Análisis coste-efectividad de dispositivos sanitarios diseñados para prevenir exposiciones percutáneas

Cost of Blood and Body Fluid Occupational Exposure Management in Beijing, China

(1) Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the cost of blood and body fluid (BBF) occupational exposure management in healthcare facilities in Beijing, China. (2) Methods: A survey was conducted from August to October 2018, seeking general information concerning the management of occupational exposure to BBF and the cost of the management process. In total, 216 healthcare facilities were surveyed, using a stratified-selection method. The collected information included BBF management protocols, direct costs such as laboratory testing fees, drug costs and medical service fees, as well as indirect costs, such as wages, lost working time, injury compensation, and psychological counseling time. (3) Results: The cost of post-BBF exposure management varied according to the infection status of the exposure source patients, the immune status of exposed employees, and the location and level of healthcare facilities. The mean values of management cost were determined to be hepatitis B (HBV)-positive source (RMB 5936/USD 897), hepatitis C (HCV)-positive source (RMB 5738/USD 867), Treponema pallidum (TP)-positive source (RMB 4508/USD 681), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive source (RMB 12,709/USD 1920), and unknown sources (RMB 7441/USD 1124). The survey also revealed that some healthcare facilities have insufficient post-exposure management. (4) Conclusions: A better post-exposure management system is needed in Beijing to reduce both infection risk after exposure and costs.

How Much do Needlestick Injuries Cost? A Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluations of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries Among Healthcare Personnel

OBJECTIVE To provide an overview of the economic aspects of needlestick and sharps injury (NSI) management among healthcare personnel (HCP) within a Health Technology Assessment project to evaluate the impact of safety-engineered devices on health care METHODS A systematic review of economic analyses related to NSIs was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement and by searching PubMed and Scopus databases (January 1997-February 2015). Mean costs were stratified by study approach (modeling or data driven) and type of cost (direct or indirect). Costs were evaluated using the CDC operative definition and converted to 2015 International US dollars (Int$). RESULTS A total of 14 studies were retrieved: 8 data-driven studies and 6 modeling studies. Among them, 11 studies provided direct and indirect costs and 3 studies provided only direct costs. The median of the means for aggregate (direct + indirect) costs was Int$747 (range, Int$199-Int$1,691). The medians of the means for disaggregated costs were Int$425 (range, Int$48-Int$1,516) for direct costs (9 studies) and Int$322 (range, Int$152-Int$413) for indirect costs (6 studies). When compared with data-driven studies, modeling studies had higher disaggregated and aggregated costs, but data-driven studies showed greater variability. Indirect costs were consistent between studies, mostly referring to lost productivity, while direct costs varied widely within and between studies according to source infectivity, HCP susceptibility, and post-exposure diagnostic and prophylactic protocols. Costs of treating infections were not included, and intangible costs could equal those associated with NSI medical evaluations. CONCLUSIONS NSIs generate significant direct, indirect, potential, and intangible costs, possibly increasing over time. Economic efforts directed at preventing occupational exposures and infections, including provision of safety-engineered devices, may be offset by the savings from a lower incidence of NSIs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:635-646.

Safety engineered injection devices for intramuscular, subcutaneous and intradermal injections in healthcare delivery settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Occupational sharps injuries are associated with transmission of bloodborne viruses to healthcare workers, including hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Similarly reuse of syringes in healthcare settings might transmit these infections between patients. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence about the effects of the use by health care workers of two types of safety engineered injection devices, when delivering intramuscular, subcutaneous, or intradermal injectable medications: sharps injury protection syringes and reuse prevention syringes.

METHODS

We included both randomized and non-randomized studies comparing safety syringes to syringes without safety features. Outcomes of interest included needlestick injuries, and HIV, HBV and HCV infections amongst HCWs (for sharps injury prevention syringes) and patients (for reuse prevention syringes). When possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We tested results for heterogeneity across studies using the I statistic. We assessed the quality of evidence by outcome using the GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

We included nine eligible studies: six assessed devices that qualify as sharps injury prevention devices, and three assessed devices that qualify as both injury prevention devices and reuse prevention devices. Eight studies were observational while one was randomized. All studies assessed a single outcome: needle stick injuries among healthcare workers. For sharp injury prevention syringes, the meta-analysis of five studies resulted in a pooled relative risk of 0.54 [0.41, 0.71] for the effect on needlestick injuries per healthcare worker. The associated quality of evidence was rated as moderate. For reuse prevention syringes, data from one study provided a relative risk of 0.40 [0.27, 0.59] for the effect on needlestick injuries per healthcare worker. The associated quality of evidence was rated as moderate. We identified no studies reporting on the effect on the reuse of syringes.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified moderate quality evidence that syringes with sharps injury prevention feature reduce the incidence of needlestick injuries per healthcare worker. We identified no studies reporting data for the remaining outcomes of interest for HCWs. Similarly we identified no studies reporting on the effect of syringes with a reuse prevention feature on the reuse of syringes or on the other outcomes of interest for patients.

Economic benefits of safety-engineered sharp devices in Belgium - a budget impact model

Background

Measures to protect healthcare workers where there is risk of injury or infection from medical sharps became mandatory in the European Union (EU) from May 2013. Our research objective was to estimate the net budget impact of introducing safety-engineered devices (SEDs) for prevention of needlestick injuries (NSIs) in a Belgian hospital.

Methods

A 5-year incidence-based budget impact model was developed from the hospital inpatient perspective, comparing costs and outcomes with SEDs and prior-used conventional (non-safety) devices. The model accounts for device acquisition costs and costs of NSI management in 4 areas of application where SEDs are currently used: blood collection, infusion, injection and diabetes insulin administration. Model input data were sourced from the Institut National d’Assurance Maladie-Invalidité, published studies, clinical guidelines and market research. Costs are discounted at 3%.

Results

For a 420-bed hospital, 100% substitution of conventional devices by SEDs is estimated to decrease the cumulative 5-year incidence of NSIs from 310 to 75, and those associated with exposure to blood-borne viral diseases from 60 to 15. Cost savings from managing fewer NSIs more than offset increased device acquisition costs, yielding estimated 5-year overall savings of €51,710. The direction of these results is robust to a range of sensitivity and model scenario analyses. The model was most sensitive to variation in the acquisition costs of SEDs, rates of NSI associated with conventional devices, and the acquisition costs of conventional devices.

Conclusions

NSIs are a significant potential risk with the use of sharp devices. The incidence of NSIs and the costs associated with their management can be reduced through the adoption of safer work practices, including investment in SEDs. For a Belgian hospital, the budget impact model reports that the incremental acquisition costs of SEDs are offset by the savings from fewer NSIs. The availability of more robust data for NSI reduction rates, and broadening the scope of the model to include ancillary measures for hospital conversion to SED usage, outpatient and paramedic device use, and transmission of other blood-borne diseases, would strengthen the model.

Evaluation of a new needle catching instrument for suturing simple wounds in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES

The Needlecatcher comprises a tissue forceps at one end, with a 'piston and barrel' system, which acts as a needle grasper, at the other end of the instrument. It minimizes exposure of the needle during suturing, potentially reducing risk of injury. We evaluate its effect on operator safety during simple wound closure.

METHODS

Video analysis of 10 clinicians (six junior doctors and four advanced nurse practitioners) closing a standard simulated wound using their normal technique was performed. They were trained in the use of the Needlecatcher, and used it for 10 weeks closing simple wounds in the Emergency Department. Video analysis of wound closure was repeated, using the new instrument. Clinicians filled out a questionnaire for each episode of wound closure, which assessed how they perceived their safety was affected by the device.

RESULTS

Video analysis of clinicians showed that the needle was secured in an instrument and thus unexposed for an average of 60% of the duration of the procedure by standard technique, compared with 95% using the Needlecatcher, with a change of 35% [95% confidence interval (CI): 14-58%, P = 0.005]. Episodes where the needle was grasped by an operator's finger were reduced by 50% (95% CI: 15-85%, P = 0.028). In the questionnaire study of 53 episodes of wound closure, operators perceived their safety to be increased in 38 (71.7%, 95% CI: 66.2-77.2%) episodes, were neutral in 10, and felt their safety was reduced in five.

CONCLUSION

The Needlecatcher showed the potential to reduce the risk of needlestick injury while suturing.