were not modeling studies for a high-risk medical device or an in-vitro diagnostic test. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram was used to report on the search and exclusion of studies. For all included studies, study purpose, framework and model characteristics were extracted and reported in systematic evidence tables and a narrative summary.

Results

Out of 206 identified studies, 19 studies were included in the review. Studies were either conducted for hypothetical devices or for existing devices after they were already available on the market. No study extrapolated technical data from early development stages to estimate potential value of devices in development. All studies except one included cost as an outcome. Two studies were budget impact analyses. Most studies aimed at adoption and reimbursement decisions. The majority of studies were on in-vitro diagnostic tests for personalized and targeted medicine. A timed automata model, to our knowledge a model type new to HTA, was tested by one study. It describes the agents in a clinical pathway in separate models and, by allowing for interaction between the models, can reflect complex individual clinical pathways and dynamic system interactions. Not all sources of uncertainty for in-vitro tests were explicitly modeled. Elicitation of expert knowledge and judgement was used for substitution of missing empirical data. Analysis of uncertainty was the most valuable strength of decision-analytic models in early HTA, but no model applied sensitivity analysis to optimize the test positivity cutoff with regard to the benefit-harm balance or cost-effectiveness. Value-of-information analysis was rarely performed. No information was found on the use of causal inference methods for estimation of effect parameters from observational data.

Conclusion

Our review provides an overview of the purposes and model characteristics of nineteen recent early evaluation studies on medical devices. The review shows the growing importance of personalized interventions and confirms previously published recommendations for careful modeling of uncertainties surrounding diagnostic devices and for increased use of value-of-information analysis. Timed automata may be a model type worth exploring further in HTA. In addition, we recommend to extend the application of sensitivity analysis to optimize positivity criteria for in-vitro tests with regard to benefit-harm or cost-effectiveness. We emphasize the importance of causal inference methods when estimating effect parameters from observational data.

Evaluation of a new developed disposable and portable bronchoscopy system

BACKGROUND

Bronchoscopy is critical in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and its use is associated with the challenges of stringent sterilization and virus transmission risk. We developed a disposable and portable bronchoscope (YunSendo-R) and compared its safety and function with those of current reusable and single-use bronchoscopes using an animal model.

METHODS

We compared the YunSendo-R system with a commercially available reusable bronchoscope (Olympus, BF-H290) and single-use bronchoscope (Ambu, Ambu® aScope3™). Eight physicians used the three types of bronchoscopes to operate on Guangxi Bama mini pigs. Each operator performed bronchoscopy and completed a 10-point Likert scale questionnaire for evaluating visual ability and manoeuvrability. Operation time and scores were collected.

RESULTS

Operation time had no significant differences among the three bronchoscopes. In visual ability, the YunSendo-R bronchoscope showed superior performance to the Ambu bronchoscope in image clarity, colour contrast, and illumination (P < 0.05) and no significant difference in performance compared with the Olympus bronchoscope (P > 0.05). The YunSendo-R bronchoscope had similar manoeuvrability to the Olympus bronchoscope and better scope tip flexibility than the Ambu bronchoscope (P > 0.05). No relevant complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a new bronchoscopy system with the advantages of disposability and portability, which was effective and safe in an animal model. It has better visual ability than the Ambu bronchoscope and similar visual ability and manoeuvrability to the Olympus bronchoscope. The YunSendo-R bronchoscope is a promising device for clinical practice, especially in reusable-endoscope-transmitted infectious diseases such as COVID-19.

Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy with single use bronchoscopes versus reusable bronchoscopes – a prospective randomized trial (TraSUB)

Background

Apart from conventional reusable bronchoscopes, single-use bronchoscopes (SUB) were recently introduced. Data suggest that SUB might prevent from the risk of cross contamination (i.e. multiresistant pathogens, SARS CoV-2) and save costs. We aimed to investigate visualization, ventilation, handling characteristics, changes in patients’ gas exchange, and costs associated with both types of bronchoscopes during percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT).

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, noninferiority study, 46 patients undergoing PDT were randomized 1:1 to PDT with SUB (Ambu aScope) or reusable bronchoscopes (CONV, Olympus BF-P60). Visualization of tracheal structures rated on 4-point Likert scales was the primary end-point. Furthermore, quality of ventilation, device handling characteristics, changes in the patients’ gas exchange, pH values, and costs were assessed.

Results

Noninferiority for visualization (the primary endpoint) was demonstrated for the SUB group. Mean visualization scores (lower values better) were 4.1 (95% confidence intervals: 3.9;4.3) for SUB vs. 4.1 (4.0;4.2) for CONV. Noninferiority of ventilation (estimated by minute volume and SpO₂) during the procedure could be shown as well. Mean score was 2.6 (2.0;3.1) for SUB vs. 2.4 (2.1;2.7) for CONV (lower values better). No significant differences regarding handling (SUB: 1.2 (1.0;1.4), CONV: 1.3 (1.1;1.6)), blood gas analyses and respiratory variables were found. Cost analysis in our institution revealed 93 € per conventional bronchoscopy versus 232.50 € with SUB, not considering an estimate for possible infection due to cross-contamination with the reusable device.

Conclusion

In our study, visualization and overall performance of the SUB during PDT were noninferior to reusable bronchoscopes. Therefore, PDT with SUB is feasible and should be considered if favored by individual institution’s cost analysis.

Trial registration.

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03952247. Submitted for registration on 28/04/2019 and first posted on 16/05/2019.

Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Bronchoscopes in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine

Flexible bronchoscopy plays a critical role in both diagnostic and therapeutic management of a variety of pulmonary disorders in the bronchoscopy suite and the intensive care unit. In the set-ting of the ongoing viral pandemic, single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SUFB) have garnered attention as various professional pulmonary societies have released guidelines regarding uses for SUFB given the concern for risk of viral transmission when using reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFB). In addition to offering sterility, SUFBs are portable, easily accessible, and may be more cost-effective than RFB when considering the potential costs of treating bronchoscopy-related infections. Furthermore, since SUFBs are one time use, they do not require reprocessing after use, and therefore may translate to reduced cleaning and storage costs. Despite these advantages, RFBs are still routinely used to perform advanced diagnostic and therapeutic bronchoscopic procedures given the need for optimal maneuverability, handling, angle of deflection, image quality, and larger channel size for passing of ancillary instruments. Here, we review the published evidence on the applications of single-use and reusable bronchoscopes in bronchoscopy suites and intensive care units. Specifically, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these devices as pertinent to fundamental, advanced, and therapeutic bronchoscopic interventions.

Single Use (disposable) Duodenoscope: Recent Development and Future

Unlike simple forward-viewing endoscopes such as gastroscope or colonoscope, duodenoscope houses much more complex design to fulfil its function. This design differences leave duodenoscopes more prone to contamination from inadequate disinfection process and potential dissemination of pathogens. Recent reports on dissemination of infection through the duodenoscope mandated an overhaul of duodenoscope utilization including development of a disposable duodenoscope. This article reviews the current state of disposable duodenoscope development, including reported early efficacy as well as its future direction and utilization.

Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident survey

OBJECTIVE

Assess the quality of a new disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscope (NPL) through resident feedback at multiple academic institutions and provide a cost analysis of reusable and disposable NPLs at a single academic center.

STUDY DESIGN

An online survey was distributed to residents at institutions throughout the United States that have implemented use of a disposable NPL (Ambu aScope 4 Rhinolaryngo).

SETTING

Cost analysis performed at a single academic center. Resident survey distributed to multiple residency programs throughout the United States.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The survey collected demographic information and asked residents to rate the new disposable NPL and other reusable NPLs using a 5-point Likert scale. A cost analysis was performed of both reusable and disposable NPLs using information obtained at a single academic center.

RESULTS

The survey was distributed to 109 residents throughout the country and 37 were completed for a response rate of 33.9%. The disposable NPL was comparable to reusable NPLs based on ergonomics and maneuverability, inferior in imaging quality (P < .001), and superior in setup (P < .001), convenience (P < .001), and rated better overall (P < .04). The disposable NPL was found to be cheaper per use than reusable NPLs at $171.82 and $170.36 compared to $238.17 and $197.88 per use for the reusable NPL if the life span is 1 year and 5 years respectively.

CONCLUSION

Disposable NPLs may offer an alternative option and initial feedback obtained from resident physicians is favorable. Cost analysis favors disposable NPLs as the cost-effective option.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA.

Implementation of an Anaesthesia Quality Improvement Programme to Reduce Fibreoptic Bronchoscope Repair Incidents

Background

This study was aimed at investigating the effectiveness of the implementation of a comprehensive quality improvement programme (QIP) for reducing the repair rate of the fibreoptic bronchoscope (FOB).

Methods

A three-stage improvement strategy was implemented between January 2013 and December 2016. Stage one is the acquisition of information on violations of practice guidelines, repair rate, cost of repair, and incidence of unavailability of FOB during anaesthesia induction of the previous year through auditing. Stage two is the implementation of a quality improvement campaign (QIC) based on the results of stage one. Stage three is the programme perpetuation through monitoring compliance with policy on FOB use by regular internal audits. The effectiveness was retrospectively analyzed on a yearly basis.

Results

The annual repair rate, repair cost, and incidence of FOB unavailability before the QIP implementation were 1%, 18,757 USD, and 1.4%, respectively. After QIC, the repair rate in 2013 dropped by 81% (from 1% in 2012 to 0.19% in 2013, p < 0.05). The annual repair cost fell by 32% from 18,758 USD (2012) to 12,820 USD (2013). Besides, the incidence of FOB unavailability plummeted by 71% from 1.4% to 0.4% during the same period. The annual repair rates and incidence of FOB unavailability remained lower in subsequent three years than those before QIP implementation.

Conclusion

Implementation of a quality improvement programme was effective for reducing the rate and cost of FOB repair as well as unavailability rate, highlighting its beneficial impact on cost-effectiveness and patient safety in a tertiary referral center setting.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation

BACKGROUND

One-lung ventilation (OLV) procedures are essential for most thoracic surgeries, and the most common method is intubation with a conventional double-lumen tube (cDLT) and bronchoscopy to verify correct tube placement.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the VivaSight double-lumen tube (DL) and a cDLT for OLV procedures.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a healthcare sector perspective in Denmark using a decision analytic model to assess the potential effects and costs of using VivaSight-DL as an alternative to a cDLT with a reusable bronchoscope. Costs were determined using a micro-costing approach. The effectiveness measure was the number of times that fiberoptic confirmation of the tube placement during intubation or surgery was unnecessary and thus avoided. The effectiveness input was from a randomized controlled trial (n = 52). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Fiberoptic confirmation of tube placement was only necessary in two (6.66%) procedures using VivaSight-DL. The cost of using VivaSight-DL was $US299.96 per procedure versus $US347.61 for a cDLT with a reusable bronchoscope. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was - $US51.06 per bronchoscopy avoided. The base-case analysis indicated that the use of VivaSight-DL was cost effective compared with the use of a cDLT with reusable bronchoscope. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust and that VivaSight-DL was more effective and less costly.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that VivaSight-DL is associated with cost savings and reductions in bronchoscope use to verify correct tube placement. The conclusion is based on the results from a single institution. To clarify whether VivaSight-DL is cost effective in larger or global clinical settings, further economic evaluations should be performed.

Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP: a randomized bench-model comparison

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multidrug-resistant infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscope reuse have been documented internationally. A single-use endoscope could eliminate exogenous patient-to-patient infection associated with ERCP.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative bench simulation study of a new single-use and 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes on a synthetic anatomic bench model. Four ERCP tasks were performed: guidewire locking (single-use and 1 reusable duodenoscope only), plastic stent placement and removal, metal stent placement and removal, and basket sweeping. The study schedule included block randomization by 4 duodenoscopes, 4 tasks, and 2 anatomic model ERCP stations. Ability to complete tasks, task completion times, and subjective ratings of overall performance, navigation/pushability, tip control, and image quality on a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best) were compared among duodenoscopes.

RESULTS

All 4 ERCP tasks (total 14 subtasks) were completed by 6 expert endoscopists using all 4 duodenoscopes, with similar task completion times (median, 1.5-8.0 minutes per task) and overall performance ratings by task (median, 8.0-10.0). Navigation/pushability ratings were lower for the single-use duodenoscope than for the 3 reusable duodenoscopes (median, 8.0, 10.0, 9.0, and 9.0, respectively; P < .01). Tip control ratings were similar among all the duodenoscopes (median, 9.0-10.0; P = .77). Image quality ratings were lower for 1 reusable duodenoscope compared with the single-use and other 2 reusable duodenoscopes (median, 8.0, 9.0, 9.0, and 9.0, respectively; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

A new single-use duodenoscope was used to simulate 4 ERCP tasks in an anatomic model, with performance ratings and completion times comparable with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes.

A systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopes

The cost effectiveness of reusable vs. single‐use flexible bronchoscopy in the peri‐operative setting has yet to be determined. We therefore aimed to determine this and hypothesised that single‐use flexible bronchoscopes are cost effective compared with reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, seeking all reports of cross‐contamination or infection following reusable bronchoscope use in any clinical setting. We calculated the incidence of these outcomes and then determined the cost per patient of treating clinical consequences of bronchoscope‐induced infection. We also performed a micro‐costing analysis to quantify the economics of reusable flexible bronchoscopes in the peri‐operative setting from a high‐throughput tertiary centre. This produced an accurate estimate of the cost per use of reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We then performed a cost effectiveness analysis, combining the data obtained from the systematic review and micro‐costing analysis. We included 16 studies, with a reported incidence of cross‐contamination or infection of 2.8%. In the micro‐costing analysis, the total cost per use of a reusable flexible bronchoscope was calculated to be £249 sterling. The cost per use of a single‐use flexible bronchoscope was £220 sterling. The cost effectiveness analysis demonstrated that reusable flexible bronchoscopes have a cost per patient use of £511 sterling due to the costs of treatment of infection. The findings from this study suggest benefits from the use of single‐use flexible bronchoscopes in terms of cost effectiveness, cross‐contamination and resource utilisation.

Cost Comparison of Single-Use Versus Reusable Bronchoscopes Used for Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy

BACKGROUND

Both single-use and reusable bronchoscopes are suitable for percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) to visualise the trachea during the insertion process. To determine the least costly option, the price of single-use bronchoscopes must be weighed against the estimated average cost of a bronchoscopy with reusable equipment. In the latter case, the acquisition cost must be spread over the equipment's useful life and other relevant costs, such as reprocessing and repair, must be included.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to calculate the cost of using single-use or reusable bronchoscopes per PDT procedure.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing the costs of reusable and single-use bronchoscopes for PDT. Inclusion criteria were articles assessing the cost of single-use or reusable bronchoscopes, and where costs were divided into acquisition, reprocessing, and repair costs. A questionnaire regarding repair rates and costs for reusable bronchoscopes was sent to 366 hospitals in the US, UK, and Germany to supplement the identified literature.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Ninety-nine completed responses were received, of which 31 hospitals used reusable equipment for PDT. Literature research revealed an average acquisition cost of $US135 (SD 152) and reprocessing cost of $US123 (SD 128). Additionally, a combination of data from the literature and the questionnaires gave a repair cost per use of $US148 (SD 242), resulting in a total average cost of $US406 for reusable bronchoscopes and $US249 (SD 36) for single-use bronchoscopes per PDT procedure. Thus, the incremental cost per use of a reusable bronchoscope compared with a single-use bronchoscope was $US157.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that significant savings can be made by using single-use bronchoscopes to guide PDT in preference to reusable bronchoscopes. Results depend on hospital setting, the reprocessing procedures, annual bronchoscope procedures, individual repair cost, and repair rates.

Single-use flexible bronchoscopes compared with reusable bronchoscopes: Positive organizational impact but a costly solution

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

There is at present no standard methodology to analyse the organizational impacts (OIs) of medical devices (MDs), and the field is still in its infancy. The aim of the present study was to assess, at a hospital level, the organizational and economic impacts of the introduction of a new MD, specifically the single-use flexible bronchoscope (FB).

METHODS

Both the organizational and economic impacts of the single-use FB were evaluated in comparison with the reusable FB currently used as standard practice in our institution. First, process maps were created for both devices (reusable and single use). Based on the 12 types of OI defined by Roussel et al, interviews were conducted with all stakeholders, and the positive and negative aspects of the reusable and single-use processes were analysed. In a second step, microcosting analysis was conducted to determine the most economical balance in use of the 2 technologies.

RESULTS

Process maps highlighted the complexity of the reusable device process when compared with the single-use device process. Among the 12 types of OI, the single-use FB process scored better than the reusable FB process in 75% of cases. With the "fleet" of 15 reusable FBs available in our institution, using single-use FBs would represent an extra cost of €154 per procedure. Single-use and reusable devices would have the same cost (€232 per procedure) with a theoretical annual activity of 328 bronchoscopies, which is much lower than our current activity (1644 procedures per year).

CONCLUSIONS

Organizational impact should be considered when assessing MDs. We show in this study that from an organizational viewpoint, there are many advantages to using single-use bronchoscopes. However, in economic impact, it is more cost-effective for our institution, with more than 1500 bronchoscopies performed annually, to use reusable devices.

Nurses' implementation of ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention guidelines: an observational study in Jordan

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Thoracic Society, and the Institute for Health Care and Improvement have been published to reduce the rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the clinical settings; however, nurses' compliance with these guidelines is still questionable.

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to assess nurses' compliance with ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention guidelines and the factors that influence their compliance.

DESIGN

A structured observational design with a non-participant approach.

METHOD

One hundred nurses were observed during their care for patients on mechanical ventilator. The observers documented nurses' implementation of ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention guidelines using a structured observational sheet.

RESULTS

Compliance of nurses was found to be unsatisfactory. Of the participants, 63% showed 'insufficient compliance'. Nurses working in units with a 1:1 nurse:patient ratio and lower beds' capacity demonstrated higher compliance and their intensive care units had a lower rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia and shorter intensive care unit stay in comparison with their counterparts working with a 1:2 nurse:patient ratio and higher beds' capacity.

CONCLUSION

Nurses' compliance with ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention guidelines was insufficient. Low nurse-patient ratio and large intensive care unit beds capacity were found to affect nurses' compliance and patients' outcomes. This study expanded knowledge about important aspects of nursing care; nurses' compliance with ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention guidelines and the factors that affect their compliance. This knowledge can be used by health professional to guide the clinical practice and to improve the quality of care.