Recycling medical equipment could save hospitals millions and reduce
waste
21 April 2010
A study by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the
US has found that wider adoption of the practice of recycling medical
equipment — including laparoscopic ports and durable cutting tools
typically tossed out after a single use — could save hospitals hundreds
of millions of dollars annually and curb trash at medical centres, the
second-largest waste producers in the United States after the food
industry.
The recommendation, published in the March issue of the
Journal Academic Medicine, noted that with proper
sterilization, recalibration and testing, reuse of equipment is
safe.
“No one really thinks of good hospitals as massive waste
producers, but they are,” says lead author Martin Makary, MD, MPH, a
surgeon and associate professor of public health at the Johns
Hopkins University School of Medicine. “There are many things
hospitals can do to decrease waste and save money that they are not
currently doing.”
Hospitals toss out everything from surgical gowns and towels to
laparoscopic ports and expensive ultrasonic cutting tools after a
single use. In operating rooms, some items that are never even used
are thrown away — single-use devices that are taken out of their
packaging must be tossed out because they could have been
contaminated. Selecting such good devices for resterilization and
retesting could decrease the amount of needless waste from
hospitals.
And, the researchers say, hospitals could procure more items
designed to be used safely more than once after being sterilized.
Hospitals, they add, are increasingly attracted to reprocessing
because recycled devices can cost half as much as new equipment.
Only about a quarter of hospitals in the United States used at least
one type of reprocessed medical device in 2002, and while the number
is growing, the practice is not yet widespread, they say. Banner
Health in Phoenix, they write, saved nearly US$1.5 million in 12
months from reprocessing operating room supplies such as compression
sleeves, open but unused devices, pulse oximeters and more.
Safety concerns with reprocessing include possible malfunction of
devices, the risk of transmitting infections, and the ethical
dilemma that reprocessing presents given the absence of patient
consent to usage of such devices in their treatment. The government
requires all reprocessed equipment to be labelled as such, along
with the name of the reprocessing company. A recent study by the US
Government Accountability Office concluded reprocessed devices do
not present an increased health risk over new devices.
“These devices are safe, but it’s a public relations challenge,”
Makary says. “Some people don’t like the idea that they’re being
treated with equipment that has been used before. But these
reprocessed devices are as good as new since the testing standards
for reuse are impeccable and there have been no patient safety
problems in our analysis.”