MP15-20 COST ESTIMATION OF COMMONLY USED DISPOSABLES DURING URETEROSCOPY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy III (MP15)1 Apr 2020MP15-20 COST ESTIMATION OF COMMONLY USED DISPOSABLES DURING URETEROSCOPY Mahad Minhas*, Sari Khaleel, Jessica Mandeville, and Michael Borofsky Mahad Minhas*Mahad Minhas* More articles by this author , Sari KhaleelSari Khaleel More articles by this author , Jessica MandevilleJessica Mandeville More articles by this author , and Michael BorofskyMichael Borofsky More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000840.020AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Research suggests that surgeon awareness of surgical supply cost is lacking. We wanted to assess the ability of urologists and their operating room (OR) staff to estimate the cost of 10 common disposable items used in ureteroscopy, and to identify potential motives for cost reduction. METHODS: An anonymous survey was emailed to 110 urologic surgeons, trainees, and OR staff at two different academic institutions. The 26-question survey comprised of 6 demographic questions, 10 regarding attitudes and beliefs around cost awareness of disposables, and cost estimates of 10 common disposables. A cost estimate was considered accurate if it fell within 20% of the actual institutional cost; a sensitivity analysis at 50% was also done. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 69% (76). Of 760 cost estimations, 21% were accurate. Accuracy increased to 41% on the sensitivity analysis. About 65% of estimations were overestimations from actual cost, and the mean percentage error (MPE) was 263% (SD 436%) (Figure 1). Attending urologists had an MPE of 252% (SD 390%), trainees had an MPE of 174% (SD 194%), and OR staff had and MPE of 332% (SD 558%) (p<.001). Trainees generally had the lowest median cost estimates per item, while OR staff had the highest (Figure 2). Overall 75% of respondents believed that there is “far too little” or “too little” emphasis placed on ureteroscopy cost awareness. When asked what would motivate respondents to decreased their disposable ureteroscopy costs, 46% favored having more knowledge of costs while 50% favored incentives, such as new equipment or bonuses. CONCLUSIONS: Among urologists and OR staff, cost estimation of common disposables in ureteroscopy is highly inaccurate and mostly overestimated. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e212-e213 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Mahad Minhas* More articles by this author Sari Khaleel More articles by this author Jessica Mandeville More articles by this author Michael Borofsky More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...