SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE VALUE OF SAFETY-ENGINEERED DEVICES IN REDUCING NEEDLESTICK AND SHARPS INJURIES
Author(s)
Shang Y1, Ren X2
1Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, China, 2Becton Dickinson Medical Devices (Shanghai) Co Ltd., Beijing, China
OBJECTIVES: Safety-Engineered Devices (SEDs) can reduce needlestick and sharps injuries（NSIs）. However, these devices are expensive compared with non-SEDs. The objective of this study is to evaluate the economic impact of SEDs compared with non-SEDs. METHODS: English and Chinese studies published between the date of the databases establishment to June 2016 were identified by a systematic literature search using PubMed, Sciencedirect, the Cochrane Library, EBSCOhost, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases. RESULTS: In total, 3,016 studies were retrieved initially, 8 of which were identified. A study in the US showed that using SEDs was cost saving when postexposure treatment costs were moderate ($1,500/ NSI) or high ($2,000 /NSI) and the added costs were low (1.5 times the cost of a non-SED).A Spanish study reported that using certain SEDs was cost saving, and the CER of one type of SEDs was–3.01$ /NSI avoided, followed by another type (985.76 $/NSI). Using a budget impact model, a Belgium analysis illustrated that using SEDs would save $58,598 in 5 years. Two Australian studies: one estimated that the cost benefit of using SEDs was $1,472, a saving of 14%，and the other estimated that implementing SEDs in all Australian hospitals would save $13.85 million per year. An Indian study reported that implementing SEDs and training regarding SEDs reduced the cost to the hospital by 56%.Two Japanese studies: one using a Markov model assessed that cost of two types of SEDs per QALY ($44.72 and $180.12, respectively) was less than non-SEDs ($49.88 and $191.21, respectively) .However, the other study using a decision-analytic model assessed that the CER of four types of SEDs ranged from $1,269 to $13,943 per injury avoided, and using SEDs would not produce cost savings for hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Studies in most countries showed that using SEDs was cost saving. Chinese specific studies need to evaluate the value of SEDs.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2016-10, ISPOR Europe 2016, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Vol. 19, No. 7 (November 2016)
Code
PMD112
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
Multiple Diseases