Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2026

Comprehensive & Cost Effective Laboratory Monitoring of HIV/AIDS: an African Role Model
Published on: October 31, 2010
A cost-analysis of two approaches to infection control in a lung function laboratory
E A Side1, G Harrington, F Thien
1Department of Respiratory Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Monash University Medical School, Melbourne, Vic.
Background:
The Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) guidelines for infection control in respiratory laboratories are based on a 'Universal Precautions' approach to patient care. This requires that one-way breathing valves, flow sensors, and other items, be cleaned and disinfected between patient use. However, this is impractical in a busy laboratory. The recent introduction of disposable barrier filters may provide a practical solution to this problem, although most consider this approach to be an expensive option.
Aim:
To compare the cost of implementing the TSANZ infection control guidelines with the cost of using disposable barrier filters.
Methods:
Costs were based on the standard tests and equipment currently used in the lung function laboratory at The Alfred Hospital. We have assumed that a barrier filter offers the same degree of protection against cross-infection between patients as the TSANZ infection control guidelines. Time and motion studies were performed on the dismantling, cleaning, disinfecting, reassembling and re-calibrating of equipment. Conservative estimates were made as to the frequency of replacing pneumotachographs and rubber mouthpieces based on previous equipment turnover. Labour costs for a scientist to reprocess the equipment was based on $20.86/hour. The cost of employing a casual cleaner at an hourly rate of $14.07 to assist in reprocessing equipment was also investigated. The new high efficiency HyperFilter disposable barrier filter, costing $2.95 was used in this cost-analysis.
Results:
The cost of reprocessing equipment required for spirometry alone was $17.58 per test if a scientist reprocesses the equipment, and $15.56 per test if a casual cleaner is employed to assist the scientist in performing these duties. In contrast, using a disposable filter would cost only $2.95 per test. Using a filter was considerably less expensive than following the TSANZ guidelines for all tests and equipment used in this cost-analysis.
Conclusions:
The TSANZ infection control guidelines are expensive and impractical to implement. However, disposable barrier filters provide a practical and inexpensive method of infection control.
Related Concept Videos
Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
Transmission-based Precautions II: Airborne and Protective Environment
Airborne precautions:
Use airborne precautions when treating patients known or suspected to have diseases that spread through the air—for example, tuberculosis or measles. These organisms are present in smaller droplets expelled by an infected person and...
Standard Precaution
Hand hygiene is the most crucial means to prevent the transmission of disease. Employers are legally required to provide their workers with personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize exposure or contact with...

