New developments in reprocessing semicritical items

Analysis of sterilization efficiency and application cost of three low temperature sterilization methods

OBJECTIVE

This paper discusses the sterilization efficiency of three low temperature sterilization methods used in thermosensitive medical devices and makes a preliminary analysis of sterilization costs so as to provide the basis for reasonable selection of low temperature sterilizer in Central Sterile Supply Department.

METHODS

Medical devices compatible with the three sterilization methods were selected for sterilization, and two packaging materials were selected for the three low-temperature sterilization equipment according to the compatibility of the packaging materials. The equipment packed with the same packaging materials were sterilized for five times, and each low-temperature sterilizer was sterilized for a total of ten times. The sterilization effect, sterilization cycle time, energy consumption, and cost of the three sterilizers were compared.

RESULTS

The cycle time of ethylene oxide sterilizer was 393.6 min, and the cycle time of hydrogen peroxide low temperature plasma sterilizer was 56.1 min. The cycle time of low temperature steam and formaldehyde sterilizer was 105.7 min. The hydrogen peroxide low temperature plasma sterilizes single cycle power consumption at a maximum of 5 kWh. The single cycle energy consumption of compressed air ethylene oxide sterilizer is up to 12 l. In terms of sterilization application cost, hydrogen peroxide low temperature plasma sterilization has the highest cost, followed by ethylene oxide sterilization, and low temperature steam and formaldehyde sterilization is the lowest.

CONCLUSION

The sterilization efficiency of hydrogen peroxide low temperature plasma sterilization is the highest, followed by low temperature steam and formaldehyde sterilization, and the lowest is ethylene oxide sterilization. The three low temperature sterilization methods can achieve effective sterilization of devices. Each hospital can choose an appropriate low temperature sterilization method according to the characteristics of thermosensitive instruments, turnover efficiency requirements, and financial status.

Unveiling 8 years of duodenoscope contamination: insights from a retrospective analysis in a large tertiary care hospital

OBJECTIVE

Contaminated duodenoscopes caused several hospital outbreaks. Despite efforts to reduce contamination rates, 15% of patient-ready duodenoscopes are still contaminated with gastrointestinal microorganisms. This study aimed to provide an overview of duodenoscope contamination over time, identify risk factors and study the effects of implemented interventions.

DESIGN

Duodenoscope culture sets between March 2015 and June 2022 at a Dutch tertiary care centre were analysed. Contamination was defined as (1) the presence of microorganisms of oral or gastrointestinal origin (MGO) or (2) any other microorganism with ≥20 colony-forming units/20 mL (AM20). A logistic mixed effects model was used to identify risk factors and assess the effect of interventions, such as using duodenoscopes with disposable caps, replacing automated endoscope reprocessors (AER) and conducting audits in the endoscopy department.

RESULTS

A total of 404 culture sets were analysed. The yearly contamination rate with MGO showed great variation, ranging from 14.3% to 47.5%. Contamination with AM20 increased up to 94.7% by 2022. For both MGO and AM20, the biopsy and suction channels were the most frequently contaminated duodenoscope components. The studied interventions, including audits, AER replacement and implementation of duodenoscopes with disposable caps, did not show a clear association with contamination rates.

CONCLUSION

Duodenoscope contamination remains a significant problem, with high contamination rates despite several interventions. Reprocessing the biopsy and suction channels is especially challenging. Changes in the design of reusable duodenoscopes, such as enabling sterilisation or easily replaceable channels, are necessary to facilitate effective duodenoscope reprocessing and to eliminate the risk of duodenoscope-associated infections.

Reprocessing semicritical items: An overview and an update on the shift from HLD to sterilization for endoscopes

BACKGROUND

Semicritical medical devices are defined as items that come into contact with mucous membranes or nonintact skin (e.g., gastrointestinal endoscopes, endocavitary probes). Such medical devices require minimally high-level disinfection.

METHODS

Analyze the methods used to reprocess semicritical medical devices and identify methods and new technologies to reduce the risk of infection.

RESULTS

The reprocessing methods for semicritical medical devices is described as well as a shift from high-level disinfection to sterilization for lumened endoscopes.

CONCLUSIONS

Strict adherence to current guidelines and transition to sterilization for endoscopes is required as more outbreaks have been linked to inadequately disinfected endoscopes and other semicritical items than any other reusable medical devices.

Disinfection, sterilization and antisepsis: An overview

BACKGROUND

Each year in the United States there are approximately 100,000,000 outpatient/inpatient surgical procedures. Each of these procedures involves contact by a medical device or surgical instrument with a patient's sterile tissue and/or mucous membrane. A major risk of all such procedures is the introduction of infection.

METHODS

We searched published literature for articles on the use and effectiveness of disinfectants, sterilization methods and antiseptics.

RESULTS

The level of disinfection is dependent on the intended use of the object: critical (items that contact sterile tissue such as surgical instruments), semicritical (items that contact mucous membrane such as endoscopes), and noncritical (devices that contact only intact skin such as stethoscopes) items require sterilization, high-level disinfection and low-level disinfection, respectively. Cleaning must always precede high-level disinfection and sterilization. Antiseptics are essential to infection prevention as part of a hand hygiene program as well as other uses such as surgical hand antisepsis and pre-operative patient skin preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

When properly used, disinfection and sterilization can ensure the safe use of invasive and non-invasive medical devices. Cleaning should always precede high-level disinfection and sterilization. Strict adherence to current disinfection and sterilization guidelines is essential to prevent patient infections and exposures to infectious agents.

Infection Transmission Associated With Contaminated Ultrasound Probes: A Systematic Review

A systematic review of seven studies on infections related to contaminated ultrasound probes showed that the infections were related to a failure in the decontamination process of ultrasound devices used on immature skin of neonates in an intensive care unit and transesophageal echocardiography probes. Six of the studies involved outbreaks in patients who underwent transesophageal echocardiography either during or after surgery or as a part of treatment for a nonsurgical cardiac condition. The evidence shows links between the infection outbreaks and environmental contamination, lack of standardized ultrasound probe disinfection processes, inadequate storage, and lack of monitoring of probe integrity. When personnel addressed the deficiencies (eg, improving the disinfection process, cleaning the probes immediately after use, inspecting the probes for defects), the infections ceased. Personnel involved with the reprocessing of ultrasound probes should clean, disinfect, inspect, and store ultrasound probes in a manner that maintains device integrity and prevents contamination.

Reusability of autoclaved 3D printed polypropylene compared to a glass filled polypropylene composite

Health care waste can be a costly expenditure for facilities as specific disposal methods must be used to prevent the spread of pathogens. If more multi-use medical devices were available, it could potentially relieve some of this burden; however, sterilization between uses is important in preventing disease transmission. 3D printing has the ability to easily create custom medical devices at a low cost, but the majority of filaments utilized cannot survive steam sterilization. Polypropylene (PP) can withstand autoclave temperatures, but is difficult to print as it warps and shrinks during printing; however, a composite PP filament reduces these effects. Commercially available PP and glass filled PP (GFPP) filaments were successfully 3D printed into 30 × 30 × 30 mm cubes with no shrinking or warping and were autoclaved. The 134 °C autoclave temperature was too high as several cubes melted after two to three rounds, but both PP and GFPP cubes displayed minimal changes in mass and volume after one, four, seven, and ten rounds of autoclaving at 121 °C. GFPP cubes autoclaved zero, four, seven, and ten times had significantly smaller average compressive stress values compared to all PP groups, but the GFPP cubes autoclaved once were only less than PP cubes autoclaved zero, seven and ten times. GFPP cubes autoclaved zero, one, four, and seven times also deformed less indicating that the embedded glass fibers provided additional strength. While a single method was found that successfully printed PP and GFPP cubes that were able to survive up to ten rounds of autoclaving, future work should include further investigation into the mechanical properties and increasing the number of autoclave rounds.

Flexible gastrointestinal endoscope processing challenges, current issues and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

At present, the most frequent method for processing flexible gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes is cleaning followed by high-level disinfection as terminal sterilization is often not practicable. Post-processing monitoring studies consistently show high levels of positive cultures remaining on endoscopes, which can lead to patient infection and even fatality. The processing deficiency is attributed to the complex design of endoscopes, incomplete cleaning, formation of biofilms and lack of margin of safety with high-level disinfection.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate that flexible GI endoscopes can be practicably terminally sterilized.

METHODS

An endoscope sterilization cycle was developed in a vaporized hydrogen peroxide sterilization system. The cycle was used to study the sterilization of flexible GI endoscopes which included colonoscopes and duodenoscope and material compatibility for both original flexible GI endoscopes and those experimentally modified endoscopes using compatible materials.

RESULTS

Testing demonstrated that the vaporized hydrogen peroxide can sterilize flexible GI endoscopes (colonoscopes, duodenoscope) with a sterility assurance level of 10^-6. Additionally, no recoverable survivors were detected when devices were artificially soiled with hard water and serum. Material compatibility test results demonstrated that replacing molybdenum disulphide lubricant with a graphite-based inert lubricant can make them compatible with vaporized hydrogen peroxide sterilizers.

CONCLUSION

Flexible GI endoscopes can be practicably terminally sterilized using vaporized hydrogen peroxide sterilization technologies if their materials are revised to become compatible.

The single-use rhinolaryngoscope: an evaluation and cost comparison

BACKGROUND

This study investigated whether the single-use rhinolaryngoscope is clinically and economically comparable to the conventional reusable rhinolaryngoscope within a tertiary otolaryngology centre in the UK.

METHODS

A non-blinded, prospective and single-arm evaluation was carried out over a 5-day period, in which micro-costing was used to compare single-use rhinolaryngoscopes with reusable rhinolaryngoscopes.

RESULTS

Overall, 68 per cent of the investigators perceived the single-use rhinolaryngoscope to be 'good' or 'very good', while 85 per cent believed the single-use rhinolaryngoscope could replace the reusable rhinolaryngoscope (n = 59). The incremental costs of reusable rhinolaryngoscope eyepieces and videoscopes in the out-patient clinic, when compared to single-use rhinolaryngoscopes, were £30 and £11, respectively. The incremental costs of reusable rhinolaryngoscope eyepieces and videoscopes in the acute surgical assessment unit, when compared to single-use rhinolaryngoscopes, were -£4 and -£73, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The single-use rhinolaryngoscope provides a clinically comparable, and potentially cost-minimising, alternative to the reusable rhinolaryngoscope for use in the acute surgical assessment unit of our hospital.

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods

Duodenoscope use in healthcare facilities has been associated with transmission of multidrug resistant pathogens between patients. To assist healthcare facilities in monitoring the quality of their duodenoscope reprocessing procedures and limit patient risk of infection, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deployed voluntary interim duodenoscope sampling and culturing surveillance protocols in 2015. Though the interim methods were widely adopted, alternative surveillance protocols were developed and implemented at individual institutions. Here, we compared two sampling methods-the 2015 CDC interim protocol and an alternative protocol developed by the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC). We hypothesized that the UWHC protocol would detect a higher incidence of bacterial contamination from reprocessed duodenoscopes. A total of 248 sampling events were performed at UWHC. The CDC protocol (n = 129 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after brushing its terminal end and flushing its lumen with sterile water. The UWHC protocol (n = 119 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after swabbing its elevator, immersing its terminal end into broth and flushing its lumen with saline. With the CDC method, 8.53% (n = 11) of the duodenoscopes sampled were positive for bacterial growth with 15 isolates recovered. Using the UWHC method, 15.13% (n = 18) of cultures were positive for bacterial growth with 20 isolates recovered. The relative risk of identifying a contaminated duodenoscope using the CDC interim method, however, was not different than when using the UWHC protocol. Mean processing time (27.35 and 5.11 minutes, p < 0.001) and total cost per sample event ($17.87 and $15.04) were lower using the UWHC method. As the UWHC protocol provides similar detection rates as the CDC protocol, the UWHC method is useful, provided the shorter processing time and lower cost to perform.

Validation of instrument reprocessing methods for the Ipas manual vacuum aspiration devices

OBJECTIVE

To validate recommended reprocessing methods for Ipas manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) devices.

METHODS

All recommended reprocessing methods for Ipas MVA devices were tested for effectiveness in cleaning, achieving high-level disinfection (HLD) and/or sterilization, and any physical effects on instruments. Worst-case scenario testing was performed using artificial soil and microorganisms. Study protocols replicated standard steps for reprocessing. The specified method for reprocessing was performed 25 times on multiple devices, including controls. After runs 1, 2, 3, 15, and 25, devices and controls were analyzed for: microbial growth; residual soils; surface damage; and functionality.

RESULTS

All samples were negative for microbial growth and residual soils. On inspection and functionality testing, no damage was observed for aspirators and cannulae except with STERRAD and Cidex OPA. Other methods of HLD and sterilization did not affect surfaces or functionality through 25 cycles.

DISCUSSION

Ipas MVA devices were not negatively affected following validated instrument reprocessing methods for HLD or sterilization for up to 25 reuse cycles. STERRAD and Cidex OPA did not meet assessed standards and are therefore not recommended. Strict adherence to guidance is critical for effective reprocessing of instruments.

Disinfection, sterilization, and antisepsis: An overview

All invasive procedures involve contact by a medical device or surgical instrument with a patient's sterile tissue or mucous membranes. The level of disinfection or sterilization is dependent on the intended use of the object. Critical (items that contact sterile tissue, such as surgical instruments), semicritical (items that contact mucous membranes, such as endoscopes), and noncritical (devices that contact only intact skin, such as stethoscopes) items require sterilization, high-level disinfection, and low-level disinfection, respectively. Cleaning must always precede high-level disinfection and sterilization. Antiseptics are essential to infection prevention as part of a hand hygiene program, as well as other uses, such as surgical hand antisepsis and preoperative skin preparation.

Reprocessing semicritical items: Outbreaks and current issues

Semicritical medical devices are defined as items that come into contact with mucous membranes or nonintact skin (eg, gastrointestinal endoscopes, endocavitary probes). Such medical devices require minimally high-level disinfection. As many of these items are temperature sensitive, low-temperature chemical methods must be used rather than steam sterilization. Strict adherence to current guidelines is required as more outbreaks have been linked to inadequately cleaned or disinfected endoscopes and other semicritical items than any other reusable medical devices.

On-site comparison of an enzymatic detergent and a non-enzymatic detergent-disinfectant for routine manual cleaning of flexible endoscopes

Background and study aims  Flexible endoscopes are potential vectors of pathogen transmission to patients that are subjected to cleaning and high-level disinfection after each procedure. Efficient manual cleaning is a prerequisite for effective high-level disinfection. The goal of this study was to demonstrate the impact of the cleaning chemistry in the outcome of the manual cleaning of endoscopes. Materials and methods  Twelve endoscopes were included in this study: four colonoscopes, four gastroscopes, two duodenoscopes and two bronchoscopes. This study was designed with two phases; in each of them, the manual cleaning procedure remained identical, but a different detergent was used: a non-enzymatic detergent-disinfectant (NEDD) and an enzymatic detergent (ED). Biopsy and suction channels of endoscopes were sampled using 10 mL of physiological saline at two points: before and after manual cleaning, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) was measured on each sample. In total, 208 procedures were analyzed for the NEDD phase and 253 for the ED phase. Results  For each endoscope type, cleaning endoscopes with ED resulted in larger median decrease in ATP than with NEDD: respectively 99.43 % and 95.95 % for bronchoscopes ( P  = 0.0007), 99.28 % and 96.93 % for colonoscopes ( P  < 0.0001) and 98.36 % and 95.36 % for gastroscopes ( P  < 0.0001). In addition, acceptability rates of endoscopes based on defined post-manual cleaning ATP thresholds (200, 150, 100 or 50 relative light units) for all endoscope types were significantly higher with ED compared to NEDD. Conclusions  With all other parameters of manual cleaning remaining unchanged, the enzymatic chemistry of ED provided more consistent and improved cleaning of endoscopes compared to NEDD. Therefore, choice of the detergent for endoscope cleaning has an impact on the outcome of this process.

Microbiological monitoring of medical devices after cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation

The use of reusable semi-critical devices has been extended in current medical practice for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. However, reuse of these instruments carries the risk of cross-transmission of microorganisms from one patient to another. The process of cleaning and disinfecting these devices is complex, long, expensive and very error-prone. This paper analyses the epidemiological aspects of infections associated with the reuse of semi-critical devices and the role of the Microbiology laboratory in monitoring the cleaning and disinfecting process through microbiological controls. The recommendations of different scientific societies on the relevance of such controls are reviewed and specific recommendations are proposed for the taking and processing of the samples, interpretation of the results and measures to be taken depending on the results obtained.

Tolerance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in in-vitro biofilms to high-level peracetic acid disinfection

BACKGROUND

Biofilm has been suggested as a cause of disinfection failures in flexible endoscopes where no lapses in the decontamination procedure can be identified. To test this theory, the activity of peracetic acid, one of the widely used disinfectants in the reprocessing of flexible endoscopes, was evaluated against both planktonic and sessile communities of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

AIM

To investigate the ability of P. aeruginosa biofilm to survive high-level peracetic acid disinfection.

METHOD

The susceptibility of planktonic cells of P. aeruginosa and biofilms aged 24, 48, 96, and 192 h to peracetic acid was evaluated by estimating their viability using resazurin viability and plate count methods. The biomass of the P. aeruginosa biofilms was also quantified using Crystal Violet assay. Planktonic cells of P. aeruginosa were treated with 5-30 ppm concentration of peracetic acid in the presence of 3.0 g/L of bovine serum albumin (BSA) for 5 min. Biofilms of P. aeruginosa were also treated with various peracetic acid concentrations (100-3000 ppm) for 5 min.

FINDINGS

Planktonic cells of P. aeruginosa were eradicated by 20 ppm of peracetic acid, whereas biofilms showed an age-dependent tolerance to peracetic acid, and 96 h biofilm was only eradicated at peracetic acid concentration of 2500 ppm.

CONCLUSION

Ninety-six-hour P. aeruginosa biofilm survives 5 min treatment with 2000 ppm of peracetic acid, which is the working concentration used in some endoscope washer-disinfectors. This implies that disinfection failure of flexible endoscopes might occur when biofilms build up in the lumens of endoscopes.

Clinical Issues- March 2017

Using one flexible endoscope for an upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedure Key words: flexible endoscope, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, enteroscope, risk assessment. Enhanced methods for processing flexible duodenoscopes Key words: flexible duodenoscopes, liquid chemical sterilization, ethylene oxide sterilization, low-temperature sterilization, risk assessment. Modification of the Spaulding classification Key words: Spaulding classification, critical items, semicritical items, mucous membranes, risk assessment. Flushing flexible endoscope lumens with alcohol Key words: flexible endoscopes, isopropyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, fixative, risk assessment. Using chlorine dioxide wipes for nonchanneled flexible endoscopes Key words: nonchanneled flexible endoscopes, high-level disinfectant, chlorine dioxide, risk assessment.

Sterilization and Disinfection

Sterilization and disinfection are the basic components of hospital infection control activities. Every day, a number of hospitals are performing various surgical procedures. Even more number of invasive procedures are being performed in different health care facilities. The medical device or the surgical instrument that comes in contact with the sterile tissue or the mucus membrane of the patient during the various processes is associated with increased risk of introduction of pathogens into the patient's body. Moreover, there is chance of transmission of infection from patient to patient; from patient or to health care personnel, and vice versa; or from the environment to the patient through the improper sterilized or disinfected devices. Hence, medical personnel, laboratory people and the health care providers should have better knowledge regarding these techniques to prevent the spread of these pathogens.

Infection Prevention and Control Guideline for Cystic Fibrosis: 2013 Update

The 2013 Infection Prevention and Control (IP&C) Guideline for Cystic Fibrosis (CF) was commissioned by the CF Foundation as an update of the 2003 Infection Control Guideline for CF. During the past decade, new knowledge and new challenges provided the following rationale to develop updated IP&C strategies for this unique population:

1.The need to integrate relevant recommendations from evidence-based guidelines published since 2003 into IP&C practices for CF. These included guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and key professional societies, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). During the past decade, new evidence has led to a renewed emphasis on source containment of potential pathogens and the role played by the contaminated healthcare environment in the transmission of infectious agents. Furthermore, an increased understanding of the importance of the application of implementation science, monitoring adherence, and feedback principles has been shown to increase the effectiveness of IP&C guideline recommendations.

2.Experience with emerging pathogens in the non-CF population has expanded our understanding of droplet transmission of respiratory pathogens and can inform IP&C strategies for CF. These pathogens include severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and the 2009 influenza A H1N1. Lessons learned about preventing transmission of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) and multidrug-resistant gram-negative pathogens in non-CF patient populations also can inform IP&C strategies for CF.

Reprocessing semicritical items: Current issues and new technologies

Semicritical medical devices are defined as items that come into contact with mucous membranes or nonintact skin (eg, gastrointestinal endoscopes, endocavitary probes). Such medical devices minimally require high-level disinfection. Because many of these items are temperature sensitive, low-temperature chemical methods are usually used rather than steam sterilization. Strict adherence to current guidelines is required because more outbreaks have been linked to inadequately cleaned or disinfected endoscopes and other semicritical items undergoing high-level disinfection than any other reusable medical device.

Endoscope Reprocessing: Update on Controversial Issues

Several issues concerning endoscope reprocessing remain unresolved based on currently available data. Thus, further studies are required to confirm standard practices including safe endoscope shelf life, proper frequency of replacement of some accessories including water bottles and connecting tubes, and microbiological surveillance testing of endoscopes after reprocessing. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of newer technology that allows automated cleaning and disinfection is one such controversial issue. In addition, there are no guidelines on whether delayed reprocessing and extended soaking may harm endoscope integrity or increase the bioburden on the external or internal device surfaces. In this review, we discuss the unresolved and controversial issues regarding endoscope reprocessing.

Disinfection of corrugated tubing by ozone and ultrasound in mechanically ventilated tracheostomized patients

BACKGROUND

Medical equipment coming into contact with non-intact skin or mucous membranes is classified as semi-critical material. This equipment requires at least high-level disinfection, as the major risk in all invasive procedures is the introduction of pathogenic microbes causing hospital-associated infections.

AIM

To evaluate the capacity of ozone gas and ultrasound to disinfect semi-critical, thermally sensitive material.

METHODS

Used corrugated tubing from mechanically ventilated tracheostomized patients in the intensive care unit was obtained. Enzymatic detergent was applied for 15min before different disinfection techniques were evaluated as follows: Group A (0.2% peracetic acid); Group B (ultrasound for 60min); Group C (application of ozone gas at a concentration of 33mg/L for 15min); Group D (ultrasound for 30min and ozone for 15min); Group E (ultrasound for 60min and ozone for 15min).

FINDINGS

Application of ultrasound for 60min reduced the level of microbial contamination by 4 log10, whereas ozone alone and the other two combined techniques (ultrasound and ozone) and the peracetic acid reduced the level of microbial contamination by 5 log10.

CONCLUSION

Ozone was the most advantageous technique taking into consideration processing time, ease of use, effectiveness, and cost. The use of ozone gas to disinfect semi-critical material proved to be technically feasible and extremely promising.

[Principles of antisepsis, disinfection and sterilization]

This article aims to provide a brief review of the main concepts on which the prevention and control of infection are based. Antisepsis comprises a set of techniques aimed at the total sterilization, or at most, disinfection, removing germs that contaminate an environment. Both procedures must be preceded by an environmental cleanup in the location in which they intend to be applied. The disinfection is carried out using biocides or germicides. Antimicrobial chemicals, that have mechanisms of action and resistances very similar to antibiotics, are generating concern due to the possibility of crossing genetic information that aggravates the problem of bacterial resistance. Most biocides can act as antiseptics, and applied to skin tissue, or disinfectants on inanimate materials. The spectrum of action of germicides depends on the product itself and external controllable factors: temperature, concentration, exposure time, etc. Sterilization techniques are primarily physical, by exposing the material to steam, or sterilizing gas, using autoclaves. Major advances are the use of low temperatures with shorter exposure times, in parallel with technological advances in instrumentation in order to avoid high temperatures and high use rotations due to workload.

The use of rapid indicators for the detection of organic residues on clinically used gastrointestinal endoscopes with and without visually apparent debris

BACKGROUND

Outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms have been linked to endoscope reprocessing lapses. Meticulous manual cleaning before high-level disinfection (HLD) is essential in reducing residual contamination that can interfere with HLD. Current reprocessing guidelines state that visual inspection is sufficient to confirm adequate cleaning.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate contamination of clinically used endoscopes, using visual inspection and rapid indicator tests before and after manual cleaning. A second objective was to determine which rapid indicator instruments and methods could be used for quality improvement initiatives in endoscope reprocessing.

DESIGN

Clinical use study of endoscope reprocessing effectiveness.

SETTING

Tertiary care teaching hospital with an inpatient endoscopy center.

METHODS

Researchers sampled endoscopes used for gastrointestinal procedures before and after manual cleaning. The external surfaces and 1 channel of each endoscope were visually inspected and tested with rapid indicators to measure protein, blood, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) contamination levels.

RESULTS

Multiple components were sampled during 37 encounters with 12 unique endoscopes. All bedside-cleaned endoscopes had high levels of ATP and detectable blood or protein, whether or not any residue was visible. Although there was no visible residue on any endoscopes after manual cleaning, 82% had at least 1 positive rapid indicator test.

CONCLUSIONS

Relying solely on visual inspection of endoscopes prior to HLD is insufficient to ensure reprocessing effectiveness. For quality assurance initiatives, tests of different endoscope components using more than 1 indicator may be necessary. Additional research is needed to validate specific monitoring protocols.