RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Stop Beating Yourself Up and BUY@ Eunice:
This is just my opinion, so others please feel free if you disagree or have other ideas.
If I look at the advantages of VP4:
- Lower cost: through higher load capacity and ability to do mix loads --> lower ongoing operating costs and/or lower capital costs if they can do with a lower number of sterilizers
- Ability to sterilize new instruments, like duodenoscopes and colonosopes --> lower legal exposure
- One cycle for all: less errors, no need to break up surgical trays
Like I said before, managers at central sterilization units are not oncologists--they do not look for the latest and greatest constantly, and they don't switch out of their existing setups due to the "sunk cost" nature of their sterilizers. They are also risk adverse as sterilization is looked at as a cost center for hospital management, not a revenue driver (like surgical robots for example).
Even though marketing research often quotes faster throughput / lower cost as a top factor, I believe that is only the case when they are looking for replacement for their old, end-of-life sterilizers (i.e.: 10 years). Except for some forward looking institutions, throughput / costs alone are insufficient to make them swap out of a perfectly good machine that is still within its usable life.
Even though this risk adverse mentality is hampering the CSSD market uptake of a superior sterilizer (i.e.: VP4), I believe this same mentality will help the development / uptake of the ERCP (i.e.: duo) market.
Why? Let's put yourself into the shoes of a sterilization unit manager:
- If you recommend to your boss (i.e.: hospital administrator) to swap out of your existing setup before end-of-life because you believe it can lower costs, you better be 100% sure that everything will turn out the way you envisioned. If there are unexpected downtime or the cost savings did not come through, you might be out of a job. On the other hand, if you stay silent about the VP4, nothing bad will happen.
- On the other hand, when dealing with potential legal liability from contaminated scopes: the last thing you want is your boss coming down on you to ask: "why didn't you tell me about this VP4 machine that can sterilize scopes? We could have avoided this lawsuit or this $1mm+ settlement..." In this case, you might be out of a job for staying silent
- Obviously, actions by regulators (FDA) and/or industry groups (like AAMI) could help hasten the development of the ERCP market as well
Once a hospital buys a VP4 for ERCPs due to its desire to minimize legal liability, then its staff will have real life experience dealing with VP4. If the feedback that TSO3 has been quoting is true, then this hospital will likely shift some of their existing sterilization needs to VP4 (assuming its VP4 is not 100% utilized by scopes sterilization). If everything (including the questionable Getinge customer support) holds up, when this hospital looks for a replacement for its end-of-life sterilizer in its CSSD, VP4 will likely be their number 1 choice.