Costs associated with instrument sterilization in gynecologic surgery
Background With rising health care expenditures, hospitals must contain costs in ways that maintain high-quality patient care. A significant portion of perioperative costs are associated with materials and supplies; many reusable instruments on surgical trays go unused, which may account for signifi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2016-11, Vol.215 (5), p.652.e1-652.e5 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 652.e5 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 652.e1 |
container_title | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology |
container_volume | 215 |
creator | Van Meter, Mary M., BA Adam, Rony A., MD |
description | Background With rising health care expenditures, hospitals must contain costs in ways that maintain high-quality patient care. A significant portion of perioperative costs are associated with materials and supplies; many reusable instruments on surgical trays go unused, which may account for significant annual excess processing costs. Reorganizing gynecologic trays to contain fewer instruments can result in significant cost savings. In the field of operative gynecology, there has been considerable attention to the various costs and surgical outcomes that are associated with hysterectomy performed in the abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic approaches; however, little research has been done on the cost differences that are associated with the reusable instruments that are used in these approaches. Objectives This study aimed to identify the percent usage of instruments within gynecologic surgery and to identify differences by surgical approach. We further aimed to estimate the costs of sterilizing surgical instruments and estimate the excess costs that are associated with processing unused instruments. Study Design This was a single site observational study. Specific instruments that were used from incision to closure were recorded on operating room count sheets via direct observation of surgeries that were performed in the gynecologic operating rooms by a trained investigator. Cost data on instrument transportation, employee wages, and instrument replacement was obtained from institutional supply chain management. Results In total, 28 surgical cases (5 abdominal, 11 laparoscopic, and 12 vaginal) were analyzed, with an average of 2 hours 37 minutes operating room time and 5.4 instrument trays for each case. One hundred fifty trays were observed. Trays had an average of 38 instruments per tray (range, 1–141). Surgeons used an average of 36.7 instruments of 184 available instruments per case, for a usage rate of 20.5±2.8%. A significant difference was noted between usage rates in abdominal cases (26.3±6.5%) and vaginal cases (13.6±3.3%) but not between laparoscopic (19.4±4.2%) vs other approaches. Instrument use was correlated inversely with the number of instruments, with an average usage rate of 18.7% for trays that contained ≥10 instruments. Total annual institutional cost associated with instrument processing was estimated at $3.19 per instrument. Conclusion Instrument usage in the gynecologic operating room is low, and the cost of processing instruments |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.019 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826705949</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002937816303581</els_id><sourcerecordid>1826705949</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-99738f34b01d4f4e929ecfde26fb25e75a1cea7b617a98d90340a84aaa2c895e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9q3DAQxkVI6G6TvkAPwcdcvNU_2xKEQlm6bWEhhyRnoZXHG7leK9HIKZun6bPkyWqzSQ85BAZmhL7vg_kNIZ8ZXTDKyi_twrZhu-DjvKBjMX1E5ozqKi9VqY7JnFLKcy0qNSMfEdvpyTX_QGa8EpJTKedktQyYMLOIwXmboM7--HSX-R5THHbQpwwTRN_5J5t86MeP57_bfQ8udGHrXYZD3ELcn5GTxnYIn176Kbldfb9Z_szXVz9-Lb-tcycZS7nWlVCNkBvKatlI0FyDa2rgZbPhBVSFZQ5stSlZZbWqNRWSWiWttdwpXYA4JReH3PsYHgbAZHYeHXSd7SEMaJjiZUULLfUo5QepiwExQmPuo9_ZuDeMmomfac3Ez0z8DB2LTabzl_xhs4P6v-UV2Ci4PAhg3PLRQzToPPQOah_BJVMH_37-1zd21_neO9v9hj1gG4bYj_wMM8gNNdfTyaYDslJQUSgm_gHKJpgl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1826705949</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Costs associated with instrument sterilization in gynecologic surgery</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Van Meter, Mary M., BA ; Adam, Rony A., MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Van Meter, Mary M., BA ; Adam, Rony A., MD</creatorcontrib><description>Background With rising health care expenditures, hospitals must contain costs in ways that maintain high-quality patient care. A significant portion of perioperative costs are associated with materials and supplies; many reusable instruments on surgical trays go unused, which may account for significant annual excess processing costs. Reorganizing gynecologic trays to contain fewer instruments can result in significant cost savings. In the field of operative gynecology, there has been considerable attention to the various costs and surgical outcomes that are associated with hysterectomy performed in the abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic approaches; however, little research has been done on the cost differences that are associated with the reusable instruments that are used in these approaches. Objectives This study aimed to identify the percent usage of instruments within gynecologic surgery and to identify differences by surgical approach. We further aimed to estimate the costs of sterilizing surgical instruments and estimate the excess costs that are associated with processing unused instruments. Study Design This was a single site observational study. Specific instruments that were used from incision to closure were recorded on operating room count sheets via direct observation of surgeries that were performed in the gynecologic operating rooms by a trained investigator. Cost data on instrument transportation, employee wages, and instrument replacement was obtained from institutional supply chain management. Results In total, 28 surgical cases (5 abdominal, 11 laparoscopic, and 12 vaginal) were analyzed, with an average of 2 hours 37 minutes operating room time and 5.4 instrument trays for each case. One hundred fifty trays were observed. Trays had an average of 38 instruments per tray (range, 1–141). Surgeons used an average of 36.7 instruments of 184 available instruments per case, for a usage rate of 20.5±2.8%. A significant difference was noted between usage rates in abdominal cases (26.3±6.5%) and vaginal cases (13.6±3.3%) but not between laparoscopic (19.4±4.2%) vs other approaches. Instrument use was correlated inversely with the number of instruments, with an average usage rate of 18.7% for trays that contained ≥10 instruments. Total annual institutional cost associated with instrument processing was estimated at $3.19 per instrument. Conclusion Instrument usage in the gynecologic operating room is low, and the cost of processing instruments is significant. Availability of certain instruments is necessary for patient safety in the event of rare unexpected events. However, given that less than one quarter of the instruments pulled for surgery are used and that total processing cost per instrument exceeds $3.00, careful review of what instruments are included in each tray is warranted. Clearly, significant cost-savings are possible while concurrently balancing safety concerns.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9378</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6868</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.019</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27342044</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>costs ; Female ; gynecology ; Hospital Costs - statistics & numerical data ; Humans ; Hysterectomy - economics ; Hysterectomy - instrumentation ; Hysterectomy - methods ; instrument ; Obstetrics and Gynecology ; Operative Time ; sterilization ; Sterilization - economics ; Surgical Instruments - economics ; Surgical Instruments - utilization ; Tennessee</subject><ispartof>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2016-11, Vol.215 (5), p.652.e1-652.e5</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-99738f34b01d4f4e929ecfde26fb25e75a1cea7b617a98d90340a84aaa2c895e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-99738f34b01d4f4e929ecfde26fb25e75a1cea7b617a98d90340a84aaa2c895e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937816303581$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27342044$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Van Meter, Mary M., BA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adam, Rony A., MD</creatorcontrib><title>Costs associated with instrument sterilization in gynecologic surgery</title><title>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</title><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Background With rising health care expenditures, hospitals must contain costs in ways that maintain high-quality patient care. A significant portion of perioperative costs are associated with materials and supplies; many reusable instruments on surgical trays go unused, which may account for significant annual excess processing costs. Reorganizing gynecologic trays to contain fewer instruments can result in significant cost savings. In the field of operative gynecology, there has been considerable attention to the various costs and surgical outcomes that are associated with hysterectomy performed in the abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic approaches; however, little research has been done on the cost differences that are associated with the reusable instruments that are used in these approaches. Objectives This study aimed to identify the percent usage of instruments within gynecologic surgery and to identify differences by surgical approach. We further aimed to estimate the costs of sterilizing surgical instruments and estimate the excess costs that are associated with processing unused instruments. Study Design This was a single site observational study. Specific instruments that were used from incision to closure were recorded on operating room count sheets via direct observation of surgeries that were performed in the gynecologic operating rooms by a trained investigator. Cost data on instrument transportation, employee wages, and instrument replacement was obtained from institutional supply chain management. Results In total, 28 surgical cases (5 abdominal, 11 laparoscopic, and 12 vaginal) were analyzed, with an average of 2 hours 37 minutes operating room time and 5.4 instrument trays for each case. One hundred fifty trays were observed. Trays had an average of 38 instruments per tray (range, 1–141). Surgeons used an average of 36.7 instruments of 184 available instruments per case, for a usage rate of 20.5±2.8%. A significant difference was noted between usage rates in abdominal cases (26.3±6.5%) and vaginal cases (13.6±3.3%) but not between laparoscopic (19.4±4.2%) vs other approaches. Instrument use was correlated inversely with the number of instruments, with an average usage rate of 18.7% for trays that contained ≥10 instruments. Total annual institutional cost associated with instrument processing was estimated at $3.19 per instrument. Conclusion Instrument usage in the gynecologic operating room is low, and the cost of processing instruments is significant. Availability of certain instruments is necessary for patient safety in the event of rare unexpected events. However, given that less than one quarter of the instruments pulled for surgery are used and that total processing cost per instrument exceeds $3.00, careful review of what instruments are included in each tray is warranted. Clearly, significant cost-savings are possible while concurrently balancing safety concerns.</description><subject>costs</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>gynecology</subject><subject>Hospital Costs - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - economics</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - instrumentation</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - methods</subject><subject>instrument</subject><subject>Obstetrics and Gynecology</subject><subject>Operative Time</subject><subject>sterilization</subject><subject>Sterilization - economics</subject><subject>Surgical Instruments - economics</subject><subject>Surgical Instruments - utilization</subject><subject>Tennessee</subject><issn>0002-9378</issn><issn>1097-6868</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9q3DAQxkVI6G6TvkAPwcdcvNU_2xKEQlm6bWEhhyRnoZXHG7leK9HIKZun6bPkyWqzSQ85BAZmhL7vg_kNIZ8ZXTDKyi_twrZhu-DjvKBjMX1E5ozqKi9VqY7JnFLKcy0qNSMfEdvpyTX_QGa8EpJTKedktQyYMLOIwXmboM7--HSX-R5THHbQpwwTRN_5J5t86MeP57_bfQ8udGHrXYZD3ELcn5GTxnYIn176Kbldfb9Z_szXVz9-Lb-tcycZS7nWlVCNkBvKatlI0FyDa2rgZbPhBVSFZQ5stSlZZbWqNRWSWiWttdwpXYA4JReH3PsYHgbAZHYeHXSd7SEMaJjiZUULLfUo5QepiwExQmPuo9_ZuDeMmomfac3Ez0z8DB2LTabzl_xhs4P6v-UV2Ci4PAhg3PLRQzToPPQOah_BJVMH_37-1zd21_neO9v9hj1gG4bYj_wMM8gNNdfTyaYDslJQUSgm_gHKJpgl</recordid><startdate>20161101</startdate><enddate>20161101</enddate><creator>Van Meter, Mary M., BA</creator><creator>Adam, Rony A., MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161101</creationdate><title>Costs associated with instrument sterilization in gynecologic surgery</title><author>Van Meter, Mary M., BA ; Adam, Rony A., MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-99738f34b01d4f4e929ecfde26fb25e75a1cea7b617a98d90340a84aaa2c895e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>costs</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>gynecology</topic><topic>Hospital Costs - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - economics</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - instrumentation</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - methods</topic><topic>instrument</topic><topic>Obstetrics and Gynecology</topic><topic>Operative Time</topic><topic>sterilization</topic><topic>Sterilization - economics</topic><topic>Surgical Instruments - economics</topic><topic>Surgical Instruments - utilization</topic><topic>Tennessee</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Van Meter, Mary M., BA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adam, Rony A., MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Van Meter, Mary M., BA</au><au>Adam, Rony A., MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Costs associated with instrument sterilization in gynecologic surgery</atitle><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2016-11-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>215</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>652.e1</spage><epage>652.e5</epage><pages>652.e1-652.e5</pages><issn>0002-9378</issn><eissn>1097-6868</eissn><abstract>Background With rising health care expenditures, hospitals must contain costs in ways that maintain high-quality patient care. A significant portion of perioperative costs are associated with materials and supplies; many reusable instruments on surgical trays go unused, which may account for significant annual excess processing costs. Reorganizing gynecologic trays to contain fewer instruments can result in significant cost savings. In the field of operative gynecology, there has been considerable attention to the various costs and surgical outcomes that are associated with hysterectomy performed in the abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic approaches; however, little research has been done on the cost differences that are associated with the reusable instruments that are used in these approaches. Objectives This study aimed to identify the percent usage of instruments within gynecologic surgery and to identify differences by surgical approach. We further aimed to estimate the costs of sterilizing surgical instruments and estimate the excess costs that are associated with processing unused instruments. Study Design This was a single site observational study. Specific instruments that were used from incision to closure were recorded on operating room count sheets via direct observation of surgeries that were performed in the gynecologic operating rooms by a trained investigator. Cost data on instrument transportation, employee wages, and instrument replacement was obtained from institutional supply chain management. Results In total, 28 surgical cases (5 abdominal, 11 laparoscopic, and 12 vaginal) were analyzed, with an average of 2 hours 37 minutes operating room time and 5.4 instrument trays for each case. One hundred fifty trays were observed. Trays had an average of 38 instruments per tray (range, 1–141). Surgeons used an average of 36.7 instruments of 184 available instruments per case, for a usage rate of 20.5±2.8%. A significant difference was noted between usage rates in abdominal cases (26.3±6.5%) and vaginal cases (13.6±3.3%) but not between laparoscopic (19.4±4.2%) vs other approaches. Instrument use was correlated inversely with the number of instruments, with an average usage rate of 18.7% for trays that contained ≥10 instruments. Total annual institutional cost associated with instrument processing was estimated at $3.19 per instrument. Conclusion Instrument usage in the gynecologic operating room is low, and the cost of processing instruments is significant. Availability of certain instruments is necessary for patient safety in the event of rare unexpected events. However, given that less than one quarter of the instruments pulled for surgery are used and that total processing cost per instrument exceeds $3.00, careful review of what instruments are included in each tray is warranted. Clearly, significant cost-savings are possible while concurrently balancing safety concerns.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27342044</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.019</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-9378 |
ispartof | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2016-11, Vol.215 (5), p.652.e1-652.e5 |
issn | 0002-9378 1097-6868 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826705949 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | costs Female gynecology Hospital Costs - statistics & numerical data Humans Hysterectomy - economics Hysterectomy - instrumentation Hysterectomy - methods instrument Obstetrics and Gynecology Operative Time sterilization Sterilization - economics Surgical Instruments - economics Surgical Instruments - utilization Tennessee |
title | Costs associated with instrument sterilization in gynecologic surgery |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T23%3A39%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Costs%20associated%20with%20instrument%20sterilization%20in%C2%A0gynecologic%20surgery&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynecology&rft.au=Van%20Meter,%20Mary%20M.,%20BA&rft.date=2016-11-01&rft.volume=215&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=652.e1&rft.epage=652.e5&rft.pages=652.e1-652.e5&rft.issn=0002-9378&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1826705949%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1826705949&rft_id=info:pmid/27342044&rft_els_id=S0002937816303581&rfr_iscdi=true |