Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-dkgms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T14:58:40.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

When Sterile Processing Goes Down: An Economic Analysis of Alternative Strategies for Supporting the Service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2017

Susan E. Mittenzwei
Affiliation:
Departments of Nursing, Surgery, Anesthesia, and Medicine, Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado
Jeannie L. Topkoff
Affiliation:
Departments of Nursing, Surgery, Anesthesia, and Medicine, Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado
Mary T. Bessesen
Affiliation:
Departments of Nursing, Surgery, Anesthesia, and Medicine, Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado Departments of Medicine, Surgery and Anesthesia, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado
Clifford A. Porter
Affiliation:
Departments of Nursing, Surgery, Anesthesia, and Medicine, Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado Departments of Medicine, Surgery and Anesthesia, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado
Gurdev S. Rai
Affiliation:
Departments of Nursing, Surgery, Anesthesia, and Medicine, Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado Departments of Medicine, Surgery and Anesthesia, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado
Westyn Branch-Elliman*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Boston Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, West Roxbury, Massachusetts Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
*
Address correspondence to Westyn Branch-Elliman, MD, MMSc, Boston Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, 1400 VFW Parkway, West Roxbury, MA 02132 (westyn.branch-elliman@va.gov).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Given steam-quality challenges at our facility, the financial impact of options for reopening the sterile processing service unit were explored; duration of closure was the major driver of costs. Other potential negative effects of operating-room shutdowns include injury to facility reputation, loss of staff, loss of reimbursements, and harm to residency programs.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1002–1004

Type
Concise Communications
Copyright
© 2017 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

The mandate of the sterile processing service (SPS) is to supply consistently clean, sterile, or high-level disinfected instruments to ensure surgical and procedural safety.Reference Rutala and Weber 1 Sterile processing is a multistep process that involves transport from the point of care to the sterile processing unit, removal of bioburden, washing and disinfection, appropriate packaging of instruments, and sterilization of instruments.Reference Burlingame 2

Interruptions in care attributable to SPS quality assurance failures are rare. However, we received reports of staining on instruments at our facility on at least 4 different occasions, which resulted in multiple operating-room shutdowns lasting from 1 week to several months. Considering the operating-room closures, a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, engineers, and administrators collaborated to identify substitute options for processing sterile instruments. Here, costs and benefits of alternative strategies for standing up SPS are evaluated.

METHODS

Estimation of Costs

Potential solutions were identified, and mean monthly and annual economic costs were compared. Costs were calculated by summing all direct expenditures and included all 1-time, fixed costs (eg, installation of equipment, construction, purchase of reusable supplies) and recurring costs (eg, utilities, transportation, personnel, routine payments for services rendered).

Manufacturer’s estimates were used to calculate the cost of purchasing or renting mobile sterilization units. Energy expenditures were based upon projected use and local utility costs. Cost of installing permanent utilities and estimated utility costs for mobile trailers were based on estimates from subject-matter experts. The cost of outsourcing services to another facility was estimated based on per-load charges multiplied by the mean daily number of sterilization loads, plus transportation and personnel costs.

Intangible Effects

Intangible costs (both benefits and harms) were explored qualitatively without conversion to a specific dollar amount. Downstream consequences of operating room closures, such as injury to facility reputation, training program disruption, and staff turnover were evaluated.

Data Analysis

All costs are presented in 2016 US dollars and are presented from the hospital perspective over a 5-year horizon. A sensitivity analysis was performed to identify critical decision points. All analyses were completed using Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA).

RESULTS

Study Setting

Estimates are based on a high-complexity Veterans Affairs (VA) facility with ~110 inpatient beds, 5,000 admissions per year, and >4,000 surgical procedures per year. The facility includes 8 operating rooms and 12 surgical specialties, including cardiac, orthopedic, and neurosurgery.

We identified 3 approaches to reopening sterile processing after steam failures. The first option was repairing facility infrastructure. However, because of the diversity of the facility-specific problems that can be encountered and the wide range in cost to fix these problems, cost estimation for this strategy is not presented. The second option was utilization of mobile sterilization trailers either for purchase or lease, with or without with independent equipment, water, and steam sources. The third option was outsourcing sterilization to another facility.

Over the 5-year study period, outsourcing sterilization was the least expensive strategy. Renting a sterilization trailer was the most expensive option after ~2 years (Figure 1; Table 1).

FIGURE 1 Cumulative projected cost comparison of sterilization solutions over time. Legend: Option A, lease trailers (temporary utilities) Option B, purchase trailers (temporary utilities) Option C, purchase trailers (permanent utilities, already in existence) Option D, purchase trailers (permanent utilities, construction needed) Option E, outsourcing

TABLE 1 Cumulative Projected Cost Comparison of Alternative Sterilization Solutions, Using Macro-Cost Estimation.

a Cost estimated assuming use of temporarily utility solutions.

b Cost estimated assuming use of permanent utility solutions.

Intangible Costs

Strategies that involve significant delays may lead to additional costs of sending patients to other facilities for surgical procedures and costs attributable to staff turnover; staff turnover during our operating room shutdowns was high. Low surgical volume and complexity led to additional concerns about the loss of our surgical residency program. Loss of clinical and support staff and surgical residents presents a significant challenge when the operating room reopens, as post-closure staffing may not be sufficient to support usual surgical volume.

Unforeseen consequences of major reductions in surgical admissions were also identified. Reduced postoperative admissions resulted in workload shifted from the surgical service to the medical service. The effect of this shifting workload was a high burden on the medical house staff. The higher workload briefly lead to residency program work-hour violations, which required implementation of an admission limit for the Medicine service. Combined, lack of surgical cases (affecting the surgery training program) and excess admissions (affecting the internal medicine training program) may lead to potential sanctions—or complete loss of—training programs in facilities without functional sterile processing services.

DISCUSSION

Sterile processing is an essential aspect of all healthcare systems; inpatient and surgical programs depend upon sterile instruments to safely provide advanced medical care.Reference Burlingame 2 Reference Chobin and Swanson 4 Over the course of several years, our facility experienced several episodes of SPS quality-assurance challenges resulting from steam quality and infrastructure concerns. These quality gaps led to several interruptions in clinical operations across many disciplines, including surgery, medical subspecialties, and dermatology, among others.Reference Hernandez 5

Sterile processing challenges are not unique to our facility.Reference Hernandez 5 , Reference Blackmore, Bishop, Luker and Williams 6 The New York University Hospital System was forced to identify SPS alternatives following catastrophic damage to facility infrastructure after Hurricane Sandy.Reference Adalja, Watson, Bouri, Minton, Morhard and Toner 7 , Reference Evans 8 In July, 2015, the largest hospital in Texas was forced to shut down surgical operations after SPS quality-assurance concerns similar to those experienced at our facility were identified. Most recently, Detroit Medical Center was found to have SPS quality assurance challenges and may face loss of Medicare and Medicaid funding after an unannounced inspection by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in August 2016.Reference Punke 9 A repeat inspection will determine the termination or continuation of the contract between CMS and the medical center, with potentially dire economic consequences for the facility.Reference Punke 9

We found several key factors that affect the optimal economic strategy for supporting SPS. The following variables should be considered: (1) expected duration of the potential solution, (2) facility capacity for accommodating the solution in terms of logistics, (3) infrastructure (eg, the amount of reuseable medical equipment needed, based on changes in sterilization turnaround time and utilities and physical space to accommodate mobile sterilization units), and (4) any regulatory issues that may create barriers to different strategies.

Feasibility is an additional consideration. Repairing or replacing internal water and steam systems was not an option for our facility, but it may be an economically sound strategy for facilities with fewer infrastructure challenges. Our facility is in an urban setting; thus, outsourcing was an available option. However, rural healthcare systems lacking nearby facilities with necessary infrastructure to support increased SPS demand may not be able to implement this strategy.

Our analysis has several limitations. First, our data are based on a VA facility that has a different economic structure than private healthcare systems. Costs of implementation delays were not quantified or included in cost estimates; however, costs for strategies that can be implemented quickly would be minimally affected by loss of patients and clinical care staff and would also be less likely to be negatively impacted by other intangible costs, such as potential loss of training programs, loss of staff, or loss of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. Thus, strategies most significantly impacted by implementation delays (ie, lease or purchase of a sterilization trailer) are less attractive economically than outsourcing. Finally, our cost estimate of outsourcing sterile processing to another facility is based on the volume of our operating room and hospital; the relative costs may be different at different levels of surgical and sterile processing volume.

In conclusion, the most economically sound option for reopening sterilization operations varies depending on the root cause of the problem and its projected time horizon. Sterile process service shutdowns are associated with substantial downstream negative effects that should be considered when evaluating potential solutions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the entire staff of the Eastern Colorado VA Health Care System for their efforts to restore surgical operations.

Financial support: W.B.E. was supported by a Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN)-1 Career Development Award. No other financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Potential conflicts of interest: All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

REFERENCES

1. Rutala, WA, Weber, DJ, and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. The Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/Disinfection_Nov_2008.pdf. Published 2008. Accessed October 31, 2016.Google Scholar
2. Burlingame, B. Operating room requirements for 2014 and beyond. Facility Guidelines Update Series, Update no. 32014.Google Scholar
3. Chobin, N. The real costs of surgical instrument training in sterile processing revisited. AORN J 2010;92:185193.Google Scholar
4. Chobin, N, Swanson, K. Putting patient safety first: the sterile processing department and healthcare technology management. Biomed Instr Technol 2012:2731.Google Scholar
5. Hernandez, L. Denver VA medical center shuts down surgical unit due to problems with equipment sterilization. The Denver Channel (ABC News) website. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-va-medical-center-shuts-down-surgical-unit-due-to-problems-with-equipment-sterilization. Published 2014. Accessed October 24, 2016.Google Scholar
6. Blackmore, CC, Bishop, R, Luker, S, Williams, BL. Applying lean methods to improve quality and safety in surgical sterile instrument processing. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Safety 2013;39:99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Adalja, AA, Watson, M, Bouri, N, Minton, K, Morhard, RC, Toner, ES. Absorbing citywide patient surge during Hurricane Sandy: a case study in accommodating multiple hospital evacuations. Ann Emerg Med 2014;64:6673, e61.Google Scholar
8. Evans, M. More than a month after Sandy, five hospitals are still scrambling to repair damage and begin admitting patients again. Modern Healthcare website. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20121208/MAGAZINE/312089991. Published 2012. Accessed October 31, 2016.Google Scholar
9. Punke, H. Detroit Medical Center’s Medicare funding at risk over sterilization issues. Becker Hospital Review website. http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/detroit-medical-center-s-medicare-funding-at-risk-over-sterilization-issues.html. Published 2016. Accessed October 24, 2016.Google Scholar
Figure 0

FIGURE 1 Cumulative projected cost comparison of sterilization solutions over time. Legend: Option A, lease trailers (temporary utilities) Option B, purchase trailers (temporary utilities) Option C, purchase trailers (permanent utilities, already in existence) Option D, purchase trailers (permanent utilities, construction needed) Option E, outsourcing

Figure 1

TABLE 1 Cumulative Projected Cost Comparison of Alternative Sterilization Solutions, Using Macro-Cost Estimation.