Defining the Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope Reprocessing Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing

PURPOSE

Careful decontamination and sterilization of reusable flexible ureteroscopes used in ureterorenoscopy cases prevent the spread of infectious pathogens to patients and technicians. However, inefficient reprocessing and unavailability of ureteroscopes sent out for repair can contribute to expensive operating room (OR) delays. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) was applied to describe the time and costs involved in reprocessing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Direct observation and timing were performed for all steps in reprocessing of reusable flexible ureteroscopes following operative procedures. Estimated times needed for each step by which damaged ureteroscopes identified during reprocessing are sent for repair were characterized through interviews with purchasing analyst staff. Process maps were created for reprocessing and repair detailing individual step times and their variances. Cost data for labor and disposables used were applied to calculate per minute and average step costs.

RESULTS

Ten ureteroscopes were followed through reprocessing. Process mapping for ureteroscope reprocessing averaged 229.0 ± 74.4 minutes, whereas sending a ureteroscope for repair required an estimated 143 minutes per repair. Most steps demonstrated low variance between timed observations. Ureteroscope drying was the longest and highest variance step at 126.5 ± 55.7 minutes and was highly dependent on manual air flushing through the ureteroscope working channel and ureteroscope positioning in the drying cabinet. Total costs for reprocessing totaled $96.13 per episode, including the cost of labor and disposable items.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing TDABC delineates the full spectrum of costs associated with ureteroscope reprocessing and identifies areas for process improvement to drive value-based care. At our institution, ureteroscope drying was one clearly identified target area. Implementing training in ureteroscope drying technique could save up to 2 hours per reprocessing event, potentially preventing expensive OR delays.

Guideline Implementation: Processing Flexible Endoscopes

The updated AORN "Guideline for processing flexible endoscopes" provides guidance to perioperative, endoscopy, and sterile processing personnel for processing all types of reusable flexible endoscopes and accessories in all procedural settings. This article focuses on key points of the guideline to help perioperative personnel safely and effectively process flexible endoscopes to prevent infection transmission. The key points address verification of manual cleaning, mechanical cleaning and processing, storage in a drying cabinet, determination of maximum storage time before reprocessing is needed, and considerations for implementing a microbiologic surveillance program. Perioperative RNs should review the complete guideline for additional information and for guidance when writing and updating policies and procedures.

Design and implementation of the infection prevention program into risk management: Managing high level disinfection and sterilization in the outpatient setting

Reusable, invasive medical devices within the outpatient setting pose a risk for patient harm. Ineffective disinfection of medical devices can potentially lead to transmission of pathogens between patients; and improper handling can lead to patient injury. A risk assessment was conducted, and the results strongly supported the necessity to develop a robust infection prevention program within the risk management department. This exclusive program was a proactive approach to preventing patient exposure within our healthcare system. Designing and integrating an Infection Prevention program into the Risk Management Department presented challenges, especially with the magnitude of devices and lack of standardization throughout our 33 clinics. Key components of the program included: capturing an accurate inventory of devices throughout the system, hiring a sterile processing expert, engaging support from senior leadership, adhering to rigorous auditing processes, and establishing a staff competency training structure. Since the program was launched 2 years ago, outcomes include: identification of high-risk practices with immediate resolution, increase in average clinic compliance to device reprocessing standards from 88% to 99%, elimination of 71% of scope reprocessing and 39% of instrument sterilization by clinic staff with allocation to central sterile processing departments, and development of a staff competency training structure.

A Work Systems Analysis of Sterile Processing: Sterilization and Case Cart Preparation

Achieving reliable instrument reprocessing requires finding the right balance among cost, productivity, and safety. However, there have been few attempts to comprehensively examine sterile processing department (SPD) work systems. We considered an SPD as an example of a socio-technical system - where people, tools, technologies, the work environment, and the organization mutually interact - and applied work systems analysis (WSA) to provide a framework for future intervention and improvement. The study was conducted at two SPD facilities at a 700-bed academic medical center servicing 56 onsite clinics, 31 operating rooms (ORs), and nine ambulatory centers. Process maps, task analyses, abstraction hierarchies, and variance matrices were developed through direct observations of reprocessing work and staff interviews and iteratively refined based on feedback from an expert group composed of eight staff from SPD, infection control, performance improvement, quality and safety, and perioperative services. Performance sampling conducted focused on specific challenges observed, interruptions during case cart preparation, and analysis of tray defect data from administrative databases. Across five main sterilization tasks (prepare load, perform double-checks, run sterilizers, place trays in cooling, and test the biological indicator), variance analysis identified 16 failures created by 21 performance shaping factors (PSFs), leading to nine different outcome variations. Case cart preparation involved three main tasks: storing trays, picking cases, and prioritizing trays. Variance analysis for case cart preparation identified 11 different failures, 16 different PSFs, and seven different outcomes. Approximately 1% of cases had a tray with a sterilization or case cart preparation defect and 13.5 interruptions per hour were noted during case cart preparation. While highly dependent upon the individual skills of the sterile processing technicians, making the sterilization process less complex and more visible, managing interruptions during case cart preparation, improving communication with the OR, and improving workspace and technology design could enhance performance in instrument reprocessing.

Instrument Set Decontamination Workflows Designed for Success in Sterile Processing

In sterile processing, several factors can result in confusion and unpredictable quality outcomes in surgical instrument sets, including the large number of instruments to manage, the complexity of certain instruments, and the multiple instructions for cleaning solutions and cleaning equipment for use. At a multihospital health system, the director of sterile processing had a vision that involved designing standard decontamination workflows and standardized cleaning pathways based on quality concepts to support patient safety. When there was a pause in elective surgeries in the spring of 2020 as a result of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019, sterile processing personnel became available to participate in a project to create and test these new standardized cleaning pathways and decontamination workflows. This article provides an overview of the inception and execution of this project and how instrument cleaning and decontamination was streamlined to promote a more efficient workflow for sterile processing.

A Central Sterile Processing and Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control Collaboration to Ensure Safe Patient Care

Cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization (CDS) practices and protocols are the cornerstone of infection control and patient safety. Central sterile processing (CSP) leaders are responsible for updating policies and procedures for sterile processing and ensuring CSP staff members process instruments correctly. Monitoring staff member practices can be a demanding and difficult task, but it is critical for safe patient outcomes. The CSP and perioperative leaders at our facility found that regular consultation and collaboration with the Department of Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control (HEIC) is an effective way to ensure that patient safety is at the forefront of CDS practices. These leaders established an oversight committee to address a variety of infection prevention concerns, including environment of care rounds, implementation of manufacturers' instructions for use, and CDS standardization. This article highlights how CSP and HEIC leaders and staff members partnered to implement and sustain CDS best practices and protocols.

Clean and Confident: Impact of Sterile Instrument Processing Workshops on Knowledge and Confidence in Five Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Background: Proper sterilization of surgical instruments is essential for safe surgery, yet re-processing methods in low-resource settings can fall short of standards. Training of Trainers (TOT) workshops in Ethiopia and El Salvador instructed participants in sterile processing concepts and prepared participants to teach others. This study examines participants' knowledge and confidence post-TOT workshop, and moreover discusses subsequent non-TOT workshops and observed sterile processing practices. Methods: Five TOT workshops were conducted between 2018 and 2020 in Ethiopia and Central America. Participant trainers then led nine non-TOT workshops in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Interactive sessions covered instrument cleaning, packaging, disinfection, sterilization, and transportation. Participants completed pre- and post-tests, demonstrated skill competencies, and shared feedback. Peri-operative sterile processing metrics were also observed in Ethiopian hospitals pre- and post-workshops. Results: Ninety-five trainees participated in TOT workshops, whereas 169 participated in non-TOT workshops. Knowledge on a 10-point scale increased substantially after all training sessions (+2.3 ± 2.8, +2.9 ± 1.7, and 2.7 ± 2.5 after Ethiopian, Central American, and non-TOT workshops, respectively; all p < 0.05). Scores on tests of sterile processing theory also increased (Ethiopian TOT, +68% ± 92%; Central American TOT, +26% ± 20%; p < 0.01). Most respondents felt "very confident" about teaching (Ethiopian TOT, 72%; Central American TOT, 83%; non-TOT, 70%), whereas fewer participants felt "very confident" enacting change (Ethiopian TOT, 36%; Central American TOT, 58%; non-TOT, 38%). Reasons included resource scarcity and inadequate support. Nonetheless, observed instrument compliance improved after Ethiopian TOT workshops (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.78; p < 0.01). Conclusions: Sterile processing workshops can improve knowledge, confidence, and sterility compliance in selected low- and middle-income countries. Training of Trainers models empower participants to adapt programs locally, enhancing sterile processing knowledge in different communities. However, national guidelines, physical and administrative resources, and long-term follow-up must improve to ensure effective sterile processing.