RESUMEN
This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and workload requirement of two dermal tolerance assessment methods of hand hygiene products, in order to select a suitable pilot testing method for field tests. An observer-rating method and a self-assessment method were compared in 12 voluntary hospital departments (autumn/winter of 2005-2006). Three test-periods of three weeks were separated by two-week intervals during which the routine products were reintroduced. The observer rating method scored dryness and irritation on four-point scales. In the self-assessment method, the user rated appearance, intactness, moisture content, and sensation on a visual analogue scale which was converted into a 10-point numerical scale. Eleven products (soaps) were tested (223/250 complete reports for observer rating, 131/251 for self-assessment). Two products were significantly less well tolerated than the routine product according to the observers, four products according to the self-assessments. There was no significant difference between the two methods when products were classified according to tolerance (Fisher's test: P=0.491). For the symptom common to both assessment methods (dryness), there is a good correlation between the two methods (Spearman's Rho: P=0.032). The workload was higher for observer rating method (288 h of observer time plus 122 h of prevention team and pharmacist time compared with 15 h of prevention team and pharmacist time for self-assessment). In conclusion, the self-assessment method was considered more suitable for pilot testing, although further time should be allocated for educational measures as the return rate of complete self-assessment forms was poor.
Asunto(s)
Desinfección de las Manos , Jabones/efectos adversos , Tolerancia a Medicamentos , HumanosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To report the financial impact of using modern lens and vitreoretinal surgical techniques. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Bottom-up sterilization and consumables costs for new surgical techniques (microincisional coaxial phacoemulsification and transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy) and the corresponding former techniques (phacoemulsification with 3.2-mm incision and 20G vitrectomy) were determined. These costs were compared to each other and to the target costs of the Diagnosis Related Groups for public hospitals (Groupes Homogènes de Séjours [GHS]) concerned, extracted from the analytic accounting data of the French National Cost Study (Étude Nationale des Coûts [ENC]) for 2009 (target=sum of sterilization costs posted under medical logistics, consumables, implantable medical devices, and special pharmaceuticals posted as direct expenses). RESULTS: For outpatient lens surgery with or without vitrectomy (GHS code: 02C05J): the ENC's target cost for 2009 was 339 out of a total of 1432. The cost detailed in this study was 4 % higher than the target cost when the procedure was performed using the former technique (3.2mm sutured incision) and 12 % lower when the procedure was performed using the new technique (1.8mm sutureless) after removing now unnecessary consumables and optimization of the technique. For level I retinal detachment surgeries (GHS code: 02C021): the ENC's 2009 target cost was 641 out of a total of 3091. The cost specified in this study was 1 % lower than the target cost when the procedure was done using the former technique (20-G vitrectomy) and 16 % less when the procedure was performed using the new technique (transconjunctival vitrectomy) after removal of now unnecessary consumables and optimization of the technique. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to generally accepted ideas, implementing modern techniques in ocular surgery can result in direct cost and sterilization savings when the operator takes advantage of the possibilities these techniques offer in terms of simplification of the procedures to do away with consumables that are no longer necessary.