Assessing the environmental, human health, and economic impacts of reprocessed medical devices in a Phoenix hospital's supply chain

Abstract Given increasing healthcare costs and decreasing insurance reimbursements, healthcare administrators are now assessing innovative opportunities for optimizing their medical device supply chains. Reprocessed medical devices are receiving increased attention because of their twofold reduction to costs associated with reductions to purchase cost of devices and reductions to regulated medical waste (RMW) costs. From an environmental standpoint, an increasing number of studies are assessing the environmental impacts of medical devices and the processes by which they are utilized. These studies report significant environmental impacts with respect to how medical devices are manufactured, used, and disposed. In turn, these studies also discuss the potential human health impacts with respect to medical devices and their associated lifecycles. Despite a wide variety of devices suitable for reprocessing, to date there have been no studies that evaluate the potential economic and environmental benefits of a reprocessed device. Additionally, there have been no hospital-wide environmental and/or economic assessments of reprocessed devices. The aim of this study was to fill these knowledge gaps by using life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) to model the environmental and economic impacts of medical device supply chains when varying levels of reprocessed devices are used at Phoenix Baptist Hospital (PBH) in Phoenix, Arizona. The LCA included all cradle-to-grave processes for the seven medical devices. Results of the study showed that if inputs (i.e., ethylene oxide, water, electricity) were optimized, the use of reprocessed devices offers global warming, human health, and economic benefits over the same devices used as disposables. On the other hand, the excessive use of inputs correlated with reprocessed devices having greater overall environmental and human health impacts than disposable medical devices. Additionally, whether used as a SUD (single-use devices) or a reprocessed device, the use of DVT (deep vein thrombosis) compression sleeves corresponded with the highest environmental impacts when devices were compared one-toone. The DVT compression sleeves were comprised of mostly woven cotton; which is a material associated with significant environmental and human health impacts, resulting from its large quantities of lifecycle inputs. This study recommends that the significant proportion of woven cotton in DVT compression sleeves be reduced for a material with less of an overall environmental footprint.

[1]  V. Greene,et al.  Reuse of Disposable Medical Devices: Historical and Current Aspects , 1986, Infection Control.

[2]  Julie Polisena,et al.  Reuse of single use medical devices in Canada: Clinical and economic outcomes, legal and ethical issues, and current hospital practice , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[3]  M. Scherrer,et al.  Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2005, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[4]  Melissa M. Bilec,et al.  Sustainable healthcare and environmental life-cycle impacts of disposable supplies: A focus on disposable custom packs , 2015 .

[5]  Håkan Stripple,et al.  Development and environmental improvements of plastics for hydrophilic catheters in medical care: an environmental evaluation , 2008 .

[6]  Jeroen B. Guinee,et al.  Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards , 2002 .

[7]  Philip Jacobs,et al.  Economic Analysis of Reprocessing Single-Use Medical Devices: A Systematic Literature Review , 2008, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[8]  Jane C. Bare,et al.  TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0 , 2011 .

[9]  G. Norris,et al.  TRACI the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts , 2002 .

[10]  Vanessa Lamers,et al.  Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Anesthetic Drugs , 2012, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[11]  F. Dominici,et al.  Fine particulate air pollution and hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. , 2006, JAMA.

[12]  Lawrence H. Brown,et al.  Estimating the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Australian ambulance services , 2012 .

[13]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Comparative life cycle assessments of incineration and non-incineration treatments for medical waste , 2009 .

[14]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment , 2008 .

[15]  M S Favero,et al.  Requiem for Reuse of Single-Use Devices in US Hospitals , 2001, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[16]  H. Wenzel,et al.  Life cycle assessment of alternative bedpans: a case of comparing disposable and reusable devices , 2014 .

[17]  R. Burnett,et al.  Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. , 2002, JAMA.