Page 82
W A S T E
M A N A G E M E N T
tions over acquisition costs. While the previous equipment's manufacturer had provided her facility with the unit in exchange for the purchase of a certain volume of disposable filters and cleaning solutions,
the replacement's deal involved an outright purchase. Ms. Willoughby,
on the other hand, found that the system she trialed and declined was
actually a less expensive option.
The hike in pricing is likely even steeper for those ditching manual
disposal methods for automated ones. The routine purchase and disposal of emptied or solidified canisters is one cost, but a standing
order of filters and cleaning solution — and possibly even some
plumbing renovations — is another cost entirely.
There's another cost to consider when selecting a fluid waste management method, and that's what sorts of risks or how much of a burden it imposes on the nurses and techs who use it.
"Would the cost of a system lessen the risk to your employees?" asks
Ms. Ramsey. An exposure control plan to shield them against the infection risks of bloodborne pathogens might call for safer disposal methods.
Do continuously running arthroscopy pumps leave your staff hefting full
canisters down the corridor? "Those jumbo jugs are heavy. They're a liability for workers' comp injuries," she says.
Or is manual dumping in the utility sink, and the attendant need to
suit up in a full complement of personal protective equipment, just a
time-consuming hassle for staff and a drain on turnover times? If
you've been using closed systems for long enough, you may have forgotten just how onerous that process is.
Simple and supported
The direct-to-drain system that Ms. Willoughby's staff trialed had an
impressive advantage. Because it drained its collected fluid through
wall suction, its self-cleaning cycle could be run without transporting
