Evaluation of Drug Wastage in the Operating Rooms and Intensive Care Units of a Regional Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological treatments for critical processes in patients need to be initiated as rapidly as possible; for this reason, it is a standard of care to prepare the main anesthesia and emergency drugs in advance. As a result, 20%-50% of the prepared drugs remain unused and are then discarded. Decreasing waste by optimizing drug use is an attractive strategy for meeting both cost containment and environmental sustainability. The primary end point of this study was to measure the actual amount of drug wastage in the operating rooms (ORs) and intensive care units (ICUs) of a Regional Health Service (RHS). The secondary end point was to analyze and estimate the economic implications of this waste for the Health Service and to suggest possible measures to reduce it. METHODS: This prospective observational multicenter study was conducted across 12 hospitals, all of which belong to the same RHS in the north-east of Italy. Data collection took place in March 2018 and included patients admitted to ICUs, emergency areas, and ORs of the participating hospitals. Data concerning drug preparation and administration were collected for all consecutive patients, independent of case types and of whether operations were scheduled or unscheduled. Drug wastage was defined as follows: drugs prepared in ready-to-use syringes but not administered at all and discarded untouched. We then estimated the costs of wasted drugs for a 1-year period using the data from this study and the yearly regional pharmacy orders of drugs provided to the ORs and ICUs. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to validate the robustness of our assumptions and qualitative conclusions. RESULTS: We collected data for a total of 13,078 prepared drug syringes. Drug wastage varied from 7.8% (Urapidil, an alpha-1 antagonist antihypertensive) to 85.7% (epinephrine) of prepared syringes, with an overall mean wastage rate of 38%. The estimated yearly waste was 139,531 syringes, for a total estimated financial cost of €78,060 ($92,569), and an additional quantity of medical waste amounting to 4968 kg per year. The total provider time dedicated to the preparation of unused drugs was predicted to be 1512 working hours per year. CONCLUSIONS: The overall extent of drug wastage in ORs and ICUs is concerning. Interventions aimed at minimizing waste-related costs and improving the environmental sustainability of our practice are paramount. Effort should be put into designing a more efficient workflow that reduces this waste while providing for the emergency availability of these medications in the OR and ICU.

The impact of implementation of a hysterectomy enhanced recovery pathway on anesthetic medication costs.

Aim: To evaluate the effect of implementation of a hysterectomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol on perioperative anesthetic medication costs. Patients & methods: Historical cohort study of 84 adult patients who underwent a hysterectomy. Forty-two patients who underwent surgery before protocol implementation comprised the pre-ERAS group. Forty-two patients who underwent surgery after protocol implementation comprised the post-ERAS group. Data on anesthetic medication costs and outcomes were analyzed. Results: Compared with the pre-ERAS group, the post-ERAS group's total medication cost was significantly lower (median: 325.20 USD; interquartile range [IQR]: 256.12-430.65 USD vs median: 273.10 USD; IQR: 220.63-370.59 USD, median difference: -40.76, 95% CI: -130.39, 16.99, p = 0.047). Length of stay was significantly longer in pre-ERAS when compared with post-ERAS groups (median: 5.0 days; IQR: 4.0-7.0 days vs median: 3.0 days; IQR: 3.0-4.0 days, median difference: -2.0 days, 95% CI: -2.5581, -1.4419, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: ERAS protocols may reduce perioperative medication costs.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Surgical Decompression Relative to Injection Therapy for Chronic Migraine Headaches.

BACKGROUND: Common treatments for chronic migraine headaches include injection of corticosteroid and anesthetic agents at local trigger sites. However, the effects of therapy are short term, and lifelong treatment is often necessary. In contrast, surgical decompression of migraine trigger sites accomplishes the same goal yet demonstrates successful long-term elimination of chronic migraines. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to perform a cost-utility analysis to determine which patients would benefit most from available treatment options in a cost-conscious model. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed, taking into consideration costs, probabilities, and health state utility scores of various interventions. RESULTS: Injection therapy offered a minor improvement in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with surgical decompression (QALY Δ = 0.6). However, long-term injection therapy was significantly costlier to society than surgical decompression: injection treatment was estimated to cost $106,887.96 more than surgery. The results of our cost-utility analysis thus conferred a positive incremental cost-utility ratio of $178,163.27 in favor of surgical decompression. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery provides a durable intervention and has been shown in this study to be extremely cost effective despite a very minor QALY deficit compared with injection therapy. If patients are identified who require treatment in the form of injections for less than 8.25 years, they may fall into a group that should not be offered surgery.

Improving Anesthesia Safety in Low-Resource Settings.

The safety of anesthesia characteristic of high-income countries today is not matched in low-resource settings with poor infrastructure, shortages of anesthesia providers, essential drugs, equipment, and supplies. Health care is delivered through complex systems. Achieving sustainable widespread improvement globally will require an understanding of how to influence such systems. Health outcomes depend not only on a country's income, but also on how resources are allocated, and both vary substantially, between and within countries. Safety is particularly important in anesthesia because anesthesia is intrinsically hazardous and not intrinsically therapeutic. Nevertheless, other elements of the quality of health care, notably access, must also be considered. More generally, there are certain prerequisites within society for health, captured in the Jakarta declaration. It is necessary to have adequate infrastructure (notably for transport and primary health care) and hospitals capable of safely carrying out the "Bellwether Procedures" (cesarean delivery, laparotomy, and the treatment of compound fractures). Surgery, supported by safe anesthesia, is critical to the health of populations, but avoidable harm from health care (including very high mortality rates from anesthesia in many parts of the world) is a major global problem. Thus, surgical and anesthesia services must not only be provided, they must be safe. The global anesthesia workforce crisis is a major barrier to achieving this. Many anesthetics today are administered by nonphysicians with limited training and little access to supervision or support, often working in very challenging circumstances. Many organizations, notably the World Health Organization and the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists, are working to improve access to and safety of anesthesia and surgery around the world. Challenges include collaboration with local stakeholders, coordination of effort between agencies, and the need to influence national health policy makers to achieve sustainable improvement. It is conceivable that safe anesthesia and perioperative care could be provided for essential surgical services today by clinicians with moderate levels of training using relatively simple (but appropriately designed and maintained) equipment and a limited number of inexpensive generic medications. However, there is a minimum standard for these resources, below which reasonable safety cannot be assured. This minimum (at least) should be available to all. Not only more resources, but also more equitable distribution of existing resources is required. Thus, the starting point for global access to safe anesthesia is acceptance that access to health care in general should be a basic human right everywhere.

Cost analysis of injection laryngoplasty performed under local anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia: an Australian perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost analysis of injection laryngoplasty performed in the operating theatre under local anaesthesia and general anaesthesia. METHODS: The retrospective study included patients who had undergone injection laryngoplasty as day cases between July 2013 and March 2016. Cost data were obtained, along with patient demographics, anaesthetic details, type of injectant, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, length of stay, total operating theatre time and surgeon procedure time. RESULTS: A total of 20 cases (general anaesthesia = 6, local anaesthesia = 14) were included in the cost analysis. The mean total cost under general anaesthesia (AU$2865.96 ± 756.29) was significantly higher than that under local anaesthesia (AU$1731.61 ± 290.29) (p < 0.001). The mean operating theatre time, surgeon procedure time and length of stay were all significantly lower under local anaesthesia compared to general anaesthesia. Time variables such as operating theatre time and length of stay were the most significant predictors of the total costs. CONCLUSION: Procedures performed under local anaesthesia in the operating theatre are associated with shorter operating theatre time and length of stay in the hospital, and provide significant cost savings. Further savings could be achieved if local anaesthesia procedures were performed in the office setting.

Relative costs of anesthesiologist prepared, hospital pharmacy prepared and outsourced anesthesia drugs.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia drugs can be prepared by anesthesia providers, hospital pharmacies or outsourcing facilities. The decision whether to outsource all or some anesthesia drugs is challenging since the costs associated with different anesthesia drug preparation methods remain poorly described. METHODS: The costs associated with preparation of 8 commonly used anesthesia drugs were analyzed using a budget impact analysis for 4 different syringe preparation strategies: (1) all drugs prepared by anesthesiologist, (2) drugs prepared by anesthesiologist and hospital pharmacy, (3) drugs prepared by anesthesiologist and outsourcing facility, and (4) all drugs prepared by outsourcing facility. MAIN RESULTS: A strategy combining anesthesiologist and hospital pharmacy prepared drugs was associated with the lowest estimated annual cost in the base-case budget impact analysis with an annual cost of $225 592, which was lower than other strategies by a margin of greater than $86 000. CONCLUSION: A combination of anesthesiologist and hospital pharmacy prepared drugs resulted in the lowest annual cost in the budget impact analysis. However, the cost of drugs prepared by an outsourcing facility maybe lower if the capital investment needed for the establishment and maintenance of the US Pharmacopeial Convention Chapter <797> compliant facility is included in the budget impact analysis.

Single-Anesthetic Versus Staged Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There is debate regarding the role of single-anesthetic versus staged bilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) for patients with end-stage bilateral osteoarthritis. Studies have shown that single-anesthetic bilateral THA is associated with systemic complications, but there are limited data comparing patient outcomes in a matched setting of bilateral THA. METHODS: We identified 94 patients (188 hips) who underwent single-anesthetic bilateral THA. Fifty-seven percent of the patients were male. Patients had a mean age of 52.2 years and body mass index of 27.1 kg/m. They were matched 1:1 on the basis of sex, age (±1 year), and year of surgery (±3 years) to a cohort of patients undergoing staged bilateral THA. In the staged group, there was <1 year between procedures (range, 5 days to 10 months). Mean follow-up was 4 years for each group. RESULTS: Patients in the single-anesthetic group experienced shorter total operating room time and length of stay. There was no difference (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, p = 0.50) in the overall revision-free survival in patients undergoing single-anesthetic or staged bilateral THA. The risks of reoperation (HR = 0.69, p = 0.40), complications (HR = 0.83, p = 0.48), and mortality (HR = 0.47, p = 0.10) were similar. Single-anesthetic bilateral THA reduced the total cost of care (by 27%, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this matched cohort analysis, single-anesthetic bilateral THA was not associated with an increased risk of revision, reoperation, or postoperative complications, while decreasing cost. In our experience, single-anesthetic bilateral THA is a safe procedure that, for certain patients, offers an excellent means to deal with bilateral hip osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Challenges of Anesthesia in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Access to Safe Obstetric Anesthesia in East Africa.

BACKGROUND: The United Nations 2015 Millennium Development Goals targeted a 75% reduction in maternal mortality. However, in spite of this goal, the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births remains unacceptably high across Sub-Saharan Africa. Because many of these deaths could likely be averted with access to safe surgery, including cesarean delivery, we set out to assess the capacity to provide safe anesthetic care for mothers in the main referral hospitals in East Africa. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at 5 main referral hospitals in East Africa: Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Burundi. Using a questionnaire based on the World Federation of the Societies of Anesthesiologists (WFSA) international guidelines for safe anesthesia, we interviewed anesthetists in these hospitals, key informants from the Ministry of Health and National Anesthesia Society of each country (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/AA/B561). RESULTS: Using the WFSA checklist as a guide, none of respondents had all the necessary requirements available to provide safe obstetric anesthesia, and only 7% reported adequate anesthesia staffing. Availability of monitors was limited, and those that were available were often nonfunctional. The paucity of local protocols, and lack of intensive care unit services, also contributed significantly to poor maternal outcomes. For a population of 142.9 million in the East African community, there were only 237 anesthesiologists, with a workforce density of 0.08 in Uganda, 0.39 in Kenya, 0.05 in Tanzania, 0.13 in Rwanda, and 0.02 anesthesiologists in Burundi per 100,000 population in each country. CONCLUSIONS: We identified significant shortages of both the personnel and equipment needed to provide safe anesthetic care for obstetric surgical cases across East Africa. There is a need to increase the number of physician anesthetists, to improve the training of nonphysician anesthesia providers, and to develop management protocols for obstetric patients requiring anesthesia. This will strengthen health systems and improve surgical outcomes in developing countries. More funding is required for training physician anesthetists if developing countries are to reach the targeted specialist workforce density of the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery of 20 surgical, anesthetic, and obstetric physicians per 100,000 population by 2030.

Preventable drug waste among anesthesia providers: opportunities for efficiency.

BACKGROUND: Health care service bundling experiments at the state and regional levels have showed reduced costs by providing a single lump-sum reimbursement for anesthesia services, surgery, and postoperative care. Potential for cost savings related to the provision of anesthesia care has the potential to significantly impact sustainability. This study defines and quantifies routine and preventable anesthetic drug waste and the patient, procedure, and anesthesia provider characteristics associated with increased waste. METHODS: Over a 12-month period, the type and quantity of clean drugs prepared by the anesthesia team for the first case of the day were recorded. The amount of each drug administered was obtained from the computerized anesthesia record, and data were analyzed to determine the incidence and cost of routine and preventable drug waste. The monthly and yearly cost of preventable waste, including the cost of pharmacy tech labor and materials where applicable, was estimated based on surgical case volume at the study institution. All analyses were performed using SAS software v9.2. RESULTS: Anesthetic drugs prepared for 543 separate surgical cases were observed. Less than 20% of cases generated routine waste. Preventable waste was generated most frequently for ephedrine (59.5% of cases), succinylcholine (33.7%), and lidocaine (25.1%), and least frequently for ondansetron (1.3%), phenylephrine (2.6%), and dexamethasone (2.8%). The estimated yearly cost of preventable anesthetic drug waste was $185,250. CONCLUSIONS: Significant potential savings with little impact on clinically significant availability may be achieved through the use of prefilled syringes for some commonly used anesthetic drugs. An intelligently implemented switch to prefilled syringes for select drugs is a potential cost saving measure, but savings might be diminished by disposal of prefilled syringes when they expire, hidden costs in the hospital pharmacy, and inability to supply some medications in prefilled syringes due to stability or manufacturing issues.

Limiting the accessibility of cost-prohibitive drugs reduces overall anesthetic drug costs: a retrospective before and after analysis.

PURPOSE: Cost effectiveness is becoming increasingly important in today's healthcare environment. Remifentanil, dexmedetomidine, and desflurane are costly agents that often have suitable alternatives to their use. We sought to identify changes in cost and outcomes following interventions that limited the availability of these drugs. METHODS: We calculated anesthetic drug costs for all operating room procedures performed before and after the accessibility interventions. We retrospectively compared drug costs per case and the frequency of agent use before and after the interventions. In addition, we analyzed the incidence of adverse outcomes, including delayed out-of-room times, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), unplanned intubations, use of naloxone, and reintubations. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and Chi square analyses were used to quantify differences in cost, use, and outcomes between cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 27,233 cases we identified, 24,201 cases were analyzed. The mean anesthetic drug costs per case were significantly lower after the interventions vs before at ($21.44 vs $32.39, respectively), a cost savings of $10.95 (95% confidence interval, $9.86 to $12.04; P < 0.001). Additionally, a comparison of data after vs before the interventions revealed the following results: remifentanil use was significantly lower (3.5% vs 9.2% of cases; P < 0.001). Dexmedetomidine use did not differ significantly (0.4% vs 0.5% of cases; P = 0.07), and desflurane use was significantly lower (0.6% vs 20.2% of cases; P < 0.001). There was no significant relationship between the interventions and the frequency of delayed out-of-room times (15.5% vs 15.9%; P = 0.41), unplanned intubations (0.02% vs 0.03%; P = 0.60), and reintubations (0.01% vs 0.03%; P = 0.28). Postoperative nausea and vomiting decreased significantly after the interventions (22.8% vs 24.4%; P = 0.003), and naloxone use showed a significant increase (0.22% vs 0.11% of cases; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Reducing the accessibility of these cost-prohibitive agents resulted in significant anesthetic drug cost savings and decreased utilization of remifentanil and desflurane. The interventions had no significant effect on patient recovery time, incidence of unplanned intubations, or incidence of reintubation, but they were associated with a decrease in PONV and an increase in naloxone use.

Example of cost calculations for an operating room and a post-anaesthesia care unit.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost of an operating room using data from our hospital. Using an accounting-based method helped us. METHODS: Over the year 2012, the sum of direct and indirect expenses with cost sharing expenses allowed us to calculate the cost of the operating room (OR) and of the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU). RESULTS: The cost of the OR and PACU was €10.8 per minute of time offered. Two thirds of the direct expenses were allocated to surgery and one third to anaesthesia. Indirect expenses were 25% of the direct expenses. The cost of medications and single use medical devises was €111.45 per anaesthesia. The total cost of anaesthesia (taking into account wages and indirect expenses) was €753.14 per anaesthesia as compared to the total cost of the anaesthesia. The part of medications and single use devices for anaesthesia was 14.8% of the total cost. CONCLUSION: Despite the difficulties facing cost evaluation, this model of calculation, assisted by the cost accounting controller, helped us to have a concrete financial vision. It also shows that a global reflexion is necessary during financial decision-making.

Costs optimization in anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to analyze the direct cost of different anaesthetic techniques used within the Author's hospital setting and compare with costs reported in the literature. METHODS: Mean cost of drugs and devices used in our local Department of Anaesthesia was considered in the present study. All drugs were supplied by the in-house Pharmacy Service of Parma's General Hospital. All calculation have been made using an hypothetical ASA1 patient weighting 70 kg. The quality of consumption and cost of inhalation anaesthesia with sevoflurane or desflurane at different fresh gas flow were analyzed, and the cost of total venous anaesthesia (TIVA) using propofol and remifentanil with balanced anaesthesia were also analyzed. In addition, direct costs of general, spinal and sciatic-femoral nerve block anaesthesia used for common plastic surgery procedures were assessed. RESULT: The results of our study show that the cost of inhalational anaesthesia decreases using fresh gas flow below 1L, and the use of desflurane is more expensive. In our Hospital, the cost of TIVA is more or less equivalent to the costs of balanced anaesthesia with sevoflurane in surgical procedure lasting more than five hours. The direct cost was lower for the spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia and sciatic- femoral nerve block for some surgical procedures. (www.actabiomedica.it).

An anesthesia medication cost scorecard--concepts for individualized feedback.

There is a growing emphasis on both cost containment and better quality health care. The creation of better methods for alerting providers and their departments to the costs associated with patient care is one tool for improving efficiency. Since anesthetic medications used in the OR setting are one easily monitored factor contributing to OR costs, anesthetic cost report cards can be used to assess the cost and, potentially the quality of care provided by each practitioner. An ongoing challenge is the identification of the most effective strategies to control costs, promote cost awareness and at the same time maximize quality. To test the scorecard concept, we utilized existing informatics systems to gather and analyze drug costs for anesthesia providers in the OR. Drug costs were analyzed by medication class for each provider. Individual anesthesiologist's anesthetic costs were collected and compared to the average costs of the overall group and individual trends over time were noted. We presented drug usage data in an electronic report card format. Real-time individual reports can be provided to anesthesiologists to allow for anesthetic cost feedback. Data provided can include number of cases, average case time, total anesthetic medication costs, and average anesthetic cost per case. Also included can be subcategories of pre-medication, antibiotics, hypnotics, local anesthetics, neuromuscular blocking drugs, analgesics, vasopressors, beta-blockers, anti-emetics, volatile anesthetics, and reversal agents. The concept of anesthetic cost report card should be further developed for individual feedback, and could include many other dimensions. Such a report card can be utilized to encourage lower anesthetic costs, quality improvement among anesthesia providers, and for cost containment in the operating room.

Comparison of anaesthetic cost in open and laparoscopic appendectomy.

CONTEXT: Appendectomy is generally conducted as open or by laparoscopic surgical techniques under general anesthesia. AIMS: This study aims to compare the anesthetic costs of the patients, who underwent open or laparoscopic appendectomy under general anesthesia. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: The design is retrospective and records of 379 patients who underwent open or laparoscopic appendectomy under general anesthesia, falling under the category of I-III risk group according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification between the years 2011 and 2013, and aged 18-77. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Open (Group I) or laparoscopic (Group II) appendectomy operation under general anesthesia were evaluated retrospectively by utilizing hospital automation and anesthesia observation records. This study evaluated the anesthesia time of the patients and total costs (Turkish Lira ₺, US dollar $) of anesthetic agents used (induction, maintenance), necessary medical materials (connecting line, endotracheal tube, airway, humidifier, branule, aspiration probe), and intravenously administered fluids were evaluated. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: We used Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS version 17.0) for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of the patients, 237 were males (62.53%) and 142 were females (37.47%). Anesthesia time limits were established as 70.30 ± 30.23 minute in Group I and 74.92 ± 31.83 minute in Group II. Mean anesthesia administration cost per patient was found to be 78.79 ± 30.01₺ (39.16 ± 14.15$) in Group I and 83.09 ± 26.85₺ (41.29 ± 13.34$) in Group II (P > 0.05). A correlation was observed between cost and operation times (P = 0.002, r = 0.158). CONCLUSIONS: Although a statistical difference was not established in this study in terms of time and costs in appendectomy operations conducted as open and laparoscopically, changes may occur in time in market conditions of drugs, patent rights, legal regulations, and prices. Therefore, we believe that it would be beneficial to update and revise cost analyses from time to time.

A systematic review to assess comparative effectiveness studies in epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis and to estimate reimbursement amounts.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically appraise published comparative effectiveness evidence (clinical and economic) of epidural steroid injections (ESI) for lumbar spinal stenosis and to estimate Medicare reimbursement amounts for ESI procedures. TYPE: Systematic review. LITERATURE SURVEY: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched through August 2012 for key words that pertain to low back pain, spinal stenosis or sciatica, and epidural steroid injection. We used institutional and Medicare reimbursement amounts for our cost estimation. Articles published in English that assessed ESIs for adults with lumbar spinal stenosis versus a comparison intervention were included. Our search identified 146 unique articles, and 138 were excluded due to noncomparative study design, not having a study population with lumbar spinal stenosis, not having an appropriate outcome, or not being in English. We fully summarized 6 randomized controlled trials and 2 large observational studies. METHODOLOGY: Randomized controlled trial articles were reviewed, and the study population, sample size, treatment groups, ESI dosage, ESI approaches, concomitant interventions, outcomes, and follow-up time were reported. Descriptive resource use estimates for ESIs were calculated with use of data from our institution during 2010 and Medicare-based reimbursement amounts. SYNTHESIS: ESIs or anesthetic injections alone resulted in better short-term improvement in walking distance compared with control injections. However, there were no longer-term differences. No differences between ESIs versus anesthetic in self-reported improvement in pain were reported. Transforaminal approaches had better improvement in pain scores (≤4 months) compared with interlaminar injections. Two observational studies indicated increased rates of lumbar ESI in Medicare beneficiaries. Our sample included 279 patients who received at least 1 ESI during 2010, with an estimated mean total outpatient reimbursement for one ESI procedure "event" to be $637, based on 2010 Medicare reimbursement amounts ($505 technical and $132 professional payments). CONCLUSION: This systematic review of ESI for treating lumbar spinal stenosis found a limited amount of data that suggest that ESI is effective in some patients for improving select short-term outcomes, but results differed depending on study design, outcome measures used, and comparison groups evaluated. Overall, there are relatively few comparative clinical or economic studies for ESI procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis in adults, which indicated a need for additional evidence.