比较可重复使用和一次性鼻咽镜在三级耳鼻喉科的实用性和对组织的影响。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Frontiers in Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2024.1380571
Gunnhildur Gudnadottir, Louise Hafsten, Helena Dahl Travis, Kirsten Nielsen, Johan Hellgren
{"title":"比较可重复使用和一次性鼻咽镜在三级耳鼻喉科的实用性和对组织的影响。","authors":"Gunnhildur Gudnadottir, Louise Hafsten, Helena Dahl Travis, Kirsten Nielsen, Johan Hellgren","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1380571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Flexible rhinolaryngoscopes are an important tool in otolaryngology. In recent years, single-use rhinolaryngoscopes (SURLs), which have been developed as an alternative to reusable scopes (RRLs), offer various advantages including less risk of contamination and elimination of the need for cleaning and reprocessing between procedures. This study aimed to compare procedure efficiency, organizational impact, and economic impact between SURLs and RRLs used for elective procedures conducted outside the otorhinolaryngology department in the hospital environment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized prospective study, either type of endoscope was tested by on-call otolaryngologists over a total of twelve weeks. The organizational impact was investigated using a quantitative research design. All categories of stakeholders responded to specific surveys based on profession; these included doctors (<i>n</i> = 13), those in managerial positions (<i>n</i> = 3), and other healthcare staff including technicians and nurses (<i>n</i> = 11). A micro-costing approach was used to evaluate resource utilization and cost of services. The trial was uploaded to clinicaltrials.gov (ID number: NCT0519821, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05198219?intr=rhinolaryngo&rank=1).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 14 and 12 procedures were performed using the SURLs and RRLs, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the endoscopes in terms of procedure duration, reported image quality, or maneuverability. The SURLs were significantly superior in terms of four organizational impact parameters, namely, modes of cooperation and communication, vigilance and monitoring methods, working conditions and safety, and logistics. The estimated per-procedure cost of the RRLs was SEK 536 (€ 34,68).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The cost and effectiveness of RRLs and SURLs is influenced by the healthcare setting, procedure volume, and duration of device use. The adoption of SURLs can improve safety, streamline processes, and potentially reduce the risk of disease transmission.</p>","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":"11 ","pages":"1380571"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491433/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of utility and organizational impact of reusable and single-use rhinolaryngoscopes in a tertiary otorhinolaryngology department.\",\"authors\":\"Gunnhildur Gudnadottir, Louise Hafsten, Helena Dahl Travis, Kirsten Nielsen, Johan Hellgren\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1380571\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Flexible rhinolaryngoscopes are an important tool in otolaryngology. In recent years, single-use rhinolaryngoscopes (SURLs), which have been developed as an alternative to reusable scopes (RRLs), offer various advantages including less risk of contamination and elimination of the need for cleaning and reprocessing between procedures. This study aimed to compare procedure efficiency, organizational impact, and economic impact between SURLs and RRLs used for elective procedures conducted outside the otorhinolaryngology department in the hospital environment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized prospective study, either type of endoscope was tested by on-call otolaryngologists over a total of twelve weeks. The organizational impact was investigated using a quantitative research design. All categories of stakeholders responded to specific surveys based on profession; these included doctors (<i>n</i> = 13), those in managerial positions (<i>n</i> = 3), and other healthcare staff including technicians and nurses (<i>n</i> = 11). A micro-costing approach was used to evaluate resource utilization and cost of services. The trial was uploaded to clinicaltrials.gov (ID number: NCT0519821, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05198219?intr=rhinolaryngo&rank=1).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 14 and 12 procedures were performed using the SURLs and RRLs, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the endoscopes in terms of procedure duration, reported image quality, or maneuverability. The SURLs were significantly superior in terms of four organizational impact parameters, namely, modes of cooperation and communication, vigilance and monitoring methods, working conditions and safety, and logistics. The estimated per-procedure cost of the RRLs was SEK 536 (€ 34,68).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The cost and effectiveness of RRLs and SURLs is influenced by the healthcare setting, procedure volume, and duration of device use. The adoption of SURLs can improve safety, streamline processes, and potentially reduce the risk of disease transmission.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Surgery\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"1380571\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491433/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1380571\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1380571","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:灵活的鼻咽镜是耳鼻喉科的重要工具。近年来,一次性使用鼻咽喉镜(SURLs)作为可重复使用鼻咽喉镜(RRLs)的替代品被开发出来,它具有各种优点,包括污染风险较低、无需在手术间隙进行清洁和再处理。本研究旨在比较 SURL 和 RRL 在医院环境中用于耳鼻喉科以外的择期手术时的手术效率、组织影响和经济影响:在这项随机前瞻性研究中,值班耳鼻喉科医生对两种内窥镜进行了为期 12 周的测试。采用定量研究设计调查了对组织的影响。所有类别的利益相关者都对基于职业的特定调查做出了回应;其中包括医生(n = 13)、管理职位人员(n = 3)以及包括技术人员和护士在内的其他医护人员(n = 11)。采用微观成本法评估资源利用率和服务成本。该试验已上传至 clinicaltrials.gov(ID 号:NCT0519821,):NCT0519821,https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05198219?intr=rhinolaryngo&rank=1)。结果:总体而言,使用 SURL 和 RRL 分别进行了 14 和 12 例手术。两种内窥镜在手术持续时间、图像质量或可操作性方面没有明显差异。在四个组织影响参数方面,即合作与沟通模式、警戒与监控方法、工作条件与安全以及后勤方面,SURLs 明显优于 RRL。RRL 的每次手术成本估计为 536 瑞典克朗(34.68 欧元):RRL和SURL的成本和有效性受医疗环境、手术量和设备使用时间的影响。采用 SURL 可提高安全性、简化流程并降低疾病传播风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of utility and organizational impact of reusable and single-use rhinolaryngoscopes in a tertiary otorhinolaryngology department.

Background: Flexible rhinolaryngoscopes are an important tool in otolaryngology. In recent years, single-use rhinolaryngoscopes (SURLs), which have been developed as an alternative to reusable scopes (RRLs), offer various advantages including less risk of contamination and elimination of the need for cleaning and reprocessing between procedures. This study aimed to compare procedure efficiency, organizational impact, and economic impact between SURLs and RRLs used for elective procedures conducted outside the otorhinolaryngology department in the hospital environment.

Methods: In this randomized prospective study, either type of endoscope was tested by on-call otolaryngologists over a total of twelve weeks. The organizational impact was investigated using a quantitative research design. All categories of stakeholders responded to specific surveys based on profession; these included doctors (n = 13), those in managerial positions (n = 3), and other healthcare staff including technicians and nurses (n = 11). A micro-costing approach was used to evaluate resource utilization and cost of services. The trial was uploaded to clinicaltrials.gov (ID number: NCT0519821, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05198219?intr=rhinolaryngo&rank=1).

Results: Overall, 14 and 12 procedures were performed using the SURLs and RRLs, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the endoscopes in terms of procedure duration, reported image quality, or maneuverability. The SURLs were significantly superior in terms of four organizational impact parameters, namely, modes of cooperation and communication, vigilance and monitoring methods, working conditions and safety, and logistics. The estimated per-procedure cost of the RRLs was SEK 536 (€ 34,68).

Conclusion: The cost and effectiveness of RRLs and SURLs is influenced by the healthcare setting, procedure volume, and duration of device use. The adoption of SURLs can improve safety, streamline processes, and potentially reduce the risk of disease transmission.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Surgery
Frontiers in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
1872
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles. Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery. Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact. The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.
期刊最新文献
Innovative vaginal manipulator technique vs. traditional method for vaginal fornix deployment in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Open laminectomy vs. minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a review. Unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a meta-analysis unveiling the learning curve and clinical benefits. Compare three deep learning-based artificial intelligence models for classification of calcified lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter diagnostic study. Ureteroinguinal hernia: an added advantage for laparoscopy in the management of inguinal hernia-a case report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1