Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:21:50.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

David Hailey ,
Philip D. Jacobs ,
Nola M. Ries  and
Julie Polisena
David Hailey
Affiliation:
University of Calgary and Institute of Health Economics
Philip D. Jacobs
Affiliation:
University of Alberta and Institute of Health Economics
Nola M. Ries
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Julie Polisena
Affiliation:
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Medical devicesEquipment reuseSafetyCost-effectivenessEthicsProfessional
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 430 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Browne, KF, Maldonado, R, Telatnik, M, et al. Initial experience with reuse of coronary angioplasty catheters in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:1735–1740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Campbell, BA, Wells, GA, Palmer, WN, et al. Reuse of disposable medical devices in Canadian hospitals. Am J Infect Control. 1987;15:196–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Colak, T, Ersoz, G, Akca, T, et al. Efficacy and safety of reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:727–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Day, P. What is the evidence on the safety and effectiveness of the reuse of medical devices labelled as single-use only? [NZHTA Tech Brief Series. vol. 3, no. 2]. Christchurch: New Zealand Health Technology Assessment (NZHTA); 2004. http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/publications/medical_devices.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2008.Google Scholar
5. Descôteaux, JG, Tye, L, Poulin, EC. Reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments: Cost analysis. Can J Surg. 1996;39:133–139.Google ScholarPubMed
6. Descôteaux, JG, Tye, L, Poulin, EC, et al. Reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments: A study of related surgical complications. Can J Surg. 1995;38:497–500.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Dirschl, DR, Smith, IJ. Reuse of external skeletal fixator components: Effects on costs and complications. J Trauma. 1998;44:855–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Drummond, MF, Jefferson, TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313:275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Gundogdu, H, Ocal, K, Çaglikulekci, M, et al. High-level disinfection with 2% alkalinized glutaraldehyde solution for reuse of laparoscopic disposable plastic trocars. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1998;8:47–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Hailey, D, Jacobs, P, Ries, N, et al. Reprocessing of single-use medical devices: Clinical, economic, and health services impact. Technology Report no 105. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; February 2008.Google Scholar
11. Hailey, D, Ohinmaa, A, Roine, R. Study quality and evidence of benefit in recent assessments of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10:318–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Health Canada. Therapeutic Products Directorate. Issue analysis summary: The reuse of single-use medical devices [Draft]. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2005 Apr 28. MECS #04-124643-474. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/md-im/saprmd_ias_gcsrmm_raq_2005-06-09_e.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2008.Google Scholar
13. Kozarek, RA, Raltz, SL, Ball, TJ, et al. Reuse of disposable sphincterotomes for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: A one-year prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:39–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Mahoney, J. Reuse of medical devices labeled by the manufacturer for “single-use” only. Winnipeg: Manitoba Health; Advisory Committee on Health Services (ACHS) Working Group on Reuse; 7 May 2001.Google Scholar
15. Mak, KH, Eisenberg, MJ, Eccleston, DS, et al. Cost-efficacy modeling of catheter reuse for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:106–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Miller, MA, Gravel, D, Paton, S. Reuse of single-use medical devices in Canadian acute-care healthcare facilities, 2001. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2001;27:193–199. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/01pdf/cdr2723.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2008.Google ScholarPubMed
17. Nanta, P, Senarat, W, Tribuddharat, C, et al. Cost-effectiveness and safety of reusable tracheal suction tubes. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005;88 (suppl):86–88.Google ScholarPubMed
18. Perry, EC. To reuse or not reuse: Reuse of phacoemulsification needle tips, their efficacy, and patient response. Insight. 1996;21:45–48.Google ScholarPubMed
19. Plante, S, Strauss, BH, Goulet, G, et al. Reuse of balloon catheters for coronary angioplasty: A potential cost-saving strategy? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:1475–1481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Polisena, J, Hailey, D, Moulton, K, et al. Reprocessing of single-use medical devices: National survey of Canadian acute-care hospitals. Technology Report no 104. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; February 2008.Google ScholarPubMed
21. Scherson, BA, Dighero, TH. Angiographic catheter reuse at the hemodynamic department of a public hospital in Chile. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2006;23:45–49.Google Scholar
22. Shaw, JP, Eisenberg, MJ, Azoulay, A, et al. Reuse of catheters for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: Effects on procedure time and clinical outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999;48:54–60.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Wilcox, CM, Geels, W, Baron, TH. How many times can you reuse a “single-use” sphincterotome? A prospective evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;48:58–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Zubaid, M, Thomas, CS, Salman, H, et al. A randomized study of the safety and efficacy of reused angioplasty balloon catheters. Indian Heart J. 2001;53:167–171.Google ScholarPubMed