Sustainable decontamination
Rethinking procurement in decontamination
As the NHS faces considerable financial issues, Alison Arnold, provides an insight into where valuable money could be saved at hospital sites across the UK, by rethinking procurement strategies.
In the face of ongoing financial pressures and the imperative to maintain the highest standards of patient care, NHS decontamination departments are at a crossroads. The challenge of procuring effective cleaning and disinfection chemicals, while adhering to tight budgets, has never been more pressing. However, a concerning trend has emerged: many decontamination managers are inadvertently overspending due to a focus on misleading cost- per-dose metrics.
The hidden costs of short-term thinking Historically, procurement decisions within NHS decontamination services have been heavily influenced by the allure of lower-cost options. On the surface, these products appear to offer comparable efficacy at a reduced price point. However, this approach often overlooks a critical factor: product concentration. Dr. Sarah Thompson, Lead Decontamination
Specialist at St. Mary’s Hospital, explains: “What we’ve observed is that products with higher concentrations may have a higher upfront cost,
but they offer significantly more doses per unit. Over time, this leads to greater cost efficiency and reduced environmental impact from packaging waste.” This short-term focus on immediate savings
has trapped many departments in a cycle of overspending. The need for frequent reordering and increased consumption not only strains budgets but also contributes to unnecessary environmental waste – a growing concern for an NHS committed to reducing its carbon footprint.
The environmental impact The environmental consequences of procurement decisions are becoming increasingly important in the NHS’s overall strategy. A study by the Sustainable Development Unit (SDU) found that the NHS generates over 590,000 tonnes of waste annually, with a significant portion coming from single-use items and packaging.1
By opting for higher-
concentration products, decontamination departments can significantly reduce their waste output, contributing to the NHS’s goal of reducing its carbon footprint by 80% by 2050.2
Quality: a non-negotiable factor While cost-efficiency is crucial, it cannot come at the expense of quality. The stakes in healthcare decontamination are simply too high. Subpar chemical solutions not only fail to meet the requisite level of cleanliness but also pose significant risks of cross-contamination, potentially endangering patient safety. John Richards, Procurement Manager for NHS
East Midlands, emphasises this point: “In sterile services and endoscopy units, we’re dealing with critical processes that directly impact patient outcomes. Compromising on the quality of our decontamination chemistry is simply not an option.” The importance of effective decontamination becomes even more apparent when considering the broader impact on patient care and hospital resources. Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) affect an estimated 300,000 patients in England annually, resulting in approximately 5,000 deaths.3
These infections not only
cause unnecessary suffering but also place a significant financial burden on the NHS, with estimates suggesting they cost the health service up to £1 billion per year.4
The true cost of decontamination To make informed procurement decisions, decontamination managers must look beyond the initial price tag and consider the total cost of usage. This includes factors such as: l Concentration and dilution ratios. l Efficacy against current pathogens. l Required contact times. l Impact on throughput and operational efficiency.
l Compatibility with existing equipment. l Environmental impact. l Long-term cost savings from reduced infection rates.
By taking a more holistic view, departments can often find that higher-concentration products offer better value for money and improved operational efficiency.
December 2024 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 57
t
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
