Análisis coste-efectividad de dispositivos sanitarios diseñados para prevenir exposiciones percutáneas

Gil, Lluı́s; Fernández-Cano, María Isabel; Andrés, Inmaculada Albero; Mellado, María Luisa Anglés; García, José María Sánchez; Martí, Magda Campins; Rafarta, Josep Vaqué

doi:10.1157/13093206

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous estimates of the costeffectiveness of SEDs from the USA have ranged from USD789 to USD2 571, and in Europe it has been calculated that savings would range from EUR2.65 to EUR869.79 per NSI averted. [26][27][28][29] Our estimates, although not directly comparable, fall within the ranges estimated in the European study, but are lower than those from the USA.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…All the previous studies were conducted in single centres in high-income countries, with limited costing perspectives and no utilisation of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis and expressed effectiveness as cost per NSI averted, thus limiting the comparability of previous findings with ours. [26][27][28][29] Nevertheless, we estimate that the cost per NSI averted would be USD38.18, USD599.84 and USD564.67 for training alone, SEDs alone or a combination strategy, respectively. Previous estimates of the costeffectiveness of SEDs from the USA have ranged from USD789 to USD2 571, and in Europe it has been calculated that savings would range from EUR2.65 to EUR869.79 per NSI averted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…In contrast, a fourth review found only low-quality evidence to suggest that SEDs may reduce NSIs, but moderate (statistically non-significant) evidence that they could increase blood splashes by 60% (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.08 -2.36). [24] The few studies that have attempted to assess the cost-effectiveness of SEDs or training in reducing NSIs were either single-centre studies with limited cost perspectives [26][27][28][29] or did not undertake any uncertainty analysis. [27] With these limited cost perspectives, lack of methodological robustness and the fact that these studies were all done in high-income settings with a low HIV prevalence, there is currently insufficient evidence to guide decision-making on the adoption of SEDs and training programmes (TPs) in SA.…”

Section: Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Economic evaluation of safety-engineered devices and training in reducing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers in South Africa

Jager

Zungu

2018

S Afr Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic evaluation of safety-engineered devices and training in reducing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers in South Africa

Jager

Zungu

2018

S Afr Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their study of a 1,300-bed hospital in Spain, Armadans Gil et al [51] found that safety needles for implanted ports were cost-effective, despite not including important costs such as compensation and counselling: the cost effectiveness of SEDs ranged from savings of €2.65 (for implanted ports) to costs of €13,564 (for short catheters) per NSI avoided, in 2003 Euro. Roudot-Thoraval et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic benefits of safety-engineered sharp devices in Belgium - a budget impact model

Hanmore¹,

Maclaine

Garin³

et al. 2013

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMeasures to protect healthcare workers where there is risk of injury or infection from medical sharps became mandatory in the European Union (EU) from May 2013. Our research objective was to estimate the net budget impact of introducing safety-engineered devices (SEDs) for prevention of needlestick injuries (NSIs) in a Belgian hospital.MethodsA 5-year incidence-based budget impact model was developed from the hospital inpatient perspective, comparing costs and outcomes with SEDs and prior-used conventional (non-safety) devices. The model accounts for device acquisition costs and costs of NSI management in 4 areas of application where SEDs are currently used: blood collection, infusion, injection and diabetes insulin administration. Model input data were sourced from the Institut National d’Assurance Maladie-Invalidité, published studies, clinical guidelines and market research. Costs are discounted at 3%.ResultsFor a 420-bed hospital, 100% substitution of conventional devices by SEDs is estimated to decrease the cumulative 5-year incidence of NSIs from 310 to 75, and those associated with exposure to blood-borne viral diseases from 60 to 15. Cost savings from managing fewer NSIs more than offset increased device acquisition costs, yielding estimated 5-year overall savings of €51,710. The direction of these results is robust to a range of sensitivity and model scenario analyses. The model was most sensitive to variation in the acquisition costs of SEDs, rates of NSI associated with conventional devices, and the acquisition costs of conventional devices.ConclusionsNSIs are a significant potential risk with the use of sharp devices. The incidence of NSIs and the costs associated with their management can be reduced through the adoption of safer work practices, including investment in SEDs. For a Belgian hospital, the budget impact model reports that the incremental acquisition costs of SEDs are offset by the savings from fewer NSIs. The availability of more robust data for NSI reduction rates, and broadening the scope of the model to include ancillary measures for hospital conversion to SED usage, outpatient and paramedic device use, and transmission of other blood-borne diseases, would strengthen the model.

show abstract

“…In total, 14 studies from Europe, America, Asia, and Australia published from 1997 to 2013 met all the inclusion criteria. 8 , 17 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 29 – 37 Their characteristics are reported in Tables 1 and 2 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Much do Needlestick Injuries Cost? A Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluations of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries Among Healthcare Personnel

Mannocci

Carli

Bari

et al. 2016

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVETo provide an overview of the economic aspects of needlestick and sharps injury (NSI) management among healthcare personnel (HCP) within a Health Technology Assessment project to evaluate the impact of safety-engineered devices on health careMETHODSA systematic review of economic analyses related to NSIs was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement and by searching PubMed and Scopus databases (January 1997–February 2015). Mean costs were stratified by study approach (modeling or data driven) and type of cost (direct or indirect). Costs were evaluated using the CDC operative definition and converted to 2015 International US dollars (Int$).RESULTSA total of 14 studies were retrieved: 8 data-driven studies and 6 modeling studies. Among them, 11 studies provided direct and indirect costs and 3 studies provided only direct costs. The median of the means for aggregate (direct + indirect) costs was Int$747 (range, Int$199–Int$1,691). The medians of the means for disaggregated costs were Int$425 (range, Int$48–Int$1,516) for direct costs (9 studies) and Int$322 (range, Int$152–Int$413) for indirect costs (6 studies). When compared with data-driven studies, modeling studies had higher disaggregated and aggregated costs, but data-driven studies showed greater variability. Indirect costs were consistent between studies, mostly referring to lost productivity, while direct costs varied widely within and between studies according to source infectivity, HCP susceptibility, and post-exposure diagnostic and prophylactic protocols. Costs of treating infections were not included, and intangible costs could equal those associated with NSI medical evaluations.CONCLUSIONSNSIs generate significant direct, indirect, potential, and intangible costs, possibly increasing over time. Economic efforts directed at preventing occupational exposures and infections, including provision of safety-engineered devices, may be offset by the savings from a lower incidence of NSIs.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:635–646

show abstract

Análisis coste-efectividad de dispositivos sanitarios diseñados para prevenir exposiciones percutáneas

Cited by 8 publications

References 18 publications

Economic evaluation of safety-engineered devices and training in reducing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers in South Africa

Economic evaluation of safety-engineered devices and training in reducing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers in South Africa

Economic benefits of safety-engineered sharp devices in Belgium - a budget impact model

How Much do Needlestick Injuries Cost? A Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluations of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries Among Healthcare Personnel

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About