Stakeholder perspectives on scaling up medical device reprocessing: A qualitative study.
<h4>Background</h4>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 emission...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279808 |
| _version_ | 1797943980837568512 |
|---|---|
| author | Rachel Hennein Emily Goddard Jodi D Sherman |
| author_facet | Rachel Hennein Emily Goddard Jodi D Sherman |
| author_sort | Rachel Hennein |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T20:32:32Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1b096c866c90478cbd74f57a9b14e5ef |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T20:32:32Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-1b096c866c90478cbd74f57a9b14e5ef2023-01-25T05:32:44ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032022-01-011712e027980810.1371/journal.pone.0279808Stakeholder perspectives on scaling up medical device reprocessing: A qualitative study.Rachel HenneinEmily GoddardJodi D Sherman<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279808 |
| spellingShingle | Rachel Hennein Emily Goddard Jodi D Sherman Stakeholder perspectives on scaling up medical device reprocessing: A qualitative study. PLoS ONE |
| title | Stakeholder perspectives on scaling up medical device reprocessing: A qualitative study. |
| title_full | Stakeholder perspectives on scaling up medical device reprocessing: A qualitative study. |
| title_fullStr | Stakeholder perspectives on scaling up medical device reprocessing: A qualitative study. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Stakeholder perspectives on scaling up medical device reprocessing: A qualitative study. |
| title_short | Stakeholder perspectives on scaling up medical device reprocessing: A qualitative study. |
| title_sort | stakeholder perspectives on scaling up medical device reprocessing a qualitative study |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279808 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rachelhennein stakeholderperspectivesonscalingupmedicaldevicereprocessingaqualitativestudy AT emilygoddard stakeholderperspectivesonscalingupmedicaldevicereprocessingaqualitativestudy AT jodidsherman stakeholderperspectivesonscalingupmedicaldevicereprocessingaqualitativestudy |