Cost-benefit analysis of different air change rates in an operating room environment

Publication date: Available online 12 October 2017
Source:American Journal of Infection Control
Author(s): Thomas Gormley, Troy A. Markel, Howard Jones, Damon Greeley, John Ostojic, James H. Clarke, Mark Abkowitz, Jennifer Wagner
BackgroundHospitals face growing pressure to meet the dual but often competing goals of providing a safe environment while controlling operating costs. Evidence-based data are needed to provide insight for facility management practices to support these goals.MethodsThe quality of the air in 3 operating rooms was measured at different ventilation rates. The energy cost to provide the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning to the rooms was estimated to provide a cost-benefit comparison of the effectiveness of different ventilation rates currently used in the health care industry.ResultsSimply increasing air change rates in the operating rooms tested did not necessarily provide an overall cleaner environment, but did substantially increase energy consumption and costs. Additionally, and unexpectedly, significant differences in microbial load and air velocity were detected between the sterile fields and back instrument tables.ConclusionsIncreasing the ventilation rates in operating rooms in an effort to improve clinical outcomes and potentially reduce surgical site infections does not necessarily provide cleaner air, but does typically increase operating costs. Efficient distribution or management of the air can improve quality indicators and potentially reduce the number of air changes required. Measurable environmental quality indicators could be used in lieu of or in addition to air change rate requirements to optimize cost and quality for an operating room and other critical environments.



http://ift.tt/2gzAxMR