World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 29–35 | Cite as

Global Public Health Impact of Recovered Supplies from Operating Rooms: A Critical Analysis with National Implications

  • Eric L. Wan
  • Li Xie
  • Miceile Barrett
  • Pablo A. Baltodano
  • Andres F. Rivadeneira
  • Jonathan Noboa
  • Maya Silver
  • Richard Zhou
  • Suzy Cho
  • Tammie Tam
  • Alp Yurter
  • Carol Gentry
  • Jorge Palacios
  • Gedge D. Rosson
  • Richard J. Redett
Original Scientific Report

Abstract

Background

In modern operating rooms, clean and unused medical supplies are routinely discarded and can be effectively recovered and redistributed abroad to alleviate the environmental burden of donor hospitals and to generate substantial health benefits at resource-poor recipient institutions.

Methods

We established a recovery and donation program to collect clean and unused supplies for healthcare institutions in developing nations. We analyzed items donated over a 3-year period (September 2010–November 2013) by quantity and weight, and estimated the projected value of the program under potential nationwide participation. To capture the health benefits attributable to the donated supplies at recipient institutions, we partnered with two tertiary-care centers in Guayaquil, Ecuador and conducted a pilot study on the utility of the donated supplies at the recipient institutions (October 2013). We determined the disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted for all patients undergoing procedures involving donated items and estimated the annual attributable DALY as well as the cost per DALY averted both by supply and by procedure.

Results

Approximately, 2 million lbs (907,185 kg) per year of medical supplies are recoverable from large non-rural US academic medical centers. Of these supplies, 19 common categories represent a potential for donation worth US $15 million per year, at a cost-utility of US $2.14 per DALY averted.

Conclusions

Hospital operating rooms continue to represent a large source of recoverable surgical supplies that have demonstrable health benefits in the recipient communities. Cost-effective recovery and need-based donation programs can significantly alleviate the global burden of surgical diseases.

Supplementary material

268_2014_2834_MOESM1_ESM.doc (27 kb)
Table S1. Scoring System Table S2. Calculated Discounted Life Expectancy for Ecuador (DOC 26 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Grimes CE, Lane RHS (2013) Surgery and the global health agenda. J R Soc Med 106:256–258. doi:10.1177/0141076813476678 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bae JY, Groen RS, Kushner AL (2011) Surgery as a public health intervention: common misconceptions versus the truth. Bull World Health Organ 89:394. doi:10.2471/BLT.11.088229 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meara JG, Hagander L, Leather AJM (2014) Surgery and global health: a Lancet Commission. Lancet 383:12–13. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62345-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Binagwaho A, Kyamanywa P, Farmer PE et al (2013) The human resources for health program in Rwanda–new partnership. N Engl J Med 369:2054–2059. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1302176 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farmer P, Meara JG (2013) Commentary: the agenda for academic excellence in “global” surgery. Surgery 153:321–322. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2012.08.047 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCord C, Chowdhury Q (2003) A cost effective small hospital in Bangladesh: what it can mean for emergency obstetric care. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 81:83–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farmer PE, Kim JY (2008) Surgery and global health: a view from beyond the OR. World J Surg 32:533–536. doi:10.1007/s00268-008-9525-9 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD et al (2008) An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet 372:139–144. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60878-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Debas HT, Gosselin R, Mccord C, Thind A (2006) Surgery. In: Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR et al (eds) Disease control priorities developing countries, 2nd edn. World Bank, Washington DC, pp 1245–1259Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luboga S, Macfarlane SB, von Schreeb J et al (2009) Increasing access to surgical services in sub-saharan Africa: priorities for national and international agencies recommended by the Bellagio Essential Surgery Group. PLoS Med 6:1–5. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luboga S, Galukande M, Mabweijano J et al (2010) Key aspects of health policy development to improve surgical services in Uganda. World J Surg 34:2511–2517. doi:10.1007/s00268-010-0585-2 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosenblatt WH, Ariyan C, Gutter V, Silverman DG (1993) Case-by-case assessment of recoverable materials for overseas donation from 1318 surgical procedures. JAMA 269:2647–2649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller S (2002) The REMEDY Program: recovery and donation of unused surgical supplies to developing countries. Einstein Q J Biol Med 19:121–124Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pennino R, Mayer AM, Dahn AT, Husser W (1994) Recycling unused medical supplies: a surgeon’s response. Plast Reconstr Surg 94:397–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenblatt WH, Silverman DG (1992) Recovery, resterilization, and donation of unused surgical supplies. JAMA 268:1441–1443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization (2000) Guidelines for health care equipment donations. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 2007–2009. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/citations.jsp
  18. 18.
    Murray CJ (1994) Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability-adjusted life years. Bull World Health Organ 72:429–445PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists ASA Physical Status Classification System. http://www.asahq.org/For-Members/Clinical-Information/ASA-Physical-Status-Classification-System.aspx. Accessed 6 Feb 2014
  20. 20.
    Tinker JH, Miles RR, Newland MC, et al. (2006) Recommendations and guidelines for preoperative evaluation of the surgical patient with emphasis on the cardiac patient for non-cardiac surgery. University of Nebraska Medical Center, pp 1–82. Available at http://webmedia.unmc.edu/anesthesia/Anesthesia%20Guide.pdf
  21. 21.
    Rosenblatt WH, Silverman DG (1994) Cost-effective use of operating room supplies based on the REMEDY database of recovered unused materials. J Clin Anesth 6:400–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Remme JHF, Feenstra P, Lever PR et al (2006) Tropical diseases targeted for elimination: chagas disease, lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, and leprosy. In: Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR et al (eds) Disease control priorities in developing countries, 2nd edn. World Bank, Washington DC, pp 433–449Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kwakye G, Brat GA, Makary MA (2011) Green surgical practices for health care. Arch Surg 146:131–136. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2010.343 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric L. Wan
    • 1
  • Li Xie
    • 1
  • Miceile Barrett
    • 1
  • Pablo A. Baltodano
    • 1
  • Andres F. Rivadeneira
    • 2
  • Jonathan Noboa
    • 3
  • Maya Silver
    • 1
  • Richard Zhou
    • 1
  • Suzy Cho
    • 1
  • Tammie Tam
    • 1
  • Alp Yurter
    • 1
  • Carol Gentry
    • 1
  • Jorge Palacios
    • 2
  • Gedge D. Rosson
    • 1
  • Richard J. Redett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryThe Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plastic & Reconstructive SurgeryLuis Vernaza HospitalGuayaquilEcuador
  3. 3.Damien House OrganizationGuayaquilEcuador

Personalised recommendations