ArticleJournal of endourology2017
Defining the Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope Reprocessing Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.
Article in Journal of endourology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing outcomes of single-use vs reusable ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta analysis.Urolithiasis · 2024Pooled it
- Urinary Tract Infection Predictors in Patients Undergoing Retrograde IntraRenal Surgery for Renal Stones: Does the Instrument Make the Difference?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Single use flexible ureteroscopes: Current status and future directions.BJUI compass · 2023Review
- Hybrid flexible ureteroscopy strategy in the management of renal stones - a narrative review.Journal of medicine and life · 2022Review
- Cost comparison of single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: A systematic review.Turkish journal of urology · 2020Review
- The cost of operating room delays in an endourology center.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020Article
- Current State of Surgical Lighting.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2020Review
- Economic Considerations in the Management of Nephrolithiasis.Current urology reports · 2020Review
- Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group.Translational andrology and urology · 2019Review
- Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: update and perspective in developing countries. A narrative review.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
- A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
- The cost-effectiveness of reusable flexible ureteroscopes: An institutional audit.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCareful 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
methodsDirect 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.
resultsTen 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.
conclusionsUtilizing 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.