Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40197063›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2025

Utilising tracking technology to reduce the financial and patient care impact of lost ear, nose and throat equipment.

J Bass, M Patel, K Kapoor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

J BassSurrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, UK.
M PatelSurrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, UK.
K KapoorSurrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe effective treatment of a patient in a timely manner requires specialist equipment, including in ear, nose and throat (ENT) services, where orifices require careful inspection. Otoscopy, flexible nasendoscopy, peritonsillar abscess drainage and nasal cautery are all common practices and cannot be successfully completed without the necessary equipment. These tasks all require expensive equipment that can easily be misplaced in a busy hospital. A paucity of equipment can delay patient assessment and negatively impact treatment, as well as reduce clinician efficiency and effectiveness. Here, we investigate the impact of equipment loss, and discuss a cost-effective solution to the problem.

methodsWe surveyed ENT departments from 15 different trusts on how equipment loss impacted their patients, staff and their department financially. We also calculated the cost of equipment lost in our department over the course of a year. We subsequently placed trackers on our equipment and calculated the cost of lost equipment after 12 months.

resultsOf the 15 trusts surveyed, 13 responded. Our survey demonstrated the average cost of lost items to be more than £4,900 per department, with concurrent delays in treatment and a reduction in patient-facing time. No equipment was lost after the trackers were placed.

conclusionsThe use of commercially available tracking technology can help reduce the amount of time taken to locate equipment, prevent incurring higher costs and, most importantly, improve patient safety, with an estimated return on investment of more than 3000% and an increase in direct clinical care simultaneously.

Indexed as

Equipment FailureOtolaryngologyCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansUnited KingdomCostsEfficiencyEquipmentLostTracking

Identifiers

PMID40197063
PMCPMC12578587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.