Single-use versus reusable rhinolaryngoscopes for inpatient otorhinolaryngology consults: Resident and patient experience

被引:0
作者
Bowen, Andrew Jay [1 ]
Macielak, Robert James [2 ]
Fussell, Wanda [2 ]
Yeakel, Sarah [3 ]
Mcmillan, Ryan [2 ]
Goates, Andrew [2 ]
Awadallah, Andrew [2 ]
Ekbom, Dale C. [2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin Madison, Sch Med & Publ Hlth, Dept Surg, Div Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Madison, WI USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Rochester, MN USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Dept Orthoped Surg, Rochester, MN USA
[4] Mayo Clin ENT, Dept Otorhinolaryngol, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN 55902 USA
来源
LARYNGOSCOPE INVESTIGATIVE OTOLARYNGOLOGY | 2024年 / 9卷 / 01期
关键词
endoscopy; nasopharyngoscopy; rhinolaryngoscopy; single-use;
D O I
10.1002/lio2.1203
中图分类号
R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100213 ;
摘要
Objectives: Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes were brought to market in 2019 as an alternative to traditional reusable scopes and have garnered interest across settings given portability and potential cost advantages. While single-use was previously evaluated compared to traditional devices, the overall impact to the consult experience for both users and patients has not been captured.Methods: Eighteen residents performed consults with both single-use and reusable rhinolaryngoscope systems on alternating weeks. A five-question cumulative survey administered across three assessment points over a 12-week period using a five-point rating system to rate favorability. Residents and patients also completed four-point scale surveys following procedure(s) to capture the consult experience. Statistical analyses were performed to measure significance differences between survey responses between the two systems.Results: Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes received higher overall ratings compared with reusables across each metric captured including overall consult time (4.3 vs. 2.2, p < .001), multiscope consults (4.4 vs. 3.1, p < .001), patient communication (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), teaching opportunities (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), and overall ease of use (4.7 vs. 2.6, p < .001). Residents rated single-use higher than reusable after each procedure in terms of ease of use (1.07 vs. 2.68, p < .001) and visual clarity (1.27 vs. 1.89, p = .003), while patients rated single-use higher for understanding of illness (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001) and understanding of treatment rationale (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001).Conclusion: Resident and patient experience feedback favored single-use rhinolaryngoscopes compared to reusable scope technology across multiple surveyed measurables. Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes provide a viable tool for otorhinolaryngologist and other clinicians to perform rhinolaryngoscopy consults.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 43 条
  • [1] Comparison of utility and organizational impact of reusable and single-use rhinolaryngoscopes in a tertiary otorhinolaryngology department
    Gudnadottir, Gunnhildur
    Hafsten, Louise
    Travis, Helena Dahl
    Nielsen, Kirsten
    Hellgren, Johan
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2024, 11
  • [2] Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes
    Pioche, Mathieu
    Pohl, Heiko
    Neves, Joao A. Cunha
    Laporte, Arthur
    Mochet, Mikael
    Rivory, Jerome
    Grau, Raphaelle
    Jacques, Jeremie
    Grinberg, Daniel
    Boube, Mathilde
    Baddeley, Robin
    Cottinet, Pierre-Jean
    Schaefer, Marion
    de Santiago, Enrique Rodriguez
    Berger, Arthur
    GUT, 2024, 73 (11) : 1816 - 1822
  • [3] Single-use versus reusable laparoscopic surgical instruments: A comparative cost analysis
    Schaer, GN
    Koechli, OR
    Haller, U
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1995, 173 (06) : 1812 - 1815
  • [4] Cost comparison of single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: A systematic review
    Ventimiglia, Eugenio
    Godinez, Alvaro Jimenez
    Traxer, Olivier
    Somani, Bhaskar K.
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 46 : S40 - S45
  • [5] Environmental impact of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes
    Kemble, Jayson P.
    Winoker, Jared S.
    Patel, Sunil H.
    Su, Zhuo T.
    Matlaga, Brian R.
    Potretzke, Aaron M.
    Koo, Kevin
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2023, 131 (05) : 617 - 622
  • [6] A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Single-Use Fibre Drums Versus Reusable Steel Drums
    Raugei, Marco
    Fullana-i-Palmer, Pere
    Puig, Rita
    Torres, Alejo
    PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, 2009, 22 (08) : 443 - 450
  • [7] Cost analysis of single-use (Ambu® aScope™) and reusable bronchoscopes in the ICU
    Perbet, S.
    Blanquet, M.
    Mourgues, C.
    Delmas, J.
    Bertran, S.
    Longere, B.
    Boiko-Alaux, V.
    Chennell, P.
    Bazin, J. -E.
    Constantin, J. -M.
    ANNALS OF INTENSIVE CARE, 2017, 7
  • [8] Cost analysis of single-use (Ambu® aScope™) and reusable bronchoscopes in the ICU
    S. Perbet
    M. Blanquet
    C. Mourgues
    J. Delmas
    S. Bertran
    B. Longère
    V. Boïko-Alaux
    P. Chennell
    J.-E. Bazin
    J.-M. Constantin
    Annals of Intensive Care, 7
  • [9] The Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Flexible Cystoscopes Compared with Reusable Cystoscopes
    Hogan, Donnacha
    Rauf, Hammad
    Kinnear, Ned
    Hennessey, Derek Barry
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2022, 36 (11) : 1460 - 1464
  • [10] Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts: an in-vitro comparative analysis
    Dragos, Laurian B.
    Somani, Bhaskar K.
    Keller, Etienne X.
    De Coninck, Vincent M. J.
    Herrero, Maria Rodriguez-Monsalve
    Kamphuis, Guido M.
    Bres-Niewada, Ewa
    Sener, Emre T.
    Doizi, Steeve
    Wiseman, Oliver J.
    Traxer, Olivier
    TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2019, 8 : S359 - S370