Infection prevention
performance does not degrade over time. In a guidance document to the Department of Health, the Microbiological Advisory Committee (MAC) recommended that, following cleaning, surgical instruments need to be carefully examined for organic material or damage and that, where possible, consideration should be given to using single-use devices to prevent the risks of cross-contamination.7 However, one of the key considerations in
deciding whether to switch from hard to clean reusable instruments to single-use alternative instruments are the associated costs.
Repair and replacement costs The cost of surgical procedures can be an emotive and politically charged topic and, as a result, healthcare practitioners seek efficiencies to reduce costs across the board – while, at the same time, not compromising surgical efficacy or patient safety. One particular area of debate is the cost of single-use surgical instruments when compared to sterilising reusable surgical instruments for multiple operations. Costs that are often mistakenly ignored
are storage, labour, energy, inspection, losses, rejection rates, maintenance, and replacement – all of which contribute to the hospital’s overall management of decontamination. Firstly, for the instrument to be used
repeatedly, it has to be sterilised and cleaned (with single-use brushes, chemicals, power and time) and this comes at a cost to the institution reusing surgical instruments. Associated with this are the logistical aspects and errors that come with using reusable instruments, which are involved in managing the journey of the reusable surgical instrument from surgery to sterilisation unit and then back to surgery. Secondly, the efficacy of reusable surgical instruments, over a period of time, and other potential pitfalls with using them add substantial hidden costs and identifiable risks with their use. For example, would a reusable surgical instrument perform as effectively on its 30th
time as on its first? In addition, how effective are the re-sterilisation processes behind reusable surgical instruments and, if they are ineffective, what are the costs to healthcare institutions and healthcare practitioners in dealing with any cross infection between patients? Ultimately, Eakin Surgical was established
in response to the challenge faced cleaning surgical instruments – hospitals identified that difficulty cleaning surgical fine lumen suctions created a high risk of patient-to-patient cross- infection.
In the past, single-use instruments had a negative profile within healthcare, but this perception has now changed. Today, there are now products available of the same quality or better feel and function than reusable items, and the increased safety profile of these items is driving their increased adoption in UK hospitals.
www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs49/chapter/ introduction
3 Rothwell, N, The time is now: we must act to reduce surgical site infections, Hospital Times. 9th December 2020
https://www.hospitaltimes.
co.uk/the-time-is-now-we-must-act-to- reduce-surgical-site-infections/
4 Time to act: A state of the nation report on surgical site infections in the UK (December 2020),
https://www.pslhub.org/learn/patient- safety-in-health-and-care/high-risk-areas/ surgery/surgical-site-infections/time-to-act- a-state-of-the-nation-report-on-surgical- site-infections-in-the-uk-december-2020- r3895/#:~:text=This%20report%2C%20Time%20 to%20Act,SSI%20rates%20in%20the%20UK.
5 HSIB, Decontamination of surgical instruments, 26/05/2022,
https://www.hsib.org.uk/ investigations-and-reports/decontamination- of-surgical-instruments/decontamination- of-surgical-instruments/#:~:text=If%20 not%20removed%20correctly%2C%20 certain,medical%20attention%20following%20 the%20surgery.
6 Reducing public health risks associated with reusable medical devices, May 2004 pp 1-43
http://www.tga.gov.au/devices/reusdev_phr. pdf [Accessed 12/10/2009]
CSJ
References 1 R. Troughton, G. Birgand, A.P. Johnson, N. Naylor, M. Gharbi, P. Aylin, S. Hopkins, U. Jaffer, A. Holmes, Mapping national surveillance of surgical site infections in England: needs and priorities, Journal of Hospital Infection, Volume 100, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 378-385, ISSN 0195- 6701,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2018.06.006. (
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0195670118303207)
2 NICE, Surgical site infection, Quality standard [QS49] Published: 31 October 2013, https://
Balancing safety and sustainability...
Protecting patients and reducing the risk of cross infection remains a priority, but it is also important to recognise the environmental cost of single-use devices. As such, Eakin Surgical is making every effort to be sustainable in the products it manufactures and has reduced its supply chain route by 26,034 miles per year. This equates to a substantial reduction in carbon emissions. It also sends zero waste to landfill. Products are packaged
in cardboard boxes which can be recycled, while the company is also looking to reduce its carbon footprint by investing in solar panels and green energy, working with suppliers that are FSC certified and providing on-site clean rooms and sterilisation services. The Eakin Healthcare Group has also recently appointed a sustainability manager to ensure that sustainability is at the forefront of the company’s activities.
About the Author
Jon Blastland, is the commercial director at Eakin Surgical. A long-established UK single- use surgical instruments manufacturer, the company is based in Cardiff, South Wales. Its mission is to enable safer operations and improved patient outcomes through the provision of high-quality surgical solutions. Jon has been with Eakin Surgical for 20 years and has a wide knowledge of the NHS and Private Hospital markets in the UK&I region.
February 2023 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 53
7 Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), http://www.
mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Safetyguidance/ Otherdevicesafetyguidance/CON007438] [Accessed 2nd Nov 2009
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 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
