A Cost and Waste-Savings Comparison Between Single-Use and Reusable Pulse Oximetry Sensors Across US Operating Rooms.

BACKGROUND: Operating room (OR) expenditures and waste generation are a priority, with several professional societies recommending the use of reprocessed or reusable equipment where feasible. The aim of this analysis was to compare single-use pulse oximetry sensor stickers ("single-use stickers") versus reusable pulse oximetry sensor clips ("reusable clips") in terms of annual cost savings and waste generation across all ORs nationally. METHODS: This study did not involve patient data or research on human subjects. As such, it did not meet the requirements for institutional review board approval. An economic model was used to compare the relative costs and waste generation from using single-use stickers versus reusable clips. This model took into account: (1) the relative prices of single-use stickers and reusable clips, (2) the number of surgeries and ORs nationwide, (3) the workload burden of cleaning the reusable clips, and (4) the costs of capital for single-use stickers and reusable clips. In addition, we also estimated differences in waste production based on the raw weight plus unit packaging of single-use stickers and reusable clips that would be disposed of over the course of the year, without any recycling interventions. Estimated savings were rounded to the nearest $0.1 million. RESULTS: The national net annual savings of transitioning from single-use stickers to reusable clips in all ORs ranged from $510.5 million (conservative state) to $519.3 million (favorable state). Variability in savings estimates is driven by scenario planning for replacement rate of reusable clips, workload burden of cleaning (ranging from an additional expense of $618k versus a cost savings of $309k), and cost of capital-interest gained on investment of capital that is freed up by the monetary savings of a transition to reusable clips contributes between $541k (low-interest rates of 2.85%) and $1.3 million (high-interest rates of 7.08%). The annual waste that could be diverted from landfill by transitioning to reusable clips was found to be between 587 tons (conservative state) up to 589 tons (favorable state). If institutions need to purchase new vendor monitors or cables to make the transition, that may increase the 1-time capital disbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Using reusable clips versus single-use stickers across all ORs nationally would result in appreciable annual cost savings and waste generation reduction impact. As both single-use stickers and reusable clips are equally accurate and reliable, this cost and waste savings could be instituted without a compromise in clinical care.

Continuous wound infusion catheter as part of a multimodal analgesia regimen for post-Caesarean delivery pain: a quality improvement impact study.

Background: The role of continuous wound infusion catheters as part of a multimodal analgesia strategy after Caesarean delivery is unclear. We introduced continuous wound infusion catheters to our multimodal analgesia regimen to evaluate the impact on analgesic outcomes after Caesarean delivery. Methods: After institutional review board (IRB) approval, a 4-month practice change was instituted as a quality improvement initiative. In addition to multimodal analgesia, continuous wound infusion catheters for up to 3 days were offered on alternate weeks for all women undergoing Caesarean deliveries. The primary outcome was postoperative in-hospital opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes were static and dynamic pain scores at 24 and 72 h, time until first analgesic request, opioid-related side-effects, length of stay, satisfaction (0-100%), and continuous wound infusion catheter-related complications. Results: All women scheduled for Caesarean delivery (n=139) in the 4-month period were included in the analysis, with 70 women receiving continuous wound infusion catheters, and 69 in the control group. Opioid consumption (continuous wound infusion catheter group 11.3 [7.5-61.9] mg morphine equivalents vs control group 30.0 [11.3-48.8] mg morphine equivalents), pain scores (except 24 h resting pain scores which were higher in the control group 2 [1-3] vs 1.5 [0-3] in the continous wound infusion catheters group; P=0.05), side-effects, length of stay, and complications were similar between groups. Satisfaction scores at 24 h were higher with continuous wound infusion catheters (100% [91-100%] vs 90% [86-100%]; P=0.003) with no differences at 72 h. One patient demonstrated symptoms of systemic local anaesthetic toxicity which resolved without significant harm. Conclusions: The addition of continuous wound infusion catheters to a multimodal analgesia regimen for post-Caesarean delivery pain management demonstrated minimal clinically significant analgesic benefits. Future studies are needed to explore the use of continuous wound infusion catheters in populations that may benefit most from this intervention.

Assessing the magnitude and costs of intraoperative inefficiencies attributable to surgical instrument trays.

BACKGROUND: Efficiency in the operating room has become a topic of great interest. This study aimed to quantify the percent use of instruments among common instrument trays across 4 busy surgical services: Otolaryngology, Plastic Surgery, Bariatric Surgery, and Neurosurgery. We further aimed to calculate the costs associated with tray and instrument sterilization, as well as the implications of missing or damaged instruments. STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-site, observational study conducted on the surgical instrumentation at a large academic medical center in Chicago. Data were collected through direct observation by a trained investigator. Operating room instrument use and labor time required for cleaning and repacking instrument trays in central sterile processing (CSP) were analyzed using descriptive statistics and linear regression. Institutional data on volume and expenses were gathered from hospital leadership. RESULTS: Forty-nine procedures and 237 individual trays were observed. Average instrument (±SD)use rates were 13.0% for Otolaryngology (±4.2%), 15.5% for Plastic Surgery (±2.9%), 18.2% for Bariatric Surgery (±5.0%), and 21.9% for Neurosurgery (±1.7%). An increasing number of instruments per tray was associated with decreased use and increased instrument error rate. Using recorded labor time, the cost of cleaning and repackaging an individual instrument was calculated to be $0.10. Adding in CSP operating expenses and instrument depreciation per use, total processing cost per instrument increases to $0.51 or more. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the percent use of instruments across surgical specialties and multiple tray types is low. Attention to tray composition may result in immediate and significant cost savings.