Cost Analysis of iNO Delivery Systems: A Canadian Hospital Framework for 2026

A lower acquisition figure does not necessarily mean a simpler iNO program to operate. The cost analysis of iNO delivery systems should account for the resources and workflows required across the hospital, not just the equipment comparison on paper.

Utilization varies by facility, and clinical, procurement, and finance teams may weigh different factors. A useful evaluation brings those perspectives together and separates locally measurable inputs from assumptions. This helps ensure the comparison reflects the hospital’s patient volumes, care settings, and operating practices.

This 2026 framework covers resource use, monitoring and administration requirements, training, maintenance, consumables, and workflow implications. It shows how to define a consistent comparison, identify the local data needed, and consider operational fit alongside clinical and technical requirements. Hospitals can assess LungFit® PH within the same facility-specific framework, using documented product information and their own evaluation criteria. The result is a clearer basis for hospital-wide review and decision-making.

Why hospitals need a facility-specific iNO delivery system evaluation

A system evaluation is more than a side-by-side equipment review. A facility-specific iNO system evaluation is a structured review of financial inputs, resource use, and operational fit within a defined patient-care setting. It gives clinical, procurement, and finance teams a shared basis for assessing options while keeping their distinct responsibilities clear.

Utilization patterns shape the resources a hospital needs. The number of eligible treatment episodes, treatment duration, and care locations can all affect how a system fits into routine operations. Local processes matter as well: staff training, equipment handling, monitoring, and coordination between teams may differ by facility. For background on the therapy and its medical context, see Nitric oxide in medicine.

This video provides an overview of inhaled nitric oxide in newborns:

What should a hospital comparison answer?

Start by stating the decision, patient-care setting, and systems being compared. Define whether the review concerns a particular unit or a hospital-wide approach, and apply the same time horizon to each option. Clarify the perspective too. Finance teams may focus on budget impact and resource valuation, while clinical stakeholders assess suitability, workflow, and safe delivery requirements. Financial findings cannot establish clinical suitability, and clinical suitability alone cannot determine financial fit.

Why generic estimates can mislead

Published estimates may reflect different patient populations, treatment durations, utilization levels, or operating processes. Those assumptions may not match a Canadian hospital’s experience. For a credible cost analysis of iNO delivery systems, use institutional records to establish local activity and workflow inputs. Document gaps rather than filling them with unsupported market figures. This makes the assessment more relevant to the facility and lets reviewers see which conclusions depend on assumptions.

Which resource categories belong in an iNO delivery system analysis?

Define the resource categories before comparing systems. Otherwise, a difference in scope can be mistaken for a difference in operational fit. A fair comparison applies the same resource categories to every system and documents the facility records behind each input. The cost analysis of iNO delivery systems should distinguish known information from gaps, without filling missing data with assumed figures.

Separate one-time and ongoing resource inputs

Use procurement, implementation, clinical engineering, and department records to map the inputs relevant to your facility. Separate setup requirements from recurring ones:

• Initial preparation: acquisition and implementation inputs, installation or integration tasks where applicable, and staff preparation.
• Ongoing operation: consumables, gas supply arrangements, equipment servicing, and staff time where applicable.

For each item, record its source, the period it covers, and whether it is a measured activity or an assumption. If information is unavailable, mark it as a data gap for follow-up rather than estimating it. This makes the comparison transparent and shows decision-makers where further evidence is needed.

Include operational workload and support

Map the work required to run each approach in the hospital’s actual care setting. Document tasks such as system preparation, routine oversight, monitoring, and coordination with relevant teams, using validated local information. Describe each option’s workflow separately rather than assuming these tasks take the same form across delivery approaches.

Track training, workflow changes, technical support, and warranty or service arrangements as distinct categories. Training may include initial preparation and later orientation for staff. Workflow changes may affect how responsibilities are assigned or how teams coordinate care. For lifecycle planning, record the support arrangements relevant to the facility without assigning them an assumed monetary value. Novus Medical provides Canadian-based technical support and warranty services for medical equipment. Facilities can include applicable support requirements in their review of LungFit® PH.

Once the categories are defined, apply them consistently and identify the local records needed to complete the comparison.

How can Canadian hospitals compare iNO systems consistently?

A consistent comparison makes assumptions visible before results are reviewed. Use the same patient-care context, time horizon, and resource categories for each system. Have clinical, respiratory therapy, procurement, finance, and biomedical stakeholders validate the inputs relevant to their roles.

1. Define scope: Set the decision, care setting, systems, and review period.
2. Collect inputs: Gather relevant institutional utilization, staffing, service, supply, and implementation records.
3. Map workflows: Document tasks, handoffs, equipment oversight, and support needs for each option.
4. Validate assumptions: Ask the relevant stakeholders to review data sources, gaps, and differences in workflow.
5. Review results: Compare the completed fields and note how changes in utilization or workflow affect interpretation.

Which local data should teams gather?

Use facility records where available, and record the source, period covered, assumptions, and unresolved gaps for each input. Apply the same definitions to each option. For example, use a consistent method to record treatment episodes and staff activities. If records cover different periods or use different definitions, flag the limitation so reviewers can account for it when interpreting the comparison.

Comparison field	Option A	Option B
Utilization and review period	Enter local data	Enter local data
Staffing and workflow tasks	Document locally	Document locally
Supply, service, and implementation inputs	Document locally	Document locally
Source, assumptions, and data gaps	Record for review	Record for review

How should teams interpret the comparison?

Show how conclusions respond to different utilization or workflow assumptions. Treat this as a sensitivity review, not a prediction of guaranteed savings. The respiratory therapy equipment guide provides related Canadian procurement context. Novus Medical supplies respiratory therapy equipment, including LungFit® PH, for Canadian healthcare providers.

Assessing LungFit® PH within a hospital iNO evaluation

LungFit® PH is Novus Medical’s iNO system offering in Canada. Its patented Plasma Pulse Technology is a product feature to include in the review. Facility-specific suitability depends on how documented system information aligns with the hospital’s clinical, technical, and operational criteria.

Product documentation describes the system; facility-specific evaluation findings show how it aligns with local requirements. Keep these evidence types distinct in the cost analysis of iNO delivery systems so product facts are not mistaken for conclusions about a hospital’s workflow or resource use.

Match documented system information to evaluation criteria

Use current product documentation to assess each criterion in the same framework applied to other options. Record the source and version of the documentation, then distinguish documented specifications from questions that require local assessment. Review operational requirements alongside implementation needs and workflow fit.

• Compare documented specifications with the facility’s defined technical criteria.
• Assess implementation requirements against local processes and available resources.
• Review workflow implications with the clinicians and teams who would use or oversee the system.
• Mark criteria that need further assessment rather than treating missing information as a result.

Plan support and next steps

Include technical support and warranty arrangements in lifecycle planning as distinct considerations, using applicable documentation and facility requirements. Avoid assigning monetary values or assuming that support needs are identical across systems. Clinical stakeholders can review care-setting fit, while procurement, finance, respiratory therapy, and biomedical teams assess their respective operational and technical inputs.

Once the criteria and evidence are documented, teams can identify what remains to be evaluated and carry those questions into a structured product discussion. Review LungFit® PH with Novus Medical as part of your hospital’s evaluation process.

Turn the evaluation into a decision-ready plan

Use the evaluation as a working decision record, not a one-time comparison. Assign an owner to each unresolved data point, set a review date, and record which assumptions could change the result. This gives teams a practical way to keep evidence, local judgement, and future updates distinct.

Before procurement decisions advance, bring respiratory care, clinical engineering, procurement, and finance around the same documented criteria. A cost analysis of iNO delivery systems is most useful when its inputs can be revisited as utilization, staffing, or care pathways evolve. The aim is not to force a single answer from incomplete data, but to make the basis for a decision transparent and actionable.

To discuss LungFit® PH as part of your hospital’s evaluation, contact Novus Medical.

Frequently Asked Questions

What factors should a hospital include when evaluating iNO delivery systems?

Include the resources and operational conditions relevant to the hospital’s decision. Define the comparison boundary first, including whether implementation activity and ongoing support are in scope and which departments’ resources are counted. Check for double-counting when one team records a task that another department also reports. A documented boundary helps reviewers interpret the results consistently.

How can a hospital compare iNO delivery systems without relying on generic estimates?

Build the comparison from the hospital’s own records and label each input’s source and period. For the cost analysis of iNO delivery systems, teams can organize local activity using a consistent unit, such as a treatment episode, provided the definition fits the decision. If records cover different periods or use different definitions, document that limitation before interpreting the comparison.

Does a hospital iNO system analysis include staff time and workflow?

Yes, if staff activity or workflow changes are relevant to the facility’s evaluation. Respiratory therapy and clinical teams can identify which roles perform each task, when it occurs, and whether it is routine or occasional. For example, separate standard preparation from additional orientation for newly assigned staff. This detail helps teams assess operational demands without assuming that every shift follows an identical process.

What information should a hospital verify before evaluating LungFit® PH?

Review current, applicable product documentation and record its version and date. Identify the documented specifications and operational requirements that correspond to the hospital’s criteria, then note any configuration or implementation details the evaluation depends on. Keep product documentation distinct from facility findings, such as local workflow observations. This creates a clear record of what is documented and what requires assessment within the hospital.

Can an iNO delivery system comparison establish clinical suitability?

No. A system comparison can organize technical and operational information, but it cannot replace clinical assessment. The hospital’s qualified clinical team should determine whether an option is appropriate for the intended care context, patient population, and applicable clinical protocols. Keep that determination separate from financial or operational findings so that a favourable result in one area is not treated as proof of suitability in another.