RESUMO
Background and study aims The costs of reusable endoscope reprocessing have been evaluated, yet external validity of the findings remains challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the costs of purchase, maintenance, microbiological control, and reprocessing of a reusable duodenoscope per endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in France. Study findings exclude the costs of infection, downtime due to breakdown, reprocessing single-use material disposal, and device disposal, all of which should also be considered. Materials and methods The study encompassed both observational and theoretical approaches. Observational data were collected in four hospitals, from December 2019 to December 2020, with an ad hoc survey, based on 2016 and 2018 national guidelines for duodenoscope reprocessing. Costs were modeled, using the same guidelines, assuming a mean workload of 223 ERCP/duodenoscope/year. Results The mean observed cost of purchase, maintenance, microbiological control, reprocessing (human resources and consumables), and overhead (additional 35%) with a reusable duodenoscope was 80.23 (standard deviation 3.77) per ERCP. The corresponding mean theoretical cost was 182.71 for manual reprocessing without endoscope drying cabinet (EDC), 191.36 for manual reprocessing with EDC, 235.25 for automated endoscope reprocessing (AER) without EDC, and 253.62 for AER with EDC. Conclusions Because procedures, equipment, volume activity, number of duodenoscopes, human resources, and internal work organizations are hospital-dependent, observed costs varied between hospitals. Theoretical costs were higher than observed costs, showing that the theoretical approach is not sufficient. Hypotheses to explain the difference between the two approaches include failing to measure some costs in the survey and challenges in guideline implementation.
RESUMO
Background: Because of the association of lumbar lordosis with some clinical conditions such as low back pain, the chiropractic field has emphasized the significance of evaluating the lumbar lordotic status, by measuring Cobb's angle, regarded as the radiological gold standard, for the assessment of lumbar lordosis, on lateral radiographs. However, research has shown that this technique has some considerable drawbacks, mostly in terms of low accuracy and high variability between clinicians when compared with other radiological modalities. The main objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of newly established radiological measurements with one of Cobb's angle methods, for the characterization of lumbar lordosis status in a sample of Lebanese patients aged 15 and above. Material and methods: This retrospective single-center study consisted of measuring Cobb's L1-S1 and Cobb's L1-L5 angles, along with the novel established measurements which are the derivative and the normalized surface area, on 134 lateral radiographs of the lumbar spine of Lebanese patients aged fifteen years old and above, gotten from the Radiology department at Zahra'a's Hospital in Beirut, performed by two observers using MATLAB. Inter-rater agreement was assessed by calculating the Intra-class correlation coefficients. Spearman correlation was analyzed between both Cobb's angle methods and with the derivative and normalized area respectively. 54 patients of the sample were diagnosed by two radiologists, according to their LL status. ROC curve analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the four techniques used. Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 (NY, USA); P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: According to the ROC curve analysis the new methods, which are the derivative and the normalized surface area, displayed lower diagnostic accuracy (AUCderivative = 0.818 and 0.677, AUCsurface area = 0.796 and 0.828) than Cobb's L1-L5 (AUCL1-L5 = 0.924 and 0.929 values) and L1-S1 (AUCL1-S1 = 0.971 and 0.955) angles, in the characterization of hypo and hyperlordotic patients, respectively, in our Lebanese sample consisting of patients aged 15 and above, because of their lower area under the curve's values compared to the traditional Cobb's techniques. The Cobb's L1-S1 has shown to have the highest diagnostic accuracy among the four methods to characterize normal patients from hypo and hyperlordotic ones, by referring to its highest area under the curve's values. However, the sensitivity of Cobb's L1-L5 angle in characterizing hyperlordotic patients was similar to the one of the normalized surface area with a value of 100%.Conclusion: among the four modalities, the new methods didn't show a better diagnostic accuracy compared to the traditional modalities. Cobb's L1-S1 displayed the highest diagnostic accuracy despite its drawbacks. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the cut-offs obtained for Cobb's L1-S1 angle in our sample.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a hygiene-encouragement program on reducing infection rates (primary end point) by 5%. DESIGN: A cluster randomized study was carried out over a 5-month period. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifty nursing homes (NHs) with 4345 beds in France were randomly assigned by stratified-block randomization to either a multicomponent intervention (25 NHs) or an assessment only (25 NHs). INTERVENTION: The multicomponent intervention was targeted to caregivers and consisted of implementing a bundle of infection prevention consensual measures. Interactive educational meetings using a slideshow were organized at the intervention NHs. The NHs were also provided with color posters emphasizing hand hygiene and a kit that included hygienic products such as alcoholic-based hand sanitizers. Knowledge surveys were performed periodically and served as reminders. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was the total infection rate (urinary, respiratory, and gastrointestinal infections) in those infection cases classified either as definite or probable. Analyses corresponded to the underlying design and were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered (#NCT01069497). RESULTS: Forty-seven NHs (4515 residents) were included and followed. The incidence rate of the first episode of infection was 2.11 per 1000 resident-days in the interventional group and 2.15 per 1000 resident-days in the control group; however, the difference between the groups did not reach statistical significance in either the unadjusted (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.13]; P = .93]) or the adjusted (HR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.87-1.12]; P = .86]) analysis. CONCLUSION: Disentangling the impact of this type of intervention involving behavioral change in routine practice in caregivers from the prevailing environmental and contextual determinants is often complicated and confusing to interpret the results.
