The decision to choose reusable versus Single Use Instruments in UK can be difficult for physicians and supply chain professionals because each device has advantages and disadvantages. For instance, reusable endoscopes have a proven track record of providing excellent images and cutting-edge functionality with integrated technology. When thoroughly sanitized, they are also safe for use on patients. Disposable instruments are in high demand because they are less expensive to maintain, clean, sterilize, and store. However, clinicians frequently point out that they do not give the same image quality and functionality as their reusable counterparts.
Pros and cons of Single Use Instruments in UK
Table of Contents
Here are some things to think about when comparing Single Use Instruments in UK vs reusable endoscopes for clinicians and supply chain leaders:
1. Clinical Effects
Reusable instruments may be preferable for complex diagnostic and therapeutic operations because of their maneuverability, superior picture quality, durability, handling, suction power, and simplicity of medical record integration. Reusable instruments are also frequently chosen because they have suitable insertion channel diameters for tools and instruments to pass through more easily.
Naturally, single use instruments in UK have the advantage when it comes to decreasing infection because they are always sterile, minimizing the chance of cross-contamination or infection in patients and personnel. As a result, some producers of reusable instruments have created new parts for the tools, such as disposable end caps that may be taken off the duodenoscope to avoid the need for reprocessing and ultimately lower the risk of disease transmission.
Single-use instruments are more efficient when used with anesthesia and when performing routine diagnostic procedures since they can be stored locally at the point of use, giving prompt access during emergencies. Additionally, because single-use instruments are portable and simple to use, the endoscopic staff is not required to relocate and set up the tower cart, making it possible to enter the body through difficult openings. However, reusable endoscopes provide better picture quality, mobility, ease of tool insertion, and ease of reach for the suction button than single-use instruments, according to physician preference surveys.
2. Effect on the Environment
Both reusable and single-use endoscopes should take into account environmental considerations. Personal protection equipment (PPE), solvents, and detergents are necessary for substantial quantities for the cleaning and reprocessing of reusable instruments. The materials needed to clean and disinfect reusable instruments have been demonstrated in studies to have comparable or higher material and energy consumption, as well as higher emissions of CO2 equivalents and values of resource consumption, than employing one set of protective wear in each operation.
Since single-use instruments are made of plastics that are difficult to recycle, finding workable recycling methods is challenging. However, to lessen their environmental impact and, in some circumstances, turn the trash into energy, medical device companies that make single use instruments in UK are looking for chances to collaborate with waste management firms According to research, the CO2 equivalent and embodied energy of disposable instruments are around half that of reusable ones after a single use. When utilization over an endoscope’s lifetime is taken into account, the tendency is reversed because disposable instruments produce more CO2 each year than reusable ones do.
3. Economic Impact
Reusable instruments need to be thoroughly cleaned and reprocessed, which can raise hospital costs. Hospitals must also take into account the expense of reusable endoscope maintenance and repair.
When taking into account overall operative costs, repair charges for reusable scopes may eventually exceed the cost of the equipment itself. Due to human mistakes during procedures, such as losing the endoscope, or wear and tear over time, reusable instruments may need to be repaired more than once throughout the year, resulting in additional downtime. Additionally, more hospital workers must be present in the operating room to prepare the endoscopic tower and the instruments used during procedures.
Depending on the volume of procedures, single use instruments in UK are usually more affordable than reusable ones because they don’t need to be cleaned after each use, have no ongoing maintenance costs, and don’t require any downtime for maintenance. This was done by establishing a new category and new HCPCS C-codes. When examining their capital budgets and purchases and assessing the economic benefits and efficiency, hospitals should take this reimbursement into account.
4. Operational Effects
Value analysis is crucial to the acceptance of any product. Therefore, hospitals must consider the following when deciding between buying single use instruments in UK and reusable endoscopes:
- A clinical project advocate, such as a nurse or doctor, a value analysis specialist, and/or a sustainability leader should all be identified as important sourcing stakeholders.
- The department and end users who will be affected, etc.
- Establish a schedule for product testing and personnel education.
Clinicians and their supply chain partners should balance the clinical, environmental, financial, and operational impacts of single-use instruments with those provided during the lifespan of reusable instruments when making decisions because single-use instruments are still relatively new on the market.