Reusable laryngoscope blades: a more eco-responsible and cost-effective alternative.

INTRODUCTION: Consumption of single-use medical devices has increased considerably, contributing to the excessive wastage produced during surgical procedures. The present study aimed to describe a methodology to assess the transition from single-use blades (SUB) to reusable laryngoscope blades (RUB) and to assess the ecological and economic impact of the switch. METHODS: The ecological analysis was based on the life cycle assessment method. Based on 30 operating rooms in a single tertiary university hospital, the economic analysis compared the usual SUB supplier with four RUB suppliers considering different costs: blade purchasing and depreciation, reprocessing, logistics and waste management. RESULTS: In 2021, 17,200 intubations were performed requiring about 147 RUBs. Switching from SUB to RUB led to an annual saving of 26.5 tons of CO2eq (global warming impact), equivalent to 120 000 km by car. It avoids the extraction of 6.6 tons Oileq (petroleum) and 579 kg of copper (mineral resources) per year. This action also leads to a land occupation reduction of 626 m2 per year and water savings of 221.6 m3 per year. The average cost per intubation varies from 3.16 [3.15-3.16] for SUB to 2.81 [2.77-2.85] for RUB, representing an average saving of 0.35 per intubation leading to 5783.50 annual gain [5074.00-6192.00]. RUB are preferable from 3 and 86 uses from an ecological and economic viewpoint, respectively. CONCLUSION: In a model of 17,200 intubations /year, switching SUD to RUB would save 26.5 tons of CO2eq and 6.6 tons of Oileq with 5783.50 annual gain. RUBs are ecologically and cost-effective after 3 and 86 uses, respectively.

Ecoresponsible actions in operating rooms: A health ecological and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In the current context of climate change, actions must be taken to improve the hospital's ecological footprint, particularly in the operating room, which is a major consumer of medical devices. METHODS: This prospective pilot study assessed the ecological and economic impacts of sustainable actions targeting medical devices designed by a multidisciplinary working group and implemented in the 24 operating rooms of a University Hospital over one year. The ecological analysis was based on the life cycle assessment method and categorized in seven impacts. The economic impact was assessed by a micro-costing analysis and divided in four main expense items: human and material resources, logistics, and waste management. RESULTS: In total, 13 actions were implemented with the aim of reducing waste volume, improving waste sorting, and increasing eco-responsible purchases. In one year, these 13 actions allowed avoiding the emission of 203 tons eq CO2. The environmental and human toxicity benefits were 707.8 and 156.2 tons of 1.4 dichlorobenzene, respectively. Concerning non-renewable resources, these actions avoided the extraction of 9 tons of oil (petroleum) and 610 kg of copper per year. These actions led to a land occupation reduction of 1071.3 m2year and to water saving of 552 m3. From the economic side, the implementation of these actions brought a gain of €3747.9 for the first year and of €5188.2 for the following years. CONCLUSION: The integration of sustainable measures in operating rooms leads to important ecological benefits and also generating savings. This more eco-responsible approach should be considered in all healthcare establishments that generate a significant annual volume of waste.

PICC management led by technicians: Establishment of a cooperation program with radiologists and evaluation of complications.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a cooperation program in order to compare incidence of complications after peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement between radiologists and technicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PICC placement technique was standardized with ultrasound-guided puncture and fluoroscopic guidance. Numbers of PICC delegated to technicians, and PICC placement difficulties, were prospectively recorded for the whole study population whereas complications such as PICC infection, deep venous thrombosis and catheter occlusion were prospectively recorded until PICC removal for a subgroup of patients included during one month. RESULTS: A total of 722 patients had PICC placement. There were 382 men and 340 women with a mean age of 66.8±15.8 (SD) years (range: 18-94years); of these, 442/722 patients (61.22%) were included in the cooperation program with 433/722 patients (59.97%) who effectively had PICC placement by technicians and 289/722 (40.03%) by radiologists. Technicians needed radiologists' help for 23/442 patients (5.20%) including 6 failed PICC placement subsequently performed by radiologists. Twenty complications (20/77; 26%) were recorded in the subgroup of 77 patients studied for complications. No differences in complications rate were found between the 33 patients who underwent PICC placement by radiologists (6/33; 18%) and the 44 patients who underwent PICC placement by technicians (14/44; 32%) (P=0.296). Complications included 8 PICC-related infections (8/77; 10.4%), 3 deep venous thromboses (3/77; 3.9%) and 9 catheter occlusions (9/77; 11.7%). CONCLUSION: PICC placement led by technicians is feasible and safe without statistical difference in terms of complications compared to PICC placement made by radiologists.

Assessing the costs of disposable and reusable supplies wasted during surgeries.

BACKGROUND: The management of disposable and reusable supplies might have an impact on the cost efficiency of the Operating Room (OR). This study aimed to evaluate the cost and reasons for wasted supplies in the OR during surgical procedures. METHODS: We conducted an observational and prospective study in a French university hospital. We assessed the cost of wasted supplies in the OR (defined by opened unused devices), the reasons for the wastage, and the circulator retrievals. At the end, we assessed the perception of surgeons and nurses relative to the supply wastage. RESULTS: Fifty routine procedures and five non-scheduled procedures were observed in digestive (n = 20), urologic (n = 20) and gynecologic surgery (n = 15). The median cost [IQR] of open unused devices was €4.1 [0.5; 10.5] per procedure. Wasted supplies represented up to 20.1% of the total cost allocated to surgical supplies. Considering the 8000 surgical procedures performed in these three surgery departments, the potential annual cost savings were 100 000€. The most common reason of wastage was an anticipation of the surgeon's needs. The circulating nurse spent up to 26.3% of operative time outside of the OR, mainly attending to an additional demand from the surgeon (30%). Most of the survey respondents (68%) agreed that knowing supply prices would change their behavior. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the OR is a major source of wasted hospital expenditure and an area wherein an intervention would have a significant impact. Reducing wasted supplies could improve the cost efficiency of the OR and also decrease its ecological impact.