Endoscopy
in the clinical environment, to understand the procedures and use cases for which this product could be used. All these considerations were then implemented during the development of the final product; a product which provides a choice for reusable endoscopes, without significant changes to image quality and ergonomics. This was the product manager’s goal right from the start. Soon after the introduction of the first
prototypes, we realised that our close cooperation with healthcare providers would result in a product that makes a difference. We received positive feedback from physicians who were especially enthusiastic about the image performance and who mentioned that this scope would finally provide them with the same comfort level as reusable bronchoscopes. Because single-use bronchoscopes do not
need to go through reprocessing and service cycles by design, the benefits in availability and infection prevention are especially relevant in emergency and ICU procedures. By bringing together Pentax Medical’s experience in image engineering and using the well appreciated ergonomics of the reusable J10 bronchoscope, physicians also mentioned a possible use of this scope in interventional pulmonology. In our philosophy, it is essential that the designer, developer and healthcare provider work together during the development of an endoscope to ensure clinically relevant products that strengthen a hospital’s current endoscopy suite.
Offering a meaningful mix of solutions As developments, such as this, successfully tackle the challenges of instrument availability and infection prevention, will single-use endoscopes increasingly become the norm?
Personally, I believe this is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future for various reasons. First of all, there is a rising awareness
from healthcare providers, patients and manufacturers, like Pentax Medical, about the importance of sustainable resources. The healthcare industry is a major emitter of greenhouse gases emissions1
gastrointestinal endoscopy’, in which they advocate to raise awareness for the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provide guidance on how to reduce its environmental impact.3 Secondly, there is a wide range of patients
and preliminary
studies suggest that endoscopy is one of the largest polluters,2
demonstrating the urgency to
offer treatment that best protects patients and the planet. This was also recently emphasised by ESGE-ESGENA, in their positioning paper ‘Reducing the environmental footprint of
with varying conditions in endoscopy. While the broad majority of those patients are in a stable condition, there are some immunocompromised patients that face increased health risks, for whom the use of a single-use endoscope makes sense to reduce the risk of infection. Such a diverse mix of patients cannot be served with a one-size-fits-all product. The ability to treat each patient in the best way possible, whether for a routine or emergency procedure, is fundamental. For that reason, we believe in the ‘power of choice’ in a mix of reusable and single-use products, together with hygiene solutions to provide clinical, economic and environmental benefits to our customers. This enables physicians to optimally treat each patient based on their specific condition, instead of letting the product decide what’s best for the patient – and the planet.
Advancing proficiency in innovative endoscopic techniques We see that a thorough product development process following the “poka-yoke” principle and inspired by physician feedback, goes long way to mitigate infection risk in endoscopy. To help further maximise infection prevention, we’re also investing in education. This is an especially
February 2023 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 63
▲
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
