No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Disposable versus reusable fibre-optic nasendoscopes: a national survey of UK ENT surgical trainees and a single-centre cost-analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2022
Abstract
Background
This study primarily assessed ENT surgical trainees’ preferences for the qualities of disposable and reusable fibre-optic nasendoscopes. Secondary aims included eliciting trainees’ views on ENT surgery and climate change, and creating a single-centre per-use cost analysis for disposable and reusable fibre-optic nasendoscopes.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was formulated. An online survey consisting of multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions was distributed nationally. Cost analysis was performed using 2021–2022 data from the host institution.
Results
Twenty-four trainees responded. Data on disposable fibre-optic nasendoscopes showed no difference in overall satisfaction (p = 0.244). Reusable fibre-optic nasendoscopes had a lower cost per use compared with disposable nasendoscopes at 5 years (4.7 per cent reduction) and 10 years (7.1 per cent reduction). Of the trainees, 79.2 per cent were supportive of climate-friendly initiatives within ENT surgery, and 25 per cent felt supported by their departments.
Conclusion
Trainees’ satisfaction with disposable and reusable fibre-optic nasendoscopes is similar. Cost analysis favours reusable fibre-optic nasendoscopes in the long term at the host institution. Empowering departments and trainees to pursue climate-friendly initiatives should be encouraged.
- Type
- Main Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED
Footnotes
*
These authors are joint first authors.
Dr L Jegatheeswaran takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper
References
StatPearls. Flexible nasopharyngoscopy. In: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539740/ [29 June 2022]Google Scholar
Motz, KM, Hillel, AT. Office-based management of recurrent respiratory papilloma. Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep 2016;4:90–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loizidou, A, Tatla, TS, Harvey, I, Aibibula, M, Roe, J, Sethi, N et al. COVID-VU - ENT-UK national survey of flexible nasendoscopy in the upper aerodigestive tract amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Health Serv Res 2022;22:625CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organisation. What has COP26 achieved for health? In: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/what-has-cop26-achieved-for-health [1 July 2022]Google Scholar
NHS England. Reducing the environmental impact of equipment, medicines and resources. In: https://www.england.nhs.uk/ahp/greener-ahp-hub/specific-areas-for-consideration/reducing-the-environmental-impact-of-equipment-medicines-and-resources/ [1 July 2022]Google Scholar
NHS. Health and the environment. In: https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/online-version/appendix/health-and-the-environment/#ref [1 July 2022]Google Scholar
Toh, CH, Haynes, R. The Health and Care Act 2022: challenges and priorities for embedding research in the NHS. Lancet 2022;400:343–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NHS. Delivering a net zero NHS. In: https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/a-net-zero-nhs/ [5 July 2022]Google Scholar
Walczak, R, Arnold, M, Grewal, J, Yuan, X, Suryadevara, A, Marzouk, H. Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: cost analysis and resident survey. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2021;6:88–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Attema, AE, Brouwer, WBF, Claxton, K. Discounting in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 2018;36:745–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torgerson, DJ, Raftery, J. Economic notes. Discounting. BMJ 1999;319:914–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Elm, E, Altman, DG, Egger, M, Pocock, SJ, Gøtzsche, PC, Vandenbroucke, JP et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007;335:806–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NHS England. Decontamination and sterile services. In: https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/healthcare-science/roles-healthcare-science/physical-sciences-and-biomedical-engineering/decontamination-and-sterile-services [1 July 2022]Google Scholar
NHS Employers. Pay scale material for 2022/23. In: https://www.nhsemployers.org/articles/pay-scale-material-202223 [1 July 2022]Google Scholar
ENT, UK. ENT training. In: https://www.entuk.org/about/groups/SFO/ent_training.aspx [2 July 2022]Google Scholar
Carr, MM. Improving the otolaryngology consultation service in a teaching hospital. Laryngoscope 2001;111:1166–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Health Estate Journal. Cutting the cost of NHS procurement. Health Estate 2013;67:27–32Google Scholar
Grennan, M. Bargaining ability and competitive advantage: empirical evidence from medical devices. Manage Sci 2014;60:3011–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennestrì, F, Lippi, G, Banfi, G. Pay less and spend more-the real value in healthcare procurement. Ann Transl Med 2019;7:688CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The King's Fund. Sustainable services: Future trends. In: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/time-think-differently/trends-sustainable-services#:~:text=The%20NHS%20in%20England%20is,set%20to%20increase%20over%20time [5 July 2022]Google Scholar
Tennison, I, Roschnik, S, Ashby, B, Boyd, R, Hamilton, I, Oreszczyn, T et al. Health care's response to climate change: a carbon footprint assessment of the NHS in England. Lancet Planet Health 2021;5:e84–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sørensen, BL, Grüttner, H. Comparative study on environmental impacts of reusable and single-use bronchoscopes. Am J Environ Protec 2018;7:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurice, JB, Siau, K, Sebastian, S, Ahuja, N, Wesley, E, Stableforth, W et al. Green endoscopy: a call for sustainability in the midst of COVID-19. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;5:636–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Environmental Impact. Ambu. In: https://www.ambu.co.uk/endoscopy/pulmonology/environmental-impact [5 July 2022]Google Scholar
Van der Werff, E, Steg, L, Keizer, K. I am what i am, by looking past the present: the influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environment Behav 2014;46:626–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reck, BK, Graedel, TE. Challenges in metal recycling. Science 2012;337:690–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tudor, TL, Noonan, CL, Jenkin, LE. Healthcare waste management: a case study from the National Health Service in Cornwall, United Kingdom. Waste Manag 2005;25:606–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, H, Bhutta, MF, Rizan, C. A survey of UK and Irish surgeons' attitudes, behaviours and barriers to change for environmental sustainability. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2021;103:725–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotcher, J, Maibach, E, Miller, J, Campbell, E, Alqodmani, L, Maiero, M et al. Views of health professionals on climate change and health: a multinational survey study. Lancet Planet Health 2021;5:e316–e23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, F, Marczewski, K, Pavlović, D. The relationship between the physician and pharmaceutical industry: background ethics and regulation proposals. Croat Med J 2016;57:398–401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latten, T, Westra, D, Angeli, F, Paulus, A, Struss, M, Ruwaard, D. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers: going beyond the gift – an explorative review. PLoS One 2018;13:e0191856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wazana, A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA 2000;283:373–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fadlallah, R, Nas, H, Naamani, D, El-Jardali, F, Hammoura, I, Al-Khaled, L et al. Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of patients and the general public towards the interactions of physicians with the pharmaceutical and the device industry: a systematic review. PLoS One 2016;11:e0160540CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jegatheeswaran et al. supplementary material
Table S1
File
31.9 KB