WILLOW GROVE, PA — A new research initiative from ECRI, a leading nonprofit focused on healthcare safety, sheds light on the nuanced decision-making healthcare providers face when choosing between single-use and reusable medical devices. The findings suggest that while single-use devices may offer infection control benefits in certain cases, reusable alternatives often provide economic and environmental advantages.
The series of assessments, produced by the ECRI-Penn Evidence-based Practice Center, evaluated more than 2,000 studies to compare clinical outcomes, financial costs, and environmental impacts of single-use versus reused or reprocessed medical devices. Devices examined included hospital gowns, laryngoscopes, surgical instruments, and various bedside care tools commonly used in infection prevention.
Each report includes a visual chart summarizing whether the available evidence favors single-use or reusable options across three critical domains: clinical effectiveness, cost efficiency, and environmental sustainability. The analysis found that outcomes are often influenced by local conditions such as infection control protocols, supply agreements, and the frequency and quality of device reprocessing.
Key Findings:
- Clinical Outcomes: Single-use devices showed advantages in some categories, especially for infection control, but not consistently across all device types.
- Economic Impact: Reusable devices generally proved more cost-effective, although results varied depending on device category and local implementation practices.
- Environmental Considerations: Reprocessing and reuse tended to have a lower environmental impact compared to single-use disposables, which contribute significantly to hospital waste.
“There’s no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to choosing between single-use and reusable medical devices,” said Evan LeGault, Director of Clinical Evidence at ECRI. “These assessments are designed to support hospitals, supply chain professionals, infection control teams, and sustainability officers in weighing the tradeoffs and identifying what works best for their organization.”
Despite its breadth, the study uncovered substantial gaps in the current evidence base. Of the 2,133 screened citations, only 48 studies spanning 21 device categories met the criteria for inclusion. Clinical and economic findings were less frequently reported than environmental data, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions in many areas.
The research underscores the need for more robust, high-quality studies and greater transparency across the healthcare ecosystem—including from device manufacturers and reprocessing firms—to help institutions make data-informed decisions.
As hospitals face increasing pressure to balance patient safety, cost control, and environmental stewardship, ECRI’s work provides a valuable framework for navigating the often conflicting priorities tied to medical device usage.
For the latest news on everything happening in Chester County and the surrounding area, be sure to follow MyChesCo on Google News and MSN.