Register      Login
Healthcare Infection Healthcare Infection Society
Official Journal of the Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Impact of a linerless, reusable, clinical wastebin system on costs, waste volumes and infection risk in an Australian acute-care hospital

Fiona De Sousa A C , Diana Martin A and Terry Grimmond B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Sydney Adventist Hospital, Wahroonga, NSW 2076, Australia.

B Grimmond and Associates Microbiology Consultants, Hamilton 3216, New Zealand.

C Corresponding author. Email: Fiona.DeSousa@sah.org.au

Healthcare Infection 19(2) 76-80 https://doi.org/10.1071/HI13048
Submitted: 13 December 2013  Accepted: 24 February 2014   Published: 26 May 2014

Abstract

Introduction: Regular audits of clinical waste (CW) disposal systems and examination of new technologies can lead to cost and waste reductions, and lowering of infection potential. Sydney Adventist hospital, a 360-bed acute-care private facility, noted that their 240 L, clinical waste (CW) bin system posed issues with infection risk, staff injury risk, aesthetics, logistics, space and cost and evaluated a new, linerless, reusable bin system.

Methods: A facility-wide audit was conducted of the current 240 L bin system before a three ward, 3-month staff evaluation of the new, 64 L, linerless, reusable bin system (Clinismart, SteriHealth Ltd, Melbourne, Vic., Australia). Clinical waste volume and mass were compared between systems over a 30-month period as were contractor costs, labour, space requirements and general waste (GW) mass. Staff opinion was sought via a 10-point questionnaire, and infection and injury risks audited.

Results: Inpatient workloads remained static over the study. Staff evaluations showed a strong preference for the new system which was rolled-out to all wards in the facility. Significant decreases were noted in CW mass (53.2% less), CW volume (65.2% less), CW disposal costs (30.9% less) and labour (69.2% less), and the new system was found to be more space-efficient and logistically superior. Waste segregation was markedly enhanced. Infection potential and injury risks noted with the 240 L system were eliminated.

Conclusion: The study found that the use of a smaller, 64 L, linerless, reusable, hospital wastebin system, through its design and operation, has the potential to reduce clinical waste volumes, increase labour efficiencies, decrease costs and minimise infection potential and sharps injury risk, all of which improve the quality of health care.


References

[1]  NSW Health. Infection Control Policy. Policy Directive PD2007_036. Available from: http://www0.health.nsw.gov.au/policies/pd/2007/pdf/PD2007_036.pdf [verified 10 December 2013].

[2]  NSW Health. Waste Management Guidelines for Healthcare Facilities – issued 2005. Policy Directive PD2005_132. Available from: http://www0.health.nsw.gov.au/policies/pd/2005/pdf/pd2005_132.pdf [verified 10 December 2013].

[3]  NSW Auditor-General’s Report. Performance Audit. Managing Hospital Waste. 2002. Audit Office of New South Wales. Available from: http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/134/105_Department_Of_Health.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y [verified 10 December 2013].

[4]  Hames K. Healthcare waste disposal: an analysis of the effect of education on improving waste disposal. Healthc Infect 2013; 18 110–4.
Healthcare waste disposal: an analysis of the effect of education on improving waste disposal.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[5]  Blenkharn JI. Safe disposal and effective destruction of clinical wastes. J Hosp Infect 2005; 60 295–7.
Safe disposal and effective destruction of clinical wastes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2MzltVOquw%3D%3D&md5=71c785c2e89d62045f84a4e52a364c71CAS | 15961185PubMed |

[6]  Neely AN, Maley MP, Taylor GL. Investigation of single-use versus reusable infectious waste containers as potential sources of microbial contamination. Am J Infect Control 2003; 31 13–7.
Investigation of single-use versus reusable infectious waste containers as potential sources of microbial contamination.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12548252PubMed |