These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Registration of material consumption in anesthesia using a data management system].
    Author: Hartmann B, Junger A, Benson M, Klasen J, Quinzio L, Brenck F, Hempelmann G.
    Journal: Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther; 2002 Feb; 37(2):99-103. PubMed ID: 11865388.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate whether an Anesthesia Information Management System (AIMS) can provide reliable data on the consumption of single-use anesthetic material without necessitating an expensive and time-consuming inventory. To this end, the number of selected anesthesia-related materials and the total costs in orthopedic theatres for which the department of anesthesia had been charged in the year 2000 were compared to the data calculated by the AIMS. METHODS: Anesthesia-related material is provided by a computer-based system of storage facilities (KLIMA II) in the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine at the University Hospital Giessen. All costs arising in orthopedic theatres are exclusively charged to one single account. At the same time, the online-documentation software, NarkoData (IMESO GmbH, Hüttenberg, Germany), collects all data on consumption of anesthetic single-use material. The total amount of peripheral (PVC) and central-venous catheters (CVC), urinary catheters (UC) and endotracheal tubes (ET) used in the year 2000 was ascertained by the AIMS and compared to the respective data accounted by the administration. RESULTS: In the year 2000, the number of patients treated in orthopedic theatres totaled 1,865. By means of the AIMS, a consumption of 783 CVCs, 644 UCs and 949 ETs could be documented. In contrast, hospital administration had billed 880 CVCs, 700 UCs, and 1,050 ETs: discrepancies of 11.0 % for CVCs, 8.0 % for UCs and 9.6 % for ETs. Concerning the two most frequently used CVCs, the AIMS failed to document costs of 3,238 DM. For PVCs (16 gauge and 14 gauge), the official cost was 10.8 % and 46.7 % higher compared to the number documented by the AIMS. Since the number of PVCs totaled 3,400, the AIMS failed to document costs of 1,900 DM. CONCLUSION: Comparison of both methods revealed substantial deficits in documenting cost-relevant materials. There were no detailed data available on the whereabouts of the materials used, i.e. whether tubes and catheters were undocumented, used or discarded. However, the AIMS may provide additional valuable information about possible sources of material wastefulness. This is especially true for infrequently used anesthesia-related materials.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]