Evaluation of wastage of commonly used anaesthetic agents in the operating theatres of a South African teaching hospital
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7196/Keywords:
routine drug wastage preventable drug wastage, drug costAbstract
Background. Anaesthetic drug wastage negatively impacts the already constrained economy in developing countries such as South Africa (SA). However, safe anaesthetic drug administration during both elective and emergency surgeries can be achieved without increasing wastage or costs. Drugs frequently wasted include those required in emergencies. Cost-reduction strategies, particularly in drug wastage, represent a potential area for short-term savings in hospital drug budgets. Increasing clinician awareness of drug wastage can help modify practices, leading to reduced waste while maintaining high-quality patient care.
Objective. To evaluate wastage of commonly administered anaesthetic drugs, and to evaluate preventable and routine drug wastage and its cost.
Methods. A prospective observational study was conducted in the operating theatre of Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, a tertiary hospital in SA. Prospective data were collected for all patients who presented for elective and emergency surgical procedures at this institution over a 2-week period. Drug preparation and administration were determined by the treating anaesthesiologist. The amount of remaining drug in syringes and opened ampoules was considered as wasted. Routine drug wastage was defined as the remaining drug after the required dose was administered, while preventable drug wastage referred to drugs drawn but not administered to the patient.
Results. Data were collected from 373 participants, of whom 58% were undergoing elective surgery. The average drug wastage was 29.7%, comprising 21.3% routine wastage and 8.4% preventable wastage, with an effect size of 0.47 (p<0.001). Propofol accounted for the highest frequency of routine drug wastage, while preventable wastage was predominantly attributed to adrenaline, atropine and suxamethonium (emergency pharmacological agents). The average cost of routine wastage was ZAR3.85, significantly higher than the ZAR1.32 for preventable drug wastage (p<0.001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed a significant association between paediatric surgical cases and increased anaesthetic drug wastage (p=0.004).
Conclusion. The cost and wastage of anaesthetic drugs pose significant challenges in healthcare institutions, particularly in developing countries with limited resources. Implementing cost-effective strategies, such as using smaller ampoules and prefilled syringes, has been demonstrated to reduce drug wastage without compromising patient care.
References
1. Chaundry S. Quantifying pharmacoeconomics. J Pharm Biol Sci 2020;8(1):32-37. https://doi. org/10.18231/j.jpbs.2020.005
2. Meyer JC, Schellack N, Stokes J, et al. Ongoing initiatives to improve the quality and efficacy of medicine use within the public healthcare system in South Africa; a preliminary study. Front Pharmacol 2017;8:1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2017.00751
3. Chaudhary K, Garg R, Bhalotra AR, Anand R, Girdhar K. Anesthetic drug wastage in the operation room: A cause for concern. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2012;28(1):56-61. https://doi. org/10.4103/0970-9185.92438
4. Barbariol F, Deana C, Lucchese F, et al. Evaluation of drug wastage in the operating rooms and intensive care units of Regional Health Service. Anesth Analg 2021;132(5):1450-1456. https://doi. org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000005457
5. Yimer H, Yalew S. Audit on wastage of community used anaesthetic and analgesic agents in developing country: The case of Ethiopian University Teaching Hospital. J Anesth Clin Res 2017;8(11):1-6. https:// doi.org/10.4172/2155-6148.1000778
6. Weinger MB. Drug wastage contributes significantly to the cost of routine anesthesia care. J Clin Anesth 2001;13(7):491-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8180(01)00317-8
7. Atcheson CLH, Spivack J, Williams R, Bryson EO. Preventable drug waste among anesthesia providers: Opportunities for efficiency. J Clin Anesth 2016;30:24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2015.12.005
8. Rinehardt EK, Sivarajan M. Costs and wastes in anesthesia care. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 2012;25(2):221- 225. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0b013e32834f00ec
9. Kaniyil S, Krishnadas A, Parathody AK, Ramadas K. Financial implications of intravenous anesthetic drug wastage in operation room. Anesth Essays Res 2017;11(2):304-308. https://doi.org/10.4103/0259- 1162.186596
10. Adaobi O, Onuora C, Obinna V, Ezike H, Moghalu C. A prospective study of drug consumption and wastage during anaesthesia in a tertiary hospital. Afr J Pharm Pharmacol 2013;7(34):2423-2427. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJPP2013.3724
11. Van Norman GA, Jackson S. The anesthesiologist and global climate change: An ethical obligation to act. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2020;33(4):577-583. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000887
12. Mankes RF. Propofol wastage in anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2012;114(5):1091-1092. https://doi.
org/10.1213/ane.0b013e31824ea491
13. Sherman JD, Andersen MPS, Renwick J, McGain F. Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care. Br J Anaesth 2021;126(6):193-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.06.055
14. More SR, Dabhade SS, Ghongane BB. Drug audit of intravenous anaesthetic agents in tertiary care hospital. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(11):25-28. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/14159.6815
15. Majeed A, Firdous A, AlBabtain H, Iqbal T. Cost drain of anesthesia emergency drugs in a quaternary care hospital. Saudi J Anaesth 2019;13(3):203-207. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_706_18
16. Benhamou D, Piriou V, de Vaumas C, et al. Ready-to-use pre-filled syringes of atropine for anaesthesia care in French hospitals – a budget impact analysis. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2017;36(2):115-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2016.03.009
17. Stone JP, Fenner LB, Christmas TR. The preparation and storage of anaesthetic drugs for obstetric emergencies: A survey of UK practice. Int J Obstet Anesth 2009;18(3):242-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijoa.2009.01.013
18. Eijsink JFH, Weiss M, Taneja A, et al. Creating an evidence-based economic model for prefilled parenteral medication delivery in the hospital setting. Eur J Hosp Pharm 2024;31(6):564-570. https:// doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003620
19. Glen JB. The development of ‘Diprifusor’: A TCI system for propofol. Anaesthesia 1998;53(1):13-21.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1998.53s115.x
20. National Patient Safety Agency. Design for patient safety: A guide to labelling and packaging of injectable medicines. NPSA, 2008. https://www.intmedsafe.net/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/0592_ InjectablesBookV9_Web1.pdf (accessed 2 December 2024).
21. Vally M. Prescribing errors at an academic teaching hospital in Johannesburg. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand, 2017. https://hdl.handle.net/10539/24049 (accessed 5 December 2024).
22. Tshabalala MP. An audit of syringe labelling practices of anaesthetists at four academic hospitals. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand, 2017. https://hdl.handle.net/10539/23404 (accessed 5 December 2024).
23. Whitaker DK, Lomas JP. Time for prefilled syringes – everywhere. Anaesthesia 2024;79(2):119-122.
https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16181
24. Marais R. Guidelines for infection control and prevention in anaesthesia in South Africa 2021. S Afr J Anaesth Analg 2021;27(4):1-55. https://doi.org/10.36303/SAJAA.2021.27.4.S1
25. Tomlinson J. Obstetric GA’s. Am I doing it right? Durban: University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2018. ohttp://anaesthetics.ukzn.ac.za/Libraries/Londiwes_uploads/2018_July_06_-_Obstetric_GA_-_JM_ Tomlinson.pdf (accessed 27 October 2023).
26. Habte MF, Tegegne BA, Alemayehu TY. Anesthetics drug wastage and preventive strategies: Systematic review. PLoS ONE 2024;19(7):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306933
27. Smith I. Cost considerations in the use of anaesthetic drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19(5):469-481.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 P Majara, G Leballo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Licensing Information
The SAMJ is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
Publishing Rights
Authors grant the Publisher the exclusive right to publish, display, reproduce and/or distribute the Work in print and electronic format and in any medium known or hereafter developed, including for commercial use. The Author also agrees that the Publisher may retain in print or electronic format more than one copy of the Work for the purpose of preservation, security and back-up.
