首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>GMS Hygiene and Infection Control >Processing single-use medical devices for use in surgery – importance status quo and potential
【2h】

Processing single-use medical devices for use in surgery – importance status quo and potential

机译:处理用于手术的一次性医疗器械-重要性现状和潜力

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In summary, it is possible with the technology and scientific knowledge currently available to allow products intended for single use to be reprocessed using validated and certified processing procedures, while maintaining the full function and without any loss in quality. How many times a product can be re-processed must be determined separately for each individual medical technology device; it is not possible to make any kind of blanket statement as to the permissible number of cycles. This is due to the differing construction, the various combinations of materials and the diverse demands made of each device during clinical use. The exigency of the reprocessing issue is evident both to the user and the primary manufacturer. For the user, where there is a correspondingly high-quality primary product with suitably costed, technically-sound and certified reprocessing procedures, repeat usage can mean real savings while maintaining full functionality in each use. For the primary manufacturers of highly specialised instruments, only part of which can be represented by the medical facility in terms of a corresponding DRG (Diagnosis-Related Group), it is reprocessing that opens the door to widespread routine clinical use. The patient, in turn, benefits greatly from this, since his demand for medical treatment using the most up-to-date technology is taken into account. If processing complies in full with medical technology and hygiene directives, from the medical point of view (without being able to definitively evaluate each individual case using this criterion) the specific advantages of the reprocessing procedure are obvious. In order to establish broad acceptance for the purposes of good marketing, corresponding controlling and quality instruments have to be developed to allow the decision-making process regarding the permissibility of the reprocessing of a certain device and the number of times it can be reprocessed using this procedure to be made transparent.Taking this a step further, possibilities arise for the establishment of corresponding quality-assurance instruments on the part of the clinical establishments involved, within which reprocessed products, in the interest of quality assurance, can be referred back to the processor in the event of defective function and can also be removed from clinical use prior to completing the intended number of processing cycles. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the widespread use of reprocessing procedures in today’s high-cost single-use medical device sector will have a long-term cost/price-regulating effect for the primary products, to the benefit of the users. Thus, the heated debate regarding the safety of processing procedures that have already been certified and validated in accordance with current industry standards should be evaluated in particular from the point of view of the justified fears of the leading manufacturers with regard to their currently established market share. From a purely surgical point of view, the reprocessing of disposable products should be welcomed as a revolution. The main criteria for surgeons and medics should always be the benefit for the patient. If the quality is ensured through corresponding processing and validation procedures based on recognised certificates, then economic arguments take precedence. Cases in which a DRG (and thus a payment calculation) does not fully cover the use of medical devices are conceivable. Withholding medically necessary services on grounds of the costs, or making these services available to a limited extent only, is not acceptable from the medical point of view and furthermore goes beyond what is ethically acceptable. Each procedure, even the systematic use of reprocessing of suitable medical technology disposable items, should, where the quality is guaranteed, be supported unequivocally. Taken a step further, this branch of the economy will have a long-lasting price-regulating effect on the primary producers market.
机译:总而言之,利用当前可用的技术和科学知识,有可能允许使用经过验证和认证的加工程序对一次性使用的产品进行重新加工,同时保持其全部功能且没有质量损失。必须针对每个单独的医疗技术设备分别确定产品可以重新加工多少次;不可能对允许的循环次数做出任何笼统的声明。这是由于在临床使用过程中不同的结构,材料的各种组合以及每种设备提出的不同要求。对于用户和主要制造商来说,后处理问题的迫切性都是显而易见的。对于用户而言,如果有相应的高质量初级产品带有适当的成本,技术上合理且经过认证的后处理程序,那么重复使用可以意味着真正的节省,同时保持每次使用中的全部功能。对于高度专业化仪器的主要制造商而言,医疗机构只能用相应的DRG(诊断相关组)来代表其中的一部分,而后处理则为广泛的常规临床使用打开了大门。反过来,由于考虑到了他对使用最新技术的医疗需求,患者将从中受益匪浅。如果处理完全符合医疗技术和卫生指令,那么从医疗的角度来看(无法使用此标准明确评估每个病例),再处理程序的特殊优势将显而易见。为了获得良好营销目的的广泛认可,必须开发相应的控制和质量手段,以允许就某设备的后处理的可允许性以及使用该设备进行再处理的次数的决策过程。进一步迈出这一步,就可能在所涉及的临床机构中建立相应的质量保证工具,为了保证质量,可以将经过重新加工的产品返还给生产商。如果出现功能缺陷,处理器也可以在完成预期数量的处理周期之前从临床使用中删除。此外,可以假设,在当今高成本的一次性医疗器械行业中广泛使用后处理程序将对主要产品产生长期的成本/价格调节作用,从而使用户受益。因此,尤其应该从主要制造商对他们目前确定的市场份额的合理担忧的角度出发,对已经按照当前行业标准进行认证和验证的有关加工程序安全性的激烈辩论进行评估。 。从纯粹的手术角度来看,一次性产品的再加工应受到革命性的欢迎。外科医生和医生的主要标准应该始终是为患者带来利益。如果通过基于公认证书的相应处理和验证程序来确保质量,则以经济论证为准。可以想到DRG(因此付款计算)未完全涵盖医疗器械使用的情况。从医学的角度来看,以成本为基础而保留医学上必要的服务,或仅在有限的范围内提供这些服务是不可接受的,而且超出了道德上可接受的范围。在保证质量的情况下,应明确支持每个程序,甚至系统地使用适当的医疗技术一次性物品进行后处理。更进一步,经济的这一分支将对初级生产者市场产生长期的价格调节作用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号