4.2 Article

Reuse of single use medical devices in Canada: Clinical and economic outcomes, legal and ethical issues, and current hospital practice

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462308080562

关键词

Medical devices; Equipment reuse; Safety; Cost-effectiveness; Ethics; Professional

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the evidence that reuse of medical devices marketed for single use only (SUDS) is safe, effective and cost-effective, and to consider the use and health services impact of this practice in Canada. Methods: A systematic review was performed of studies that reported clinical or economic outcomes following reuse of SUDS in humans. Direct costs of adverse health events associated with SUD reuse and indications of budget impact were obtained using data for devices for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and coronary angioplasty. Legal and ethical issues were reviewed, drawing on material relevant to Canada. Data on current reuse of SUDs were obtained through a survey of Canadian acute care hospitals. Results: Studies of variable quality suggested that SUD reuse could be safe and effective, and would give cost savings, if there were no adverse events. Eliminating reuse of SUDs for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and coronary angioplasty would add less than 0.1 percent to costs of the procedures over 1 year. Adverse health events associated with device reuse create liability risks; patients should be informed of any known or foreseeable risks of reuse. Most of the 28 percent (111/398) of acute hospitals that reprocess SUDs do so in-house. Some do not have a written policy or an incident reporting mechanism. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to establish the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of reusing SUDs. Legal and ethical issues require attention to minimize liability and maintain patient safety and trust. Some hospitals that reprocess SUDs do not have adequate documentation. These findings do not support the reuse of SUDS in Canadian hospitals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据