A breakthrough study suggests that surgeons who regularly change surgical gloves and instruments reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) and incur similar costs compared to those who reuse equipment.
The economic evaluation, funded by the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), comes on the heels of the ChEETAh clinical trial conducted across 80 hospitals in Benin, Ghana, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda and South Africa.
The trial unequivocally established that the routine change of gloves and instruments could slash SSIs by 13%.
Published in Lancet Global Health, the evaluation serves as a critical follow-up, delving into the economic implications of implementing the trial’s findings.
It compares the costs and incidence of SSIs associated with the routine change of gloves and instruments against the prevailing surgical reusing practices.
Among the seven low and middle-income countries involved in the ChEETAh clinical trial, the economic evaluation revealed that, on average, the cost of the intervention amounted to US$259.92, barely distinguishable from the $261.10 associated with the current practice of glove and instrument reuse.
Mr Mwayi Kachapila, a health economist from the University of Birmingham and the study’s lead author, emphasised the significance of cost-effectiveness in healthcare interventions.
He stated: ‘It is very important for healthcare programmes to be both effective and cost-effective. SSIs are associated with high treatment costs, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and this intervention will go a long way to reduce the cost burden to patients, healthcare systems, and societies.’
Highlighting the broader benefits of the intervention, he added: ‘Lowering SSIs not only minimises patient recovery time but also significantly alleviates financial burdens, especially in LMICs where patients often bear the cost of their treatment. Additionally, this initiative aids in freeing up hospital bed space.’
Tracy Roberts, Professor of Health Economics at the University of Birmingham, who supervised the economic evaluation, underscored the ripple effects of such cost-effective measures. ‘In resource-constrained settings, relatively small shifts in routines and practices can have wide and important benefits when there is a generated saving in resources that can be used elsewhere.’
Professor Roberts further emphasised: ‘This is particularly beneficial when trial cost data are insufficient; incorporating relevant literature data can enhance the analysis's robustness.’
The findings of this study not only underscore the importance of routine gloves and instrument changes in reducing SSIs but highlight the critical role of economic evaluations in shaping healthcare policies and practices, particularly in resource-limited settings.
