Wastage of standardised parenteral nutrition solution - a challenge for neonatal units.

Background: Standardised parental nutrition (PN) has been used in many neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Easy accessibility, better provision of nutrients, reduced prescription errors and cost savings are some of its benefits. Fixed large volume (e.g. 750-1000 mL) and short expiry limit (48 hrs) along with changing metabolic needs of neonates leads to significant wastage of PN solution. Objective: To evaluate wastage of PN solution in our 22-bedded NICU. Methods: The audit was conducted over 21-month period (July 2015-April 2017). Data on PN use (e.g. type, duration, infused volume, residual after use) was obtained from hospital records. The discarded volume of PN was estimated after subtracting the administered volume based on the rate of infusion from the total volume in the bag. Cumulative "discarded" volume as percentage of the total "supplied" volume was calculated. Results: A total of 305-PN bags (Standardised: Preterm: 222, Term: 83) were used. The estimated total used, discarded, and percentage discarded volumes for standard preterm and term PN were 78.1, 88 L, 53% and 33.5, 49.7 L, and 59.8%, respectively. Conclusions: There was more than 50% wastage of PN solution in our NICU. The estimated cost of this PN wastage was around 21,000 AUD over 21 months. Strategies such as minipack should be explored to prevent such losses.

Cost, Time, and Error Assessment During Preparation of Parenteral Nutrition: Multichamber Bags Versus Hospital-Compounded Bags.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is associated with material and manpower costs and requires preparation time. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost of PN using multichamber bags (MCBs) compared with hospital-compounded bags (COBs). The secondary aim of this study was to assess and compare preparation time and errors related to the production and preparation processes of PN bags. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, observational, cost-accounting study was conducted in 10 Spanish hospital pharmacy services. The cost assessments included components, raw materials, and hospital staff. Only PN bags with equivalent volume and nutrition value were included in the analyses. Assessment of errors related to PN was performed simultaneously with the cost and time comparison analyses. RESULTS: Among the 597 PN bags (295 MCBs, 302 COBs) evaluated, 392 PN bags (295 MCBs, 97 COBs) had an equivalent volume and nutrition value. The mean (standard deviation) total cost of the MCB was $62.11 ($12.34) per bag compared with $67.54 ($8.50) per bag for COBs, resulting in a significant cost savings of $5.71. On average, the time required to prepare an MCB was 38 minutes shorter (P < .001). Significantly fewer total number (percent) of errors was observed in the preparation of MCBs (3 [1.0%]) compared with COBs (15 [5.0%]); P < .01). CONCLUSION: The use of MCBs results in significant savings in cost and preparation time, which may have a beneficial effect on the economic burden associated with PN as well as a reduction in errors related to PN preparation.

Enteral Feeding Set Handling Techniques.

BACKGROUND: Enteral nutrition therapy is common practice in pediatric clinical settings. Often patients will receive a pump-assisted bolus feeding over 30 minutes several times per day using the same enteral feeding set (EFS). This study aims to determine the safest and most efficacious way to handle the EFS between feedings. METHODS: Three EFS handling techniques were compared through simulation for bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs: (1) rinsing the EFS with sterile water after each feeding, (2) refrigerating the EFS between feedings, and (3) using a ready-to-hang (RTH) product maintained at room temperature. Cultures were obtained at baseline, hour 12, and hour 21 of the 24-hour cycle. A time-in-motion analysis was conducted and reported in average number of seconds to complete each procedure. Supply costs were inventoried for 1 month comparing the actual usage to our estimated usage. RESULTS: Of 1080 cultures obtained, the overall bacterial growth rate was 8.7%. The rinse and refrigeration techniques displayed similar bacterial growth (11.4% vs 10.3%, P = .63). The RTH technique displayed the least bacterial growth of any method (4.4%, P = .002). The time analysis in minutes showed the rinse method was the most time-consuming (44.8 ± 2.7) vs refrigeration (35.8 ± 2.6) and RTH (31.08 ± 0.6) ( P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: All 3 EFS handling techniques displayed low bacterial growth. RTH was superior in bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs. Since not all pediatric formulas are available in RTH, we conclude that refrigerating the EFS between uses is the next most efficacious method for handling the EFS between bolus feeds.

Enteral Feeding Set Handling Techniques: A Comparison of Bacterial Growth, Nursing Time, Labor, and Material Costs.

BACKGROUND: Enteral nutrition therapy is common practice in pediatric clinical settings. Often patients will receive a pump-assisted bolus feeding over 30 minutes several times per day using the same enteral feeding set (EFS). This study aims to determine the safest and most efficacious way to handle the EFS between feedings. METHODS: Three EFS handling techniques were compared through simulation for bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs: (1) rinsing the EFS with sterile water after each feeding, (2) refrigerating the EFS between feedings, and (3) using a ready-to-hang (RTH) product maintained at room temperature. Cultures were obtained at baseline, hour 12, and hour 21 of the 24-hour cycle. A time-in-motion analysis was conducted and reported in average number of seconds to complete each procedure. Supply costs were inventoried for 1 month comparing the actual usage to our estimated usage. RESULTS: Of 1080 cultures obtained, the overall bacterial growth rate was 8.7%. The rinse and refrigeration techniques displayed similar bacterial growth (11.4% vs 10.3%, P = .63). The RTH technique displayed the least bacterial growth of any method (4.4%, P = .002). The time analysis in minutes showed the rinse method was the most time-consuming (44.8 ± 2.7) vs refrigeration (35.8 ± 2.6) and RTH (31.08 ± 0.6) (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: All 3 EFS handling techniques displayed low bacterial growth. RTH was superior in bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs. Since not all pediatric formulas are available in RTH, we conclude that refrigerating the EFS between uses is the next most efficacious method for handling the EFS between bolus feeds.

Impact of the Nationwide Intravenous Selenium Product Shortage on the Development of Selenium Deficiency in Infants Dependent on Long-Term Parenteral Nutrition.

BACKGROUND: For patients dependent on parenteral nutrition (PN), selenium must be supplemented intravenously. A nationwide intravenous selenium shortage began in April 2011. The impact of this shortage on PN-dependent infants was evaluated by examining the provision of selenium, development of biochemical deficiency, and costs associated with the shortage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included PN-dependent infants aged ≤1 year who weighed ≤30 kg, received PN for ≥1 month, and had ≥1 serum selenium measurement. The primary outcome was the incidence of biochemical selenium deficiency. Secondary outcomes included severity of biochemical deficiency, clinical manifestations, costs, and relationship between serum selenium levels and selenium dose. RESULTS: The average selenium dose decreased 2-fold during the shortage (2.1 ± 1.2 µg/kg/d; range, 0.2-4.6 µg/kg/d) versus the nonshortage period (3.8 ± 1 µg/kg/d; range, 2.4-6 µg/kg/d; P < .001). A linear relationship between serum selenium concentration and selenium dose was observed (r(2) = 0.42), with a dose of 6 µg/kg/d expected to result in normal serum levels in most cases. Similar proportions of patients developed biochemical deficiency in both groups: shortage period, 59.1%; nonshortage, 66.7%; P = .13. The severity of biochemical deficiency was similar between groups. A significant increase in incremental cost during the shortage was observed. CONCLUSION: This is the first study examining the impact of the intravenous selenium shortage on PN-dependent infants. Both groups exhibited similarly high incidences of biochemical selenium deficiency, suggesting higher empiric doses may benefit this population. However, ongoing shortages limit the ability to provide supplementation.

Use of Premixed Parenteral Nutrition During a Phosphate Shortage in a Non-Critically Ill Population.

BACKGROUND: Drug shortages pose prescribing problems to clinicians. During fiscal year (FY) 2014, an acute shortage of intravenous potassium phosphate (K-Phos IV), a common supplement in parenteral nutrition (PN), prompted the use of premixed instead of individualized PN to conserve K-Phos IV. Here we quantify the K-Phos IV conserved by using premixed PN and the associated cost differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Costs of preparing premixed PN vs individualized PN of equivalent composition were calculated for FY 2014 at a single-center tertiary care facility. Quantity and cost of K-Phos IV saved were calculated based on the number of premixed PN prescriptions. Costs for FY 2015 were projected based on drug costs from July 2014. RESULTS: During FY 2014, prescribing premixed in lieu of individualized PN conserved 16,440 mmol K-Phos IV but increased the cost of PN by $4080.45. However, increases in K-Phos IV cost at the end of FY 2014 resulted in premixed PN as a relatively less expensive therapy than individualized PN for our institution. Cost savings of $7092.20 due to use of premixed PN is projected for FY 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing premixed PN conserves K-Phos IV during shortages, but it increased direct drug spending in non-critically ill patients at our institution during FY 2014. Persistent shortages can drive market costs of K-Phos IV, however, necessitating frequent reconsideration of resource utilization.

Clinical Experience With Numeta in Preterm Infants: Impact on Nutrient Intake and Costs.

BACKGROUND: A new "ready-to-use" triple-chamber container, Numeta (Baxter, Deerfield, IL), is available for preterm parenteral nutrition (PN) to provide nutrients according to the recommendations of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) Guidelines for Pediatric Parenteral Nutrition. We investigated the clinical application of Numeta compared with individualized PN in preterm infants (≤1.500 g) and evaluated the effects on nutrient intake, costs, and preparation time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a clinical observational study, prescriptions for preterm infants were performed with the new prescription software catoPAN (Cato Software Solutions, Becton Dickinson, Vienna, Austria). Individualized PN and Numeta prescriptions were mirrored, and nutrition content of the PNs was compared with each other and with ESPGHAN/ESPEN recommendations. Furthermore, costs and preparation time were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 374 PN solutions (>1000 g [n = 333]/≤1000 g [n = 41]) were analyzed. Protein intake with Numeta was significantly lower compared with individualized PN and did not meet the recommendations for infants <1500 g during the first day and the period of transition after birth. Energy intake was significantly higher with Numeta. The costs for Numeta preparations were €18 (about US$20) higher than for individualized PN. However, the preparation time/solution was 2 minutes faster with Numeta. CONCLUSION: Numeta is an alternative to individualized PN for infants >1000 g in the period of stable growth when enteral feedings have already started. Protein intake is significantly lower than in individualized PN solutions. Numeta is more expensive in comparison to individualized PN but saves human resources.

Safety, cost, and clinical considerations for the use of premixed parenteral nutrition.

Premixed parenteral nutrition (PN) can be used for PN therapy in place of traditional compounded or customized PN. Premixed PN may have a number of advantages over compounded PN such as decreased costs, decreased compounding time, reduced chance for error, and reduced incidence of bloodstream infections. However, premixed PN may not be appropriate for all patients and may have other additional costs associated with its use. This article discusses the data available with regard to the use of premixed PN, focusing on the potential advantages and disadvantages of using premixed PN, and also discusses the implementation of premixed PN in a large tertiary cancer center.

Use of Piggyback Electrolytes for Patients Receiving Individually Prescribed vs Premixed Parenteral Nutrition.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is available as individualized prescriptions frequently prepared with an automated compounding device or as commercially prepared premixed solutions. Our institution exclusively used individualized PN until an amino acid shortage forced a temporary switch to premixed solutions. In general, premixed solutions contain lower electrolyte levels than individualized formulations prescribed for patients with normal organ function. We aimed to quantify supplemental intravenous piggyback (IVPB) electrolyte use in adult patients receiving individualized and premixed PN and to quantify any effect on difference in the cost of therapy. METHODS: We compared use of supplemental IVPB electrolytes administered to patients receiving PN during consecutive periods prior to and during the amino acid shortage. Electrolyte IVPBs tabulated were potassium chloride, 10 and 20 mEq; magnesium sulfate, 2 g and 4 g; potassium phosphate, 7.5 and 15 mmol; and sodium phosphate, 7.5 and 15 mmol IVPB. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the number of PN formulations administered per day during each period (14.7 ± 3.9 vs 14.0 ± 2.6, individualized vs premixed, respectively). Total IVPB electrolytes prescribed per day increased significantly from the individualized PN period to the premixed PN period (7.03 ± 3.8 vs 13.8 ± 6.8; P < .0001). The additional IVPB electrolyte supplementation required in patients receiving premixed PN was associated with an additional $11,855.74 cost per 30 days of therapy compared with those who received individualized PN. CONCLUSION: Inpatient use of premixed PN results in a significant increase in IVPB electrolyte supplementation and cost compared with individualized PN use.

The impact of parenteral nutrition preparation on bloodstream infection risk and costs.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-related bloodstream infections (BSIs) are a serious problem leading to increased morbidity, longer hospital stay, and hence, additional costs. This study evaluated the risk of BSI and the cost of parenteral nutrition (PN) in Germany. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A retrospective observational chart review of patients hospitalized from October 2009 to April 2011 and receiving PN via ready-to-use three-chamber bag (MCB), single bottle (SB) or hospital compounded admixture (CPN) was conducted across Germany. Propensity score-adjusted models were used to evaluate the association between the type of PN, BSI (Cox Proportional Hazards) and hospitalization cost (generalized linear models) within a subgroup receiving all three macronutrients (lipids, amino acids, glucose). RESULTS: Of the 1995 patient records reviewed (MCB=816; CPN=584; SB=595), 1457 patients received all three macronutrients. After adjustment, SB was associated with an increased hazard of BSI, vs MCB without additions (hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI))=2.53 (1.66-3.86)) in the total cohort. Adding supplements to MCB on the ward also increased the BSI risk in both total and subgroup analyses. In patients receiving all three macronutrients, adjusted total costs were MCB (no additions): \[euro]6,572 (95% CI: \[euro]6,896-6263); CPN: \[euro]6,869 (\[euro]7,283-6479); SB: \[euro]6,872 (\[euro]7,242-6521); MCB (ward additions): \[euro]7,402 (\[euro]7,878-6955); P<0.001; P<0.001. CONCLUSION: Use of MCB does not appear to increase treatment costs, possibly by reducing the risk of infection. This study identified several PN preparation methods associated with a significantly increased hazard for BSI; definitive CPN findings are limited by our inability to distinguish automated from manual pharmacy compounding.

Cost analysis of adult parenteral nutrition systems; three-compartment bag versus customized / Análisis de costes de los sistemas de nutrición parental; bolsa tricompartimental versus individualizada

BACKGROUND: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a costly technology used widely to provide nutrition to patients who have an inaccessible or non-functioning intestine. Two all-in-one systems currently being used are customized formulations and three-compartment bags. OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic cost comparison of the two all-in-one PN systems: individualized (made from nutrient solutions) versus commercialized (made from three-compartment bag), both prepared in hospital pharmacies. SETTING: This study was conducted in three public Spanish hospitals. METHOD: We conducted a cost-minimization study to analyze prospectively the total cost of PN bags, accounting for all of the processes involved in preparing and delivering PN bags (cost of manpower, nutrition solutions, medical supplies and quality controls) in three different healthcare settings. To compare therapeutic alternatives of equivalent nutritional value, the study was performed for the most frequently employed formulation and similar to commercial preparations. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of different rates of use of three-compartment PN bag. RESULTS: 157 routine acts of PN bag preparation (65 customized and 92 three-compartment) were observed and timed over 9 days. Total costs of the 157 PN bags were included in the study. Mean costs of customized bags were higher than three-compartment bags, 51.16 ± 5.63 € versus 39.69 ± 3.00 € respectively (p < 0.01). Manpower costs were responsible for the majority of the differences found (70%). The time to complete an adult bag for the hospital compounded system was a mean of 25.9 minutes longer than the three-compartment system. In scenarios using a three-compartment system for 30%, 70% and 90% of PN provision, a cost savings of 4.3%, 10.1% and 12.9% respectively could be achieved. Greatest rates of changing from customized bags (70% and 90%), in a hospital with 1,800 PN bags/year, might reduce the annual budget by 9306 € and 11,964.8 €, respectively. Meanwhile, in a large facility the savings for 8,000 TPN days would be 64,248 € and 82,605 €, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Since seeking cost-reduction of effective treatments is needed, the use of three-compartment bags for standard adult PN could lead to cost savings. Our data should be helpful for health care providers to calculate their own cost of administer

ANTECEDENTES: La nutrición parenteral (NP) es una tecnología costosa que se usa ampliamente para proporcionar nutrición a los pacientes que tienen un intestino inaccesible o no funcional. Los dos sistemas todo en uno que se utilizan en la actualidad son las formulaciones individualizadas y las bolsas tri-compartimentales. OBJETIVO: Proporcionar una comparación de costes sistemática entre los dos sistemas todo en uno: los sistemas individualizados (preparados a partir de soluciones de nutrientes) frente a los comerciales (hechos a partir de una bolsa tri-compartimental). Contexto: Este estudio se realizó en tres hospitales públicos españoles. MÉTODO: Realizamos un estudio de minimización de costes para analizar prospectivamente el coste total de las bolsas de NP, considerando todos los procesos implicados en la preparación y suministro de las bolsas (coste de personal, soluciones de nutrición, material fungible y controles de calidad) en tres centros hospitalarios distintos. Para comparar alternativas terapéuticas de valor nutricional equivalente, el estudio se realizó con la formulación que se empleaba con mayor frecuencia y similar a los preparados comerciales. Se realizó un análisis de sensibilidad uni-variaante para evaluar el impacto de las diferentes tasas de uso de la bolsa de NP tri-compartimental. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron 157 elaboraciones de bolsas de NP (65 individualizada y 92 tri-compartimentales) programadas durante 9 días. Los costes totales de las 157 bolsas de NP se incluyeron en el estudio. Los costes medios de las bolsas individualizadas fueron superiores a los costes de las bolsas tri-compartimentales, 51,16 ± 5,63 € frente a 39,69 ± 3,00 €, respectivamente (p < 0,01). Los costes de personal fueron los responsables de la mayor parte de las diferencias encontradas (70%). El tiempo para completar una bolsa de formulación individualizada fue en promedio 25,9 minutos superior que para el sistema tri-compartimental. En los supuestos en que se utilizase el sistema tri-compartimental un 30%, 70% y 90% del total de NP, se producirían unos ahorros del 4,3%, 10,1% y 12,9%, respectivamente. Con mayores tasas de cambio (70% y 90%), en un hospital con 1.800 bolsas de NP/año, se podría obtener un ahorro en el presupuesto anual de 9.306 € y 11.964.8 €, respectivamente. A su vez, en un centro hospitalario mayor, el ahorro para 8.000 bolsas de NP sería de 64.248 € y 82.605 €, respectivamente. CONCLUSIONES: Dada la necesidad de buscar una reducción de costes de tratamientos efectivos, el uso de las bolsas tri-compartimentales para la NP estándar del adulto podría conllevar una reducción de costes. Nuestros datos pueden ayudar a los gestores sanitarios a calcular su propio coste de administración de la NPT

Standardised parenteral nutrition.

Parenteral nutrition (PN) has become an integral part of clinical management of very low birth weight premature neonates. Traditionally different components of PN are prescribed individually considering requirements of an individual neonate (IPN). More recently, standardised PN formulations (SPN) for preterm neonates have been assessed and may have advantages including better provision of nutrients, less prescription and administration errors, decreased risk of infection, and cost savings. The recent introduction of triple-chamber bag that provides total nutrient admixture for neonates may have additional advantage of decreased risk of contamination and ease of administration.

Cost analysis of adult parenteral nutrition systems: three-compartment bag versus customized.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a costly technology used widely to provide nutrition to patients who have an inaccessible or non-functioning intestine. Two all-in-one systems currently being used are customized formulations and three-compartment bags. OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic cost comparison of the two all-in-one PN systems: individualized (made from nutrient solutions) versus commercialized (made from three-compartment bag), both prepared in hospital pharmacies. SETTING: This study was conducted in three public Spanish hospitals. METHOD: We conducted a cost-minimization study to analyze prospectively the total cost of PN bags, accounting for all of the processes involved in preparing and delivering PN bags (cost of manpower, nutrition solutions, medical supplies and quality controls) in three different healthcare settings. To compare therapeutic alternatives of equivalent nutritional value, the study was performed for the most frequently employed formulation and similar to commercial preparations. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of different rates of use of three-compartment PN bag. RESULTS: 157 routine acts of PN bag preparation (65 customized and 92 three-compartment) were observed and timed over 9 days. Total costs of the 157 PN bags were included in the study. Mean costs of customized bags were higher than three-compartment bags, 51.16 ± 5.63 € versus 39.69 ± 3.00 € respectively (p < 0.01). Manpower costs were responsible for the majority of the differences found (70%). The time to complete an adult bag for the hospital compounded system was a mean of 25.9 minutes longer than the three-compartment system. In scenarios using a three-compartment system for 30%, 70% and 90% of PN provision, a cost savings of 4.3%, 10.1% and 12.9% respectively could be achieved. Greatest rates of changing from customized bags (70% and 90%), in a hospital with 1,800 PN bags/year, might reduce the annual budget by 9306 € and 11,964.8 €, respectively. Meanwhile, in a large facility the savings for 8,000 TPN days would be 64,248 € and 82,605 €, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Since seeking cost-reduction of effective treatments is needed, the use of three-compartment bags for standard adult PN could lead to cost savings. Our data should be helpful for health care providers to calculate their own cost of administer.

Background Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a costly technology used widely to provide nutrition to patients who have an inaccessible or non-functioning intestine. Two all-in-one systems currently being used are customized formulations and three-compartment bags. Objective To provide a systematic cost comparison of the two all-in-one PN systems: individualized (made from nutrient solutions) versus commercialized (made from three-compartment bag), both prepared in hospital pharmacies. Setting This study was conducted in three public Spanish hospitals. Method We conducted a cost-minimization study to analyze prospectively the total cost of PN bags, accounting for all of the processes involved in preparing and delivering PN bags (cost of manpower, nutrition solutions, medical supplies and quality controls) in three different healthcare settings. To compare therapeutic alternatives of equivalent nutritional value, the study was performed for the most frequently employed formulation and similar to commercial preparations. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of different rates of use of three-compartment PN bag. Results 157 routine acts of PN bag preparation (65 customized and 92 three-compartment) were observed and timed over 9 days. Total costs of the 157 PN bags were included in the study. Mean costs of customized bags were higher than three-compartment bags, 51.16±5.63€ versus 39.69±3.00€ respectively (p.

Cost analysis of neonatal and pediatric parenteral nutrition in Europe: a multi-country study.

OBJECTIVES: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is critical in neonatal and pediatric care for patients unable to tolerate enteral feeding. This study assessed the total costs of compounding PN therapy for neonates, infants and children. METHODS: Face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted in 12 hospitals across four European countries (Belgium, France, Germany and UK) to collect information on resources utilized to compound PN, including nutrients, staff time, equipment cost and supplies. A bottom-up cost model was constructed to assess total costs of PN therapy by assigning monetary values to the resource utilization using published list prices and interview data. RESULTS: A total of 49,922 PN bags per year were used to treat 4295 neonatal and pediatric patients among these hospitals. The daily total costs of one compounded PN bag for neonates in the 12 hospitals across the four countries equalled euro 55.16 (Belgium euro 53.26, France euro 46.23, Germany euro 64.05, UK L 37.43/\[euro]42.86). Overall, nutrients accounted for 25% of total costs, supplies 18%, wages 54% and equipment 3%. Average costs per bag for infants <2 year were euro 84.52 (euro 74.65 in Belgium, euro 83.84 in France, euro 92.70 in Germany and L 52.63/euro 60.26 in the UK), and for children 2-18 years euro 118.02 (euro 93.85 in Belgium, euro 121.35 in France, euro 124.54 in Germany and L 69.49/euro 79.56 in the UK), of which 63% is attributable to nutrients and 28% to wages. CONCLUSION: The data indicated that PN costs differ among countries and a major proportion was due to staff time (L 1=euro 1.144959).