Armadans Gil Lluís, Fernández Cano María Isabel, Albero Andrés Inmaculada, Anglés Mellado María Luisa, Sánchez García José María, Campins Martí Magda, Vaqué Rafart Josep
Servei de Medicina Preventiva, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Gac Sanit. 2006 Sep-Oct;20(5):374-81. doi: 10.1157/13093206.
To assess the efficiency of the replacement of several medical devices by engineered sharp injury (SI) prevention devices (ESIPDs).
The cost-effectiveness ratios of the replacement of medical devices in use by ESIPDs were estimated: their purchasing costs and the direct costs of sharp injury care were taken into account; the number of SI avoidable by each ESIPD was estimated from the 252 occupational SI notified by healthcare workers at a 1,300 bed hospital from March 2002 to February 2003. The relationship between ESIPD additional costs and the number of high-risk SI was estimated (SI were classified as high-risk if they met two or more of the following criteria: moderately-deep or deep injury, injury with a device previously inserted in an artery or vein, or with a device exposed to blood).
ESIPDs order according to cost-effectiveness ratio: safety needle for implanted ports (-2.65 euro/SI avoided), followed by syringes with protective shield (869.79 euro/SI), resheathable winged steel needles, needleless administration sets, and short catheters with protective encasement. ESIPDs order according to relationship between additional costs and number of high-risk sharp injuries avoided: safety needles for implanted ports, followed by winged steel needles, hypodermic syringes, short catheter and needleless administration sets.
Savings in SI care outweigh additional costs of certain ESIPDs. Cost-effectiveness analysis is useful in assigning priorities; however the risks of SI by every device must be taken into account.
