改进手术室的废物分类,降低间接成本。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Quality Management in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-02 DOI:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000416
Daniel Plezia, Valerie K Sabol, Christoffer Nelson, Virginia C Simmons
{"title":"改进手术室的废物分类,降低间接成本。","authors":"Daniel Plezia, Valerie K Sabol, Christoffer Nelson, Virginia C Simmons","doi":"10.1097/QMH.0000000000000416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Operating rooms (ORs) disproportionally contribute 20% to 33% of hospital waste nationwide and therefore have a major impact on hospital waste management. Seventy percent of general OR waste is incorrectly eliminated as clinical waste, which compounds unnecessary financial burden and produces negative environmental impact. The primary purpose of this quality improvement (QI) project was to evaluate the effectiveness of waste segregation education for OR anesthesia staff on improving waste segregation compliance in the OR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A waste segregation QI project was implemented at a 19-OR hospital. Sharps bins in each OR were monitored for weight in pounds and 6 ORs were monitored for percent compliance both pre- and post-institution of a waste segregation education. In addition, a waste segregation knowledge assessment, waste segregation barriers assessment, and a demographic survey were administered to anesthesia staff. Twenty-two certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), 13 anesthesiologists, and 4 anesthesia technicians responded to the initial surveys and assessments while 30 of these original 39 participants (77%) responded following the educational intervention. A cost analysis was calculated pre- and post-implementation by multiplying total weight of the sharps bins by the price per pound of sharps.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three percent of participants reported having formal waste segregation training. Survey responses revealed that the greatest barrier to waste segregation involved bin location (56.4%), followed by lack of time to segregate (25.6%), lack of knowledge of what content goes in the bin (25.6%), and lack of incentive (25.6%). A waste segregation knowledge assessment showed improvement from pre- ( M = 9.18, SD = 1.66) to post-implementation ( M = 9.90, SD = 1.64). Pre-implementation sharps bin compliance was 50.70% while post-implementation bin compliance improved to 58.44%. A 27.64% decrease in sharps disposal cost occurred following implementation, which is estimated to produce a $2964 cost savings per year.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Waste segregation education for anesthesia staff increased their waste management knowledge, improved sharps waste bin compliance, and produced an overall cost savings.</p>","PeriodicalId":20986,"journal":{"name":"Quality Management in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"44-51"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving Waste Segregation in the Operating Room to Decrease Overhead Cost.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Plezia, Valerie K Sabol, Christoffer Nelson, Virginia C Simmons\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/QMH.0000000000000416\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Operating rooms (ORs) disproportionally contribute 20% to 33% of hospital waste nationwide and therefore have a major impact on hospital waste management. Seventy percent of general OR waste is incorrectly eliminated as clinical waste, which compounds unnecessary financial burden and produces negative environmental impact. The primary purpose of this quality improvement (QI) project was to evaluate the effectiveness of waste segregation education for OR anesthesia staff on improving waste segregation compliance in the OR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A waste segregation QI project was implemented at a 19-OR hospital. Sharps bins in each OR were monitored for weight in pounds and 6 ORs were monitored for percent compliance both pre- and post-institution of a waste segregation education. In addition, a waste segregation knowledge assessment, waste segregation barriers assessment, and a demographic survey were administered to anesthesia staff. Twenty-two certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), 13 anesthesiologists, and 4 anesthesia technicians responded to the initial surveys and assessments while 30 of these original 39 participants (77%) responded following the educational intervention. A cost analysis was calculated pre- and post-implementation by multiplying total weight of the sharps bins by the price per pound of sharps.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three percent of participants reported having formal waste segregation training. Survey responses revealed that the greatest barrier to waste segregation involved bin location (56.4%), followed by lack of time to segregate (25.6%), lack of knowledge of what content goes in the bin (25.6%), and lack of incentive (25.6%). A waste segregation knowledge assessment showed improvement from pre- ( M = 9.18, SD = 1.66) to post-implementation ( M = 9.90, SD = 1.64). Pre-implementation sharps bin compliance was 50.70% while post-implementation bin compliance improved to 58.44%. A 27.64% decrease in sharps disposal cost occurred following implementation, which is estimated to produce a $2964 cost savings per year.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Waste segregation education for anesthesia staff increased their waste management knowledge, improved sharps waste bin compliance, and produced an overall cost savings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality Management in Health Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"44-51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality Management in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0000000000000416\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality Management in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0000000000000416","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目标:在全国范围内,手术室(OR)产生的废物占医院废物总量的 20% 至 33%,因此对医院废物管理产生了重大影响。70% 的普通手术室废物被错误地作为临床废物处理,这加重了不必要的经济负担,并对环境造成了负面影响。本质量改进(QI)项目的主要目的是评估对手术室麻醉人员进行废物分类教育对提高手术室废物分类合规性的效果:方法:一家拥有 19 个手术室的医院实施了一项废物分类 QI 项目。在开展废物分类教育前后,对每个手术室利器箱的重量(磅)进行了监测,并对 6 个手术室的达标率进行了监测。此外,还对麻醉人员进行了废物隔离知识评估、废物隔离障碍评估和人口调查。22 名注册麻醉师 (CRNA)、13 名麻醉师和 4 名麻醉技师对最初的调查和评估做出了回应,而在最初的 39 名参与者中,有 30 人(77%)在教育干预后做出了回应。通过将利器收集箱的总重量乘以每磅利器的价格,计算了实施前后的成本分析:23%的参与者表示接受过正规的废物分类培训。调查结果显示,垃圾分类的最大障碍是垃圾桶的位置(56.4%),其次是没有时间进行分类(25.6%)、不知道垃圾桶里装的是什么(25.6%)和缺乏激励(25.6%)。废物分类知识评估显示,从实施前(M = 9.18,SD = 1.66)到实施后(M = 9.90,SD = 1.64),情况有所改善。实施前,利器收集箱的合规率为 50.70%,而实施后,利器收集箱的合规率提高到 58.44%。实施后,利器处理成本降低了 27.64%,估计每年可节约成本 2964 美元:结论:对麻醉科员工进行废物隔离教育可增加他们的废物管理知识,提高利器废物箱的合规性,并节省总体成本。
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
Improving Waste Segregation in the Operating Room to Decrease Overhead Cost.

Background and objectives: Operating rooms (ORs) disproportionally contribute 20% to 33% of hospital waste nationwide and therefore have a major impact on hospital waste management. Seventy percent of general OR waste is incorrectly eliminated as clinical waste, which compounds unnecessary financial burden and produces negative environmental impact. The primary purpose of this quality improvement (QI) project was to evaluate the effectiveness of waste segregation education for OR anesthesia staff on improving waste segregation compliance in the OR.

Methods: A waste segregation QI project was implemented at a 19-OR hospital. Sharps bins in each OR were monitored for weight in pounds and 6 ORs were monitored for percent compliance both pre- and post-institution of a waste segregation education. In addition, a waste segregation knowledge assessment, waste segregation barriers assessment, and a demographic survey were administered to anesthesia staff. Twenty-two certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), 13 anesthesiologists, and 4 anesthesia technicians responded to the initial surveys and assessments while 30 of these original 39 participants (77%) responded following the educational intervention. A cost analysis was calculated pre- and post-implementation by multiplying total weight of the sharps bins by the price per pound of sharps.

Results: Twenty-three percent of participants reported having formal waste segregation training. Survey responses revealed that the greatest barrier to waste segregation involved bin location (56.4%), followed by lack of time to segregate (25.6%), lack of knowledge of what content goes in the bin (25.6%), and lack of incentive (25.6%). A waste segregation knowledge assessment showed improvement from pre- ( M = 9.18, SD = 1.66) to post-implementation ( M = 9.90, SD = 1.64). Pre-implementation sharps bin compliance was 50.70% while post-implementation bin compliance improved to 58.44%. A 27.64% decrease in sharps disposal cost occurred following implementation, which is estimated to produce a $2964 cost savings per year.

Conclusions: Waste segregation education for anesthesia staff increased their waste management knowledge, improved sharps waste bin compliance, and produced an overall cost savings.

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
Quality Management in Health Care
Quality Management in Health Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
108
期刊介绍: Quality Management in Health Care (QMHC) is a peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for our readers to explore the theoretical, technical, and strategic elements of health care quality management. The journal''s primary focus is on organizational structure and processes as these affect the quality of care and patient outcomes. In particular, it: -Builds knowledge about the application of statistical tools, control charts, benchmarking, and other devices used in the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of care and of patient outcomes; -Encourages research in and evaluation of the results of various organizational strategies designed to bring about quantifiable improvements in patient outcomes; -Fosters the application of quality management science to patient care processes and clinical decision-making; -Fosters cooperation and communication among health care providers, payers and regulators in their efforts to improve the quality of patient outcomes; -Explores links among the various clinical, technical, administrative, and managerial disciplines involved in patient care, as well as the role and responsibilities of organizational governance in ongoing quality management.
期刊最新文献
Categorizing Care Delays and Their Impact on Hospital Length of Stay. Experimental Study on Video Discharge Instructions for Pediatric Fever in an Emergency Department. Assessment of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program for Enhancing Clinical Knowledge in Neonatal Care Settings With High Antimicrobial Resistance. Changes in Clinical Competence of Novice Physical Therapists During Their First Year of Employment: A Single Center Retrospective Observational Study in Japan. Integrating DMAIC Philosophy and Bow-Tie Model for Quantitative Risk Assessment in Health Care.
×
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