谷歌浏览器插件
订阅小程序
在清言上使用

Contract Costs Associated with Maintaining Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Single Center Experience

John M. DiBianco, Jeffrey Twum-Ampofo, Jennifer B. Rolef,Patrick Mufarrij,Thomas W. Jarrett

Urology Practice(2017)

引用 0|浏览22
暂无评分
摘要
Abstract Introduction We compared the cost of flexible ureteroscope processing and maintenance contracts offered by a scope manufacturer and a third-party company. Methods Use and repairs of the Storz 11278AU1 Flex X2 Flexible Ureteroscope are prospectively recorded at our large, 371-bed, acute care hospital. A retrospective analysis of the processing of ureteroscopic instruments during a 3-year period (2011 to 2013) was completed. We compared the handling of ureteroscopes between 1 year under a third-party contractor (Integrated Medical Systems International, Inc. [IMS]) and 2 prior years under the manufacturer (KARL STORZ) contract. Results From January 1, 2011 through October 1, 2012 our institution used the manufacturer for the processing of ureteroscopic instruments. From January 1, 2013 through December 9, 2013 our institution used the third-party contractor IMS for repairs. The number of procedures performed per repair/exchange during the manufacturer contract was 19.9 and the number of procedures performed per repair/exchange during the third-party contract was 11. The third-party contract resulted in a reduction of procedures performed per repair/exchange by 52%. Adjusted for inflation, the yearly cost of ureteroscope repairs was $125,715 during the manufacturer contract and $158,040 during the third-party contract. By analyzing the costs incurred in 2013, if our institution had maintained the manufacturer contract for all 3 years, the estimated repair cost would have resulted in a savings of $32,325. Conclusions Using the manufacturer repair contract is more cost-effective than using that of third-party companies.
更多
查看译文
关键词
ureteroscopy,lithotripsy,ureteroscopes
AI 理解论文
溯源树
样例
生成溯源树,研究论文发展脉络
Chat Paper
正在生成论文摘要