Dylan Isaacson1, Tessnim Ahmad1, Ian Metzler2, David T Tzou2, Kazumi Taguchi2,3, Manint Usawachintachit4, Samuel Zetumer1, Benjamin Sherer2, Marshall Stoller2, Thomas Chi2. 1. 1 School of Medicine, University of California , San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. 2 Department of Urology, University of California , San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. 3 Department of Nephro-Urology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences , Nagoya, Japan . 4. 4 Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University , Bangkok, Thailand .
Abstract
PURPOSE: Careful decontamination and sterilization of reusable flexible ureteroscopes used in ureterorenoscopy cases prevent the spread of infectious pathogens to patients and technicians. However, inefficient reprocessing and unavailability of ureteroscopes sent out for repair can contribute to expensive operating room (OR) delays. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) was applied to describe the time and costs involved in reprocessing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Direct observation and timing were performed for all steps in reprocessing of reusable flexible ureteroscopes following operative procedures. Estimated times needed for each step by which damaged ureteroscopes identified during reprocessing are sent for repair were characterized through interviews with purchasing analyst staff. Process maps were created for reprocessing and repair detailing individual step times and their variances. Cost data for labor and disposables used were applied to calculate per minute and average step costs. RESULTS: Ten ureteroscopes were followed through reprocessing. Process mapping for ureteroscope reprocessing averaged 229.0 ± 74.4 minutes, whereas sending a ureteroscope for repair required an estimated 143 minutes per repair. Most steps demonstrated low variance between timed observations. Ureteroscope drying was the longest and highest variance step at 126.5 ± 55.7 minutes and was highly dependent on manual air flushing through the ureteroscope working channel and ureteroscope positioning in the drying cabinet. Total costs for reprocessing totaled $96.13 per episode, including the cost of labor and disposable items. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing TDABC delineates the full spectrum of costs associated with ureteroscope reprocessing and identifies areas for process improvement to drive value-based care. At our institution, ureteroscope drying was one clearly identified target area. Implementing training in ureteroscope drying technique could save up to 2 hours per reprocessing event, potentially preventing expensive OR delays.
PURPOSE: Careful decontamination and sterilization of reusable flexible ureteroscopes used in ureterorenoscopy cases prevent the spread of infectious pathogens to patients and technicians. However, inefficient reprocessing and unavailability of ureteroscopes sent out for repair can contribute to expensive operating room (OR) delays. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) was applied to describe the time and costs involved in reprocessing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Direct observation and timing were performed for all steps in reprocessing of reusable flexible ureteroscopes following operative procedures. Estimated times needed for each step by which damaged ureteroscopes identified during reprocessing are sent for repair were characterized through interviews with purchasing analyst staff. Process maps were created for reprocessing and repair detailing individual step times and their variances. Cost data for labor and disposables used were applied to calculate per minute and average step costs. RESULTS: Ten ureteroscopes were followed through reprocessing. Process mapping for ureteroscope reprocessing averaged 229.0 ± 74.4 minutes, whereas sending a ureteroscope for repair required an estimated 143 minutes per repair. Most steps demonstrated low variance between timed observations. Ureteroscope drying was the longest and highest variance step at 126.5 ± 55.7 minutes and was highly dependent on manual air flushing through the ureteroscope working channel and ureteroscope positioning in the drying cabinet. Total costs for reprocessing totaled $96.13 per episode, including the cost of labor and disposable items. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing TDABC delineates the full spectrum of costs associated with ureteroscope reprocessing and identifies areas for process improvement to drive value-based care. At our institution, ureteroscope drying was one clearly identified target area. Implementing training in ureteroscope drying technique could save up to 2 hours per reprocessing event, potentially preventing expensive OR delays.
Authors: Aaron A Laviana; Annette M Ilg; Darlene Veruttipong; Hung-Jui Tan; Michael A Burke; Douglas R Niedzwiecki; Patrick A Kupelian; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Chandan R Kundavaram; Mitchell Kamrava; Alan L Kaplan; Andrew K Moriarity; William Hsu; Daniel J A Margolis; Jim C Hu; Christopher S Saigal Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Cori L Ofstead; Otis L Heymann; Mariah R Quick; Ellen A Johnson; John E Eiland; Harry P Wetzler Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Sara Maskal; Rajat Jain; Donald Fedrigon; Emily Rose; Manoj Monga; Sri Sivalingam Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Giovanni S Marchini; Fábio C Torricelli; Carlos A Batagello; Manoj Monga; Fábio C Vicentini; Alexandre Danilovic; Miguel Srougi; William C Nahas; Eduardo Mazzucchi Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2019 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Eduardo Mazzucchi; Giovanni Scala Marchini; Fernanda Christina Gabrigna Berto; John Denstedt; Alexandre Danilovic; Fabio Carvalho Vicentini; Fabio Cesar Miranda Torricelli; Carlos Alfredo Battagello; Miguel Srougi; William Carlos Nahas Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2022 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.050