Quick answer: A Winnipeg long-term care home reduced its incontinence spend by about eighteen percent without reducing absorbency by matching product to resident need rather than standardising on one brief. The change came from three moves: profiling residents by mobility and output, separating day and night products, and switching to case quantities with a rolling reorder point. No resident changed absorbency class, and night-time changes fell.
What was the problem?
The home had standardised on a single high-capacity brief for all residents because it reduced the number of product lines to manage. In practice, mobile residents were wearing an absorbency level they did not need, while some bed-bound residents were still being changed more often than the care team wanted. The cost per resident was high and the change frequency, which is the real staff time driver, was not improving.
That combination — over-specified product in one group and under-specified in another — is common where supply is chosen for administrative simplicity rather than resident need.
How did the home profile residents?
The care team sorted residents on two axes: mobility and output. Mobility ranged from independently mobile to bed-bound, and output ranged from light to heavy. Combining the two produced a small number of need profiles, and each profile was matched to a product format — a pull-on for mobile residents, a tab brief for bed-bound residents, and a higher-capacity night product for the heaviest output.
That exercise replaced a single default with a small, defined set. The number of lines rose from one to three, still manageable, but the fit improved sharply.
| Resident profile | Format chosen | Why | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile, light output | Pull-on brief | Discreet and easy to self-manage | Lower cost per change |
| Mobile, moderate output | Pull-on, higher capacity | Fewer daytime changes | Fewer staff interventions |
| Bed-bound, heavy output | Tab brief with night pad | Maximum coverage overnight | Fewer night-time changes |
| Post-acute, short stay | Tab brief, matched assessment | Needs change during recovery | Product adjusted as needs change |
Why did separating day and night products help?
Using one product around the clock forces a compromise. A product light enough for daytime comfort may not hold overnight, while one heavy enough for night is over-specified for much of the day. Splitting the two lets the daytime product optimise for comfort and discretion, and the night product optimise for capacity.
In this home, the split reduced night-time changes noticeably, which mattered more to the care team than the unit price of the product. Staff time is the larger cost in continence care, and a change that modestly raises the night product cost while reducing the number of night checks is a net saving.
How did ordering change?
The home moved to case quantities with a rolling reorder point rather than ad hoc ordering. Consumption per profile was measured for a month, then the reorder point was set to cover lead time plus a safety margin. That removed the emergency top-up orders that carried the highest unit cost.
Storage was reorganised by profile rather than by supplier, so the care team could select the right product by resident need instead of by whichever box was closest.
What did the home avoid getting wrong?
The home did not reduce absorbency to save money. Every resident stayed in the same or a better-matched class, and the reduction came from removing over-specification in one group and adding capacity where it was genuinely needed in another. That distinction is the difference between a cost reduction and a care reduction.
It also kept a short approved list rather than opening up many product lines, which preserved the administrative simplicity the original decision was meant to deliver.
What should other care homes take from this?
Match product to profile, split day and night where output differs, and buy on measured consumption rather than habit. The three moves are low cost and reversible, and they tend to pay back within a quarter.
Where the home also reprocesses shared equipment, the same discipline applies to sterilization monitoring. In Ontario, the RCDSO expects a biological indicator for each sterilizer on every day it is used — daily monitoring, not weekly — and a supply plan that supports that habit is part of running an audit-ready home.
Related reading
Sterilization compliance hub; cost per change for tab, pull-on and overnight; capacity and purchasing unit compared; LTC procurement checklist; incontinence care collection; BI 5-pack trial.
Download the resident profiling worksheet from the incontinence supply planner, run the sterilization self-check for your shared equipment, and book a sterilization compliance consultation if your documentation needs reviewing.
Ordering for a care home or multi-site group? Wholesale and multi-site ordering covers case pricing and account setup, and the B2B wholesale collection lists the lines stocked for institutional buyers. Reselling? become a distributor.
Frequently Asked Questions
How can a care home cut incontinence costs safely?
By matching product to resident profile rather than standardising on one brief, separating day and night products, and ordering on measured consumption with a reorder point.
Is a pull-on always more economical than a tab brief?
Not always. It depends on mobility and output. Mobile residents often do well with pull-ons, while bed-bound residents usually need a tab brief or a higher-capacity night product.
Why do night-time changes matter more than unit price?
Staff time is the larger cost in continence care. Reducing the number of night checks can outweigh a modest increase in the night product cost.
How should reorder points be set?
Measure consumption per profile for a month, then set the reorder point to cover supplier lead time plus a safety margin.
CliniEco Medical is a licensed medical device establishment (MDEL #35334).
0 commentaire