CS CONNECTION


“This might lead you to think I would prefer a fully disposable endoscope, but I do not, endee clarified. olving processing issues would be a great leap forward for these devices but could cause others. dding multiple disposable endoscopes each day to a facilitys waste stream is a cost and environmental concern. On the other hand, if only certain components were disposed of, processing outcomes could be improved, and other impacts could be minimized. I believe this win will drive ybrid endoscopes to eclipse fully reusable models. ahan zizi, pecial roects anager, ealthmark Industries


o., calls for a device redesign to compensate for the challenges. he scope should be redesigned to have dispos- able section that comes into contact with patient insertion section, zizi asserted. he electronic and control can remain reusable and sterilizable. This will be the safest for patient, the most cost- effective and environmentally friendly approach.


Jahan Azizi


SUDs make waves ore than one-fifth . percent predict fully disposablesingle- use devices will be added to a providers inventory stream, but not dominate what surgeons use. etty cinty, , , , ellow, linical ducation ervices, oston cientific orp., frames her measured perspective across the -year span. he move will be evident, and a contribut-


www.healthcare-carts.com


ing driver will be reported endoscope-related infections, cinty predicted. Identification and tracking of infections to endoscopes is inconsistent, however. Industry will continue to develop single-use models that will make sense to infection prevention-minded consumers to replace their reusable inventory. atalie eece, ndoscopy linical ducator, ey urgical, casts doubt on the cost argument. “Disposable endoscopes and endoscopic devices are the easiest way to decrease the inci- dence of patient transmission and infection due to contamination, eece indicated. atient safety is of the utmost priority, followed closely by the financial cost of reprocessing and proce- dures. e are seeing an increase in understand- ing that disposable scopes are not necessarily more epensive than reusable. or eample, a study from last year titled, eusable leible Ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes results of a systemic review from  uro-group by also, et l., found that, depending on the number of uses per repair which varied between - procedures per repair, the cost per procedure for a scope was anywhere between  and , per procedure,. she eplained. hey say,  significant trend was observed between the decreasing cost of repair with the number of usages,’ meaning the more usages you got before you needed to send out for repair, the cheaper overall that reusable scope would be for your procedures. hey compare this with a couple other disposable ureterorenoscopes that cost , , or even , dollars a pop. eece refers to an fstead  ssociates research study published three years ago that eamined  different scopes at three different sites, finding that all endoscopes had visible irregularities. hat this tells us is that were currently not sending out our scopes for repair enough, eece argued. he cost of repair


Betty McGinty Natalie Reece Visit www.ksrleads.com/?011hp-033 2011HPN_AcuityMedical 1


36 November 2020 • HEALTHCARE PURCHASING NEWS • hpnonline.com 10/12/20 2:43 PM


Page 38


Try


BEFORE You Buy!


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