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: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Safety-Engineered Devices.
    Author: Fukuda H, Moriwaki K.
    Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2016 Sep; 37(9):1012-21. PubMed ID: 27226284.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE To estimate the cost-effectiveness of safety-engineered devices (SEDs) relative to non-SEDs for winged steel needles, intravenous catheter stylets, suture needles, and insulin pen needles. DESIGN Decision analysis modeling. PARTICIPANTS Hypothetical cohort of healthcare workers who utilized needle devices. METHODS We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate and compare the life-cycle costs and benefits for SED and non-SED needle devices. For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we quantified the total direct medical cost per needlestick injury, number of needlestick injuries avoided, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the base-case analysis. RESULTS In the base-case analysis, we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SED winged steel needles, intravenous catheter stylets, suture needles, and insulin pen needles to be $2,633, $13,943, $1,792, and $1,269 per needlestick injury avoided, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed that the calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values for using SEDs did not fall below zero even after adjusting the values of each parameter. CONCLUSION The use of SED needle devices would not produce cost savings for hospitals. Government intervention may be needed to systematically protect healthcare workers in Japan from the risk of bloodborne pathogen infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:1012-1021.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]