↓ Skip to main content

Defining the Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope Reprocessing Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Endourology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Defining the Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope Reprocessing Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing
Published in
Journal of Endourology, September 2017
DOI 10.1089/end.2017.0463
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Purpose Careful decontamination and sterilization of reusable flexible ureteroscopes used in ureterorenoscopy cases prevents the spread of infectious pathogens to patients and technicians. However, inefficient reprocessing and unavailability of scopes sent out for repair can contribute to expensive operating room delays. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) was applied to describe the time and costs involved in reprocessing. Materials and Methods Direct observation and timing was performed for all steps in reprocessing of reusable flexible ureteroscopes following operative procedures. Estimated times needed for each step by which damaged scopes identified during reprocessing are sent for repair were characterized through interviews with purchasing analyst staff. Process maps were created for reprocessing and repair detailing individual step times and their variances. Cost data for labor and disposables used were applied to calculate per-minute and average step costs. Results Ten ureteroscopes were followed through reprocessing. Process mapping for ureteroscope reprocessing averaged 229.0 ± 74.4 minutes while sending a scope for repair required an estimated 143 minutes per repair. Most steps demonstrated low variance between timed observations. Scope drying was the longest and highest-variance step at 126.5 ± 55.7 min and was highly dependent on manual air flushing through the scope working channel and scope positioning in the drying cabinet. Total costs for reprocessing totaled $96.13 per episode, including the cost of labor and disposable items. Conclusions Utilizing TDABC delineates the full spectrum of costs associated with ureteroscope reprocessing and identifies areas for process improvement to drive value-based care. At our institution, scope drying was one clearly identified target area. Implementing training in scope drying technique could save up to two hours per reprocessing event, potentially preventing expensive operating room delays.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 23 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 26%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 10%
Engineering 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 28 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2022.
All research outputs
#6,300,178
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Endourology
#446
of 2,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,524
of 325,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Endourology
#9
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.