"Anecdotally, I would say that many providers actually prefer the functionality of the single-use cystoscopes," says David Barquin, MD.
In this video, David Barquin, MD, discusses the Urology paper, “The Impact of Single-Use Cystoscopes on Clinical Time Workflow in an Outpatient Setting.” Barquin is a urology resident at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.
This is not something that we focused on in our study. But there have been several other studies that demonstrate that functionality wise, single-use is on par with flexible reusable scopes. Anecdotally, I would say that many providers actually prefer the functionality of the single-use cystoscopes. And in regards to cost, the data out there are mixed, but they suggest that single-use is more cost effective in clinical settings with lower annual volumes. However, these studies don't account for the potential increase in clinical capacity, which we found in our study. It would be interesting to see how that factors into future cost-analysis studies.
No, there were no changes in patient selection or in the urgency of getting patients into clinic. After the transition, the patient capacity of the clinics improved due to the time savings, and also us not being limited by the fixed number of reusable scopes we had at our center.
I think the data out there demonstrate that transitioning to single-use scopes can have its benefits, but also its limitations. Those vary by the type of practice, the clinical volume at that practice, and the payer system. I think as industry continues to come up with more single-use scopes, we'll see more studies similar to ours that will shed further light on this topic. Ultimately, our study demonstrates that transition to single-use scopes at our institution led to improvement in access to care for our patients.
This transcription was edited for clarity.