STERILE PROCESSING of endoscope products and technology


embraces the practical approach because none of the options cited adequately addresses what they feel is the issue. eusable flexible endoscopes have been designed to meet clinical challenges where durability, reliability, tactile feed- back and stability for manipulating the scope appropriately to ensure proper positioning and usage,” said Melinda Benedict, Director, nfection Prevention and Control, Olympus Corporation of the Americas. “Single-use endoscopes may surpass reusable in some specialty areas or locations within a facility, but adoption will be different for different patient populations, different physician preferences and different facilities. We agree with the ACG, ASGE, and SGNA that clinicians will not rush into this without first understanding the new and unintentional risks we may be introduc- ing to our patients such as an increased risk of procedural failure, perforation, or pancreatitis. In addition, the medical waste and cost challenges will need to be addressed.” thers concur that clinicians will favor continued use of reusable scopes for the majority of MIS procedures due in large part to sustainability.


“All hospitals are concerned about sus-


tainability and reducing hospital waste,” noted Richard Radford, CEO, Cenorin LLC. “By reducing single patient use medical devices, hospitals will reduce their waste stream and help achieve their sustainability goals.” With a career that spanned service with


several original equipment manufaturers, Gregg Agoston, Vice President, Business


Development, PD Transformation ervices, pecialtyCare, issues a chal- lenge to OEMs. edical waste disposal is a significant issue and costly,” he said. “With 75 mil- lion endoscopy procedures performed annually, think of the cost to the environ- ment from this mountain of waste. OEMs should focus their efforts on developing more robust endoscopes, ones that can be fully sterilized by low cost low envi- ronmental impact methods.”


The switch is on


Others see that the migration – albeit partial and slow – already is underway as hybrid models are being incorporated for select uses, but that ultimately, reus- able models will prevail as the preference among the majority.


“I think the increased use of hybrid


scopes with disposable components is the realistic expectation within that - year] timeframe,” said John Whelan, Clinical Education Specialist, Healthmark ndustries. es, we can hope for every- thing disposable tomorrow, but that will not be realistic for all facilities, let alone the environment. “We need to consider here all the


clinical


locations where endoscopes are clinically used,” Whelan continued. “Generally speaking, a larger health sys- tem may be able to afford and support an all-disposable inventory, but less so a standalone endoscopy center or clinic. Technology needs to catch up  beyond what already exists. t is good to have disposable options, but we also look for- ward to reusable endoscopes that can be routinely more effectively processed. That


requires material changes for the endo- scopes themselves andor automated cleaning and disinfectionsterilization options that are currently in R&D stages of development. haron Ward-Fore, T(CP), CC,


FPC, nfection Prevention dvisor, Envista, the parent company of etrex esearch, expresses similar hesitancy and trepidation about a meaningful migration. “Although patients will be looking for healthcare to use more disposable scopes or scopes with more disposable compo- nents, I don’t think we are there yet with disposable scopes,” she asserted. Still, she acknowledges a radical shift could occur “if the quality and cost enable their use. “Disposable would completely eliminate the possibility of cross-contamination, pro- viding piece of mind for the patient and the healthcare institution,” Ward-Fore added. Dan Gusanders, President, Pure Processing, remains the most optimistic, contend- ing that a shift to hybrid models will surpass the use of reusables in a dra- matic market shift. The use of more hybrid models seems likely as there continues to be lapses in reprocessing and outbreaks of antibiotic resistant infections related to endoscopes,” Gusanders told HPN.  imagine low-vol- ume facilities will continue to use mostly reusable models by , with larger facili- ties seeing more hybrid models than fully reusable. The demands on reprocessing environments (e.g., decontamination sinks, Es, storage) will be fascinating to see with the increased of hybrid models.” HPN


Dan Gusanders


The return of reusing SUDs may have a prequel in haste to reduce waste


A


s the discourse about reusing single-use devices continues to simmer even as healthcare profes-


sionals verbally spar over economic bene- fits, product durability, procedure quality and patient safety, a growing movement is emerging outside of healthcare that may render it all moot. The movement stems from environmen- tal calls for banning the use of single-use plastics to keep these products out of landfills after disposal.


Think of it as a preventive measure


to prevent another preventive measure. fter all, if device manufacturers dont have access to single-use plastics to make SUDs, then healthcare organizations won’t have to worry about deciding whether to re-use SUDs.


Healthcare Purchasing News pondered whether this movement outside of health- care may develop traction and transition to inside healthcare, asking relevant experts to share their thoughts.


34 November 2022 • HEALTHCARE PURCHASING NEWS • hpnonline.com


“Plastics are an important and almost irreplaceable material in the manufacture of many medical devices. To eliminate this versatile resource from engineering and manufacturing toolkits would potentially curtail the many wonderful medical solu- tions and positive clinical outcomes that could evolve from them.


“A far better approach would be to design in extended usefulness or life cycles for plastic devices (i.e., make reusability a design requirement) and a


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