Health service staff and patients’ perceptions of the safety, quality, cost-effectiveness, environmental impact, benefits and challenges of disposable versus reusable endoscopes in upper gastrointestinal procedures: a qualitative study
- 1Centre for Evidence and Impelmentation Science, University of Birmingham, College of Social Sciences, Birmingham, UK
- 2University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
Abstract
Objective: To explore National Health Service (NHS) staff and patients’ perceptions of the safety, cost-effectiveness, environmental impact, benefits and challenges of single-use and reusable endoscopes in upper gastrointestinal (GI) procedures.
Methods: This qualitative study was conducted across four NHS hospital sites in England and Wales. Participants included patients who had undergone upper GI endoscopy and staff involved across the endoscopy pathway. Data were collected between December 2024 and September 2025 and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Results: Eighteen patients and 21 NHS staff participated. Five themes were identified: (1) information about reusability not relevant to patients, with patients prioritising understanding the procedure rather than technical details of the endoscope; (2) deference to NHS decision-making, with patients and staff generally perceiving both reusable and disposable endoscopes as safe and appropriate, while favouring reusable scopes based on familiarity and perceived cost-effectiveness; (3) potential use of disposable endoscopes for managing contagious patients, with staff viewing disposable scopes as particularly appropriate for high-risk or emergency cases; (4) greener endoscopy through more targeted use, with staff suggesting that more targeted use of procedures and selective use of disposable scopes could be potential opportunities to reduce environmental impact and (5) reusable scopes working well but variable in quality, with staff reporting generally good performance but some concerns regarding variation in image quality and wear and tear.
Conclusion: Neither staff nor patients strongly preferred reusable or disposable endoscopes when quality and safety standards were met. Decisions should therefore prioritise cost-effectiveness and environmental sustainability.
Related
- Editorial: Environmental challenges from global warming/climate change, urbanization and pollution to wild birds and poultry
- “They’re just shifting a problem”: A qualitative study of stakeholder perceptions of the welfare implications of UK rescue dog importation
- Aligning evidence and action: The Research-to-Decision (RED) Framework to address modern environmental and ecological challenges
- Opportunities and Challenges for Promoting Sustainable Diets within "Food is Medicine" Programs in the United States: A Qualitative Research Study.
- Parental monitoring challenges and recommendation for managing excessive screen use among students aged 12–14 years in Dhaka, Bangladesh: A qualitative exploration
BibTeX
@article{gauly2026health,
title = {{Health service staff and patients’ perceptions of the safety, quality, cost-effectiveness, environmental impact, benefits and challenges of disposable versus reusable endoscopes in upper gastrointestinal procedures: a qualitative study}},
author = {Julia Gauly and Amy Grove and Lazaros Andronis},
journal = {BMJ Open Gastroenterology},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1136/bmjgast-2026-002357},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2026-002357},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Health service staff and patients’ perceptions of the safety, quality, cost-effectiveness, environmental impact, benefits and challenges of disposable versus reusable endoscopes in upper gastrointestinal procedures: a qualitative study
AU - Julia Gauly
AU - Amy Grove
AU - Lazaros Andronis
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/03
JO - BMJ Open Gastroenterology
DO - 10.1136/bmjgast-2026-002357
UR - https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2026-002357
AB - Objective: To explore National Health Service (NHS) staff and patients’ perceptions of the safety, cost-effectiveness, environmental impact, benefits and challenges of single-use and reusable endoscopes in upper gastrointestinal (GI) procedures. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted across four NHS hospital sites in England and Wales. Participants included patients who had undergone upper GI endoscopy and staff involved across the endoscopy pathway. Data were collected between December 2024 and September 2025 and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Eighteen patients and 21 NHS staff participated. Five themes were identified: (1) information about reusability not relevant to patients, with patients prioritising understanding the procedure rather than technical details of the endoscope; (2) deference to NHS decision-making, with patients and staff generally perceiving both reusable and disposable endoscopes as safe and appropriate, while favouring reusable scopes based on familiarity and perceived cost-effectiveness; (3) potential use of disposable endoscopes for managing contagious patients, with staff viewing disposable scopes as particularly appropriate for high-risk or emergency cases; (4) greener endoscopy through more targeted use, with staff suggesting that more targeted use of procedures and selective use of disposable scopes could be potential opportunities to reduce environmental impact and (5) reusable scopes working well but variable in quality, with staff reporting generally good performance but some concerns regarding variation in image quality and wear and tear. Conclusion: Neither staff nor patients strongly preferred reusable or disposable endoscopes when quality and safety standards were met. Decisions should therefore prioritise cost-effectiveness and environmental sustainability.
SN - 2054-4774
ER -