[Safety-engineered devices to prevent percutaneous injuries: cost-effectiveness analysis on prevention of high-risk exposure]. / Análisis coste-efectividad de dispositivos sanitarios diseñados para prevenir exposiciones percutáneas.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficiency of the replacement of several medical devices by engineered sharp injury (SI) prevention devices (ESIPDs). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness ratios of the replacement of medical devices in use by ESIPDs were estimated: their purchasing costs and the direct costs of sharp injury care were taken into account; the number of SI avoidable by each ESIPD was estimated from the 252 occupational SI notified by healthcare workers at a 1,300 bed hospital from March 2002 to February 2003. The relationship between ESIPD additional costs and the number of high-risk SI was estimated (SI were classified as high-risk if they met two or more of the following criteria: moderately-deep or deep injury, injury with a device previously inserted in an artery or vein, or with a device exposed to blood). RESULTS: ESIPDs order according to cost-effectiveness ratio: safety needle for implanted ports (-2.65 euro/SI avoided), followed by syringes with protective shield (869.79 euro/SI), resheathable winged steel needles, needleless administration sets, and short catheters with protective encasement. ESIPDs order according to relationship between additional costs and number of high-risk sharp injuries avoided: safety needles for implanted ports, followed by winged steel needles, hypodermic syringes, short catheter and needleless administration sets. CONCLUSIONS: Savings in SI care outweigh additional costs of certain ESIPDs. Cost-effectiveness analysis is useful in assigning priorities; however the risks of SI by every device must be taken into account.

Análisis coste-efectividad de dispositivos sanitarios diseñados para prevenir exposiciones percutáneas / Safety-engineered devices to prevent percutaneous injuries: cost-effectiveness analysis on prevention of high-risk exposure

Objetivo: Evaluar la eficiencia de sustituir algunos dispositivos médicos por otros diseñados para prevenir exposiciones percutáneas (EP). Métodos: Se han estimado las relaciones coste-efectividad de sustituir algunos dispositivos por otros diseñados para prevenir EP: se han considerado los costes de adquisición y de la asistencia a una EP; el número de EP prevenibles por cada dispositivo se ha estimado a partir de las 252 exposiciones ocupacionales notificadas por el personal de un hospital de 1.300 camas de marzo de 2002 a febrero de 2003. Se ha calculado la relación entre el coste adicional de los dispositivos alternativos y el número de EP evitables de alto riesgo (las que cumplían 2 o más de los siguientes: EP moderadamente profunda o profunda, por objeto insertado en vaso, o por objeto expuesto a la sangre). Resultados: Orden de los dispositivos según la relación coste-efectividad: aguja con resguardo para catéter implantado (­2,65 €/EP evitada), seguida por jeringa con resguardo (869,79 €/EP), aguja con aletas con resguardo, equipo de perfusión con válvulas y catéter endovenoso periférico con retracción del fiador. Orden según relación entre coste adicional y número de EP de alto riesgo evitadas: aguja para acceso a catéter implantado, seguida por aguja con aletas, jeringa para aguja hipodérmica, catéter endovenoso y equipo de infusión con válvulas. Conclusiones: El ahorro en asistencia a EP compensa el coste adicional de algunos dispositivos diseñados para prevenirlas. Un análisis coste-efectividad ayuda a establecer prioridades, pero debe tener en cuenta el riesgo de las EP asociadas con cada dispositivo

Objective: To assess the efficiency of the replacement of several medical devices by engineered sharp injury (SI) prevention devices (ESIPDs). Methods: The cost-effectiveness ratios of the replacement of medical devices in use by ESIPDs were estimated: their purchasing costs and the direct costs of sharp injury care were taken into account; the number of SI avoidable by each ESIPD was estimated from the 252 occupational SI notified by healthcare workers at a 1,300 bed hospital from March 2002 to February 2003. The relationship between ESIPD additional costs and the number of high-risk SI was estimated (SI were classified as high-risk if they met two or more of the following criteria: moderately-deep or deep injury, injury with a device previously inserted in an artery or vein, or with a device exposed to blood). Results: ESIPDs order according to cost-effectiveness ratio: safety needle for implanted ports (­2.65 €/SI avoided), followed by syringes with protective shield (869.79 €/SI), resheathable winged steel needles, needleless administration sets, and short catheters with protective encasement. ESIPDs order according to relationship between additional costs and number of high-risk sharp injuries avoided: safety needles for implanted ports, followed by winged steel needles, hypodermic syringes, short catheter and needleless administration sets. Conclusions: Savings in SI care outweigh additional costs of certain ESIPDs. Cost-effectiveness analysis is useful in assigning priorities; however the risks of SI by every device must be taken into account