Stakeholder perspectives on scaling up medical device reprocessing: A qualitative study.

Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science

Equipment Reuse* ; Stakeholder Participation* ; Attitude of Health Personnel*; Humans ; New England ; Personnel, Hospital/psychology ; Physicians/psychology ; Program Evaluation ; Qualitative Research ; United States

Background: The United States health care sector is one of the largest polluting industries, which has significant adverse effects on human health. Medical device reprocessing (MDR) is a sustainability solution that has the potential to decrease hospital waste, cut carbon emissions, reduce spending, and improve supply chain resiliency; however, only a small proportion of FDA-approved devices are actually reprocessed. Thus, we conducted a qualitative study to understand barriers and facilitators of scaling up MDR.
Methods and Findings: We conducted in-depth interviews with 17 stakeholders (exceeding thematic saturation) at a large academic health system in New England and national MDR organizations. We also collected observations through site visits at the health system. We recruited participants from June 2021 to April 2022 through purposive sampling. Using an analytic approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we applied inductive and deductive codes related to key implementation constructs. We then conducted a thematic analysis and identified five overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators of MDR. First, respondents explained that regulatory bodies and original equipment manufacturers determine which devices can be reprocessed. For example, some respondents described that original equipment manufacturers use tactics of forced obsolescence that prevent their devices from being reprocessed. Second, respondents explained that MDR has variable compatibility with hospital priorities; for example, the potential cost savings of MDR is compatible with their priorities, while the perception of decreased functionality of reprocessed medical devices is incompatible. Third, respondents described that physician preferences influence which reprocessed devices get ordered. Fourth, respondents explained that variable staff knowledge and beliefs about MDR influence their motivations to select and collect reprocessable devices. Lastly, respondents emphasized that there was a lack of infrastructure for evaluating and maintaining MDR programs within their health system.
Conclusions: Based on our findings, we have outlined a number of recommendations that target these barriers and facilitators so that the environmental and financial benefits of MDR can be realized at this health system and nationally. For example, implementing federal policies that prevent original equipment manufacturers from using tactics of forced obsolescence can facilitate the scale-up of MDR nationally. Additionally, providing life cycle assessments that compare the environmental effects of single-use disposable, reprocessable disposable, and reusable devices could facilitate health systems' purchasing decisions. Creating and disseminating audit and feedback reports to hospital staff might also facilitate their continued engagement in the program. Lastly, hiring a full-time program manager that leads MDR programs within health systems could improve program sustainability.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
(Copyright: © 2022 Hennein et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Anesth Analg. 2012 May;114(5):1067-72. (PMID: 22492190)
Implement Sci. 2016 May 17;11:72. (PMID: 27189233)
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Dec;39(12):2071-2079. (PMID: 33284703)
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57. (PMID: 17872937)
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Dec;39(12):2088-2097. (PMID: 33284689)
Implement Sci. 2016 Sep 23;11(1):130. (PMID: 27664128)
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44. (PMID: 24193818)
Am J Public Health. 2018 Apr;108(S2):S120-S122. (PMID: 29072942)
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022 Jan;43(1):45-47. (PMID: 33557979)
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 09;11(6):e0157014. (PMID: 27280706)
Lancet. 2019 Nov 16;394(10211):1836-1878. (PMID: 31733928)
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2021 Oct;47(10):663-672. (PMID: 34344594)
J Environ Manage. 2009 Oct;91(1):1-21. (PMID: 19716647)
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50. (PMID: 19664226)
Appl Nurs Res. 2006 Feb;19(1):38-42. (PMID: 16455440)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259. (PMID: 22696318)

Date Created: 20221230 Date Completed: 20230106 Latest Revision: 20230114

20240829

PMC9803114

10.1371/journal.pone.0279808

36584081