On reprocessing - Letters

To the Editor,

I read the recent article concerning reprocessing of SUDs ("Panel delivers mostly one-sided snub of reprocessed SUDs," Healthcare Purchasing News, July 2003, p. 28). The negative comments seemed to be just a bit hypocritical. For instance, "What if the patient you inherited the device from suffered from hepatitis or HIV infection?" OK, assuming that is a fair question, does anyone explain to a patient that the colonoscope being used on them was just used on a patient with AIDS or some other disease? Do we offer patients the opportunity to view and approve the reusable instruments for their surgery so they can feel comfortable that proper cleanliness was attained?

I have read the information that came with our scopes and cannot find anything that indicates that they have some ability to resist disease because they are reusable. I assume it is understood that if the device is properly cleaned and sterilized it is safe to use. You could argue that one-time use instruments are not designed with smooth surfaces since they don't have to resist tissue invasion, but if that is the case, why are some of these instruments reusable in Canada? One more point: Where in the article are the stories of patient injury?

It was interesting to note that the panel discussion was led by a single-use device manufacturer and that opposing opinions (reprocessors) were not invited. How do you debate a subject when the opposition is not allowed to present?

Are reprocessed single-use devices safe? Are single use devices always safe? One argument is that if a device fails once, that is too much. Using that argument, we better shut down our hospitals. I do not believe I can get any manufacturer to give me a one hundred percent guarantee that their device will never fail. On the other hand it is too bad that we have come to the point where money is such a ruling factor. I want to believe that single-use devices were invented to make things better for patients raid that money had nothing to do with it. But, the fact that we still have many reusable devices seems to indicate that this is not the case. If SUDs are the safest alternative, every instrument should be an SUD.

Is reprocessing the best idea? No, it is not the BEST idea. It is simply an idea that must be explored in today's economy. Single use devices are extremely expensive, reimbursements are being reduced every day and more and more patients are without proper (or any) healthcare insurance. A healthy balance must be found. Reprocessing is just one more of the "checks and balances" that pop up in business and give others a gentle kick to remind them that they have to stay tuned to what is going on with their customers.

Hospitals need to (must) reduce costs and if the manufacturers are not willing to help, then other means will always be explored. I realize that I am a materials manager and those reading may think nay kind have no care outside the bottom line. I meet monthly with materials managers from seven hospitals and I can tell you that is not the case. The old days of just buying whatever was cheapest whether from Wal-Mart or J&J are long gone. Like everyone else, we have had to update. We work closely with the medical staff and try hard to balance their needs against fiscal responsibility. We all work in community hospitals and our families are taken care of at these facilities. The pursuit of profit has long been replaced by the pursuit of a minute operating margin or just breaking even. It is a team effort and the non-medical staffs are as much a part of it as all the doctors and nurses.

Peter Briggs,

CMRP Director, materials management

Maine Coast Memorial Hospital

Ellsworth, ME

COPYRIGHT 2003 Healthcare Purchasing News
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group