Laryngoscope blades and handles as sources of cross-infection: an integrative review

A proposed cleaning classification system for reusable medical devices to complement the Spaulding classification

A central tenet in infection prevention is application of the Spaulding classification system for the safe use of medical devices. Initially defined in the 1950s, this system defines devices and surfaces as being critical, semi-critical or non-critical depending on how they will be used on a patient. Different levels of antimicrobial treatment, defined as various levels of disinfection or sterilization, are deemed appropriate to reduce patient risk of infection. However, a focus on microbial inactivation is insufficient to address this concern, which has been particularly highlighted in routine healthcare facility practices, emphasizing the underappreciated importance of cleaning and achieving acceptable levels of cleanliness. A deeper understanding of microbiology has evolved since the 1950s, which has led to re-evaluation of the Spaulding classification along with a commensurate emphasis on achieving appropriate cleaning. Albeit underappreciated, cleaning has always been important as the presence of residual materials on surfaces can interfere with the efficacy of the antimicrobial process to inactivate micro-organisms, as well as other risks to patients including device damage, malfunction and biocompatibility concerns. Unfortunately, this continues to be relevant, as attested by reports in the literature on the occurrence of device-related infections and outbreaks due to failures in processing expectations. This reflects, in part, increasing sophistication in device features and reuse, along with commensurate manufacturer's instructions for use. Consequently, this constitutes the first description and recommendation of a new cleaning classification system to complement use of the traditional Spaulding definitions to help address these modern-day technical and patient risk challenges. This quantitative risk-based classification system highlights the challenge of efficient cleaning based on the complexity of device features present, as an isolated variable impacting cleaning. This cleaning classification can be used in combination with the Spaulding classification to improve communication of cleaning risk of a reusable medical device between manufacturers and healthcare facilities, and improve established cleaning practices. This new cleaning classification system will also inform future creation, design thinking and commensurate innovations for the sustainable safe reuse of important medical devices.

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 of Reusable Laryngoscopes: A Survey about the Clinical Practice in Spain

Airway device-associated infections resulting from the cross-contamination of reusable laryngoscopes are one of the main causes of healthcare-associated infections. Laryngoscope blades are highly contaminated with various pathogens, including Gram-negative bacilli, which can cause prolonged hospitalization, high morbidity and mortality risks, the development of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms, and significant costs. Despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Society of Anesthesiologists' recommendations, this national survey of 248 Spanish anesthesiologists showed that there is great variability in the processing of reusable laryngoscopes in Spain. Nearly a third of the respondents did not have an institutional disinfection protocol, and 45% of them did not know the disinfection procedure used. Good practices for the prevention and control of cross-contamination can be ensured through compliance with evidence-based guidelines, education of healthcare providers, and audits of clinical practices.

Moving towards green anaesthesia: Are patient safety and environmentally friendly practices compatible? A focus on single-use devices

OBJECTIVE

Discuss if the use of disposable or reusable medical devices leads to a difference in terms of hospital-acquired infection or bacterial contamination. Determine which solution is less expensive and has less environmental impact in terms of carbon footprint, energy and water consumption and amount of waste.

METHODS

We carried out a narrative review. Articles published in English and French from January 2000 to April 2020 were identified from PubMed.

RESULTS

We retrieved 81 articles, including 12 randomised controlled trial, 21 literature reviews, 13 descriptive studies, 6 experimental studies, 9 life-cycle studies, 6 cohort studies, 2 meta-analysis, 4 case reports and 8 other studies. It appears that pathogen transmission in the anaesthesia work area is mainly due to the lack of hand hygiene among the anaesthesia team. The benefit of single-use devices on infectious risk is based on weak scientific arguments, while reusable devices have benefits in terms of costs, water consumption, energy consumption, waste, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

CONCLUSION

Disposable medical devices and attire in the operating theatre do not mitigate the infectious risk to the patients but have a greater environmental, financial and social impact than the reusable ones. This study is the first step towards recommendations for more environmental-friendly practices in the operating theatre.

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.

Pattern of anaesthetic equipment contamination and infection prevention in anaesthesia practice at university hospitals

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Infection control is essential in anaesthetic practice for both personnel and equipment used. This study aims to evaluate knowledge of anaesthesiologists about infection control practices and to detect the pattern of anaesthetic devices contamination.

METHODS

Cross-sectional observational study at two university hospitals was done. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 80 anaesthesiologists and 90 nursing staff. Forty-four samples were taken from rigid laryngoscopes (22 pairs from handle and blade) for detection of bacterial or fungal contamination. Same laryngoscopes were tested for occult blood.

RESULTS

The response rate among the physicians was 72% while for nurses 94.4%. The responses were variable reflecting lack of adequate knowledge and unsatisfactory compliance to infection control practices. Tested samples showed no fungal growth. Fourteen (31.8%) samples were negative for bacteriological contamination and 5/44 (11.4%) showed gram-positive bacilli; gram-positive cocci were isolated from 12 samples (27.3%) where Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus, respectively, shared 18.2% and 9.1% of the total samples. Gram-negative bacilli were isolated from 13 samples (29.5%), of which Klebsiella spp. were most frequent (11.4%). Both Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii were isolated from 6.8% each. Citerobacter spp. was isolated from 4.5%. Occult blood was found in 45.5% of samples.

CONCLUSION

The current study showed contamination of ready-to-use laryngoscopes in operative theatres and ICUs.

Bacterial Contamination and Disinfection Status of Laryngoscopes Stored in Emergency Crash Carts

Objectives

To identify bacterial contamination rates of laryngoscope blades and handles stored in emergency crash carts by hospital and area according to the frequency of intubation attempts.

Methods

One hundred forty-eight handles and 71 blades deemed ready for patient use from two tertiary hospitals were sampled with sterile swabs using a standardized rolling technique. Samples were considered negative (not contaminated) if no colonies were present on the blood agar plate after an 18-hour incubation period. Samples were stratified by hospital and according to the frequency of intubation attempts (10 attempts per year) using the χ²-test and Fisher exact test.

Results

One or more species of bacteria were isolated from 4 (5.6%) handle tops, 20 (28.2%) handles with knurled surfaces, and 27 (18.2%) blades. No significant differences were found in microbial contamination levels on the handle tops and blades between the two hospitals and two areas according to the frequency of intubation attempts. However, significant differences were found between the two hospitals and two areas in the level of microbial contamination on the handles with knurled surfaces (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Protocols and policies must be reviewed to standardize procedures to clean and disinfect laryngoscope blades and handles; handles should be re-designed to eliminate points of contact with the blade; and single-use, one-piece laryngoscopes should be introduced.

Anesthesia in patients with infectious disease caused by multi-drug resistant bacteria

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Up to 50% of specific bacterial strains in healthcare admission facilities are multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs). Involvement of anesthesiologists in management of patients carrying/at risk of carrying MDROs may decrease transmission in the Operating Room (OR).

RECENT FINDINGS

Anesthesiologists, their work area and tools have all been implicated in MDRO outbreaks. Causes include contamination of external ventilation circuits and noncontribution of filters to prevention, inappropriate decontamination procedures for nondisposable equipment (e.g. laryngoscopes, bronchoscopes and stethoscopes) and the anesthesia workplace (e.g. external surfaces of cart and anesthesia machine, telephones and computer keyboards) during OR cleaning and lack of training in sterile drug management.

SUMMARY

Discussions regarding the management of potential MDRO carriers must include anesthesia providers to optimize infection control interventions as well as the anesthesia method, the location of surgery and recovery and the details of patient transport. Anesthesia staff must learn to identify patients at risk for MDRO infection. Antibiotic prophylaxis, although not evidence based, should adhere to known best practices. Adjuvant therapies (e.g. intranasal Mupirocin and bathing with antiseptics) should be considered. Addition of nonmanual OR cleaning methods such as ultraviolet irradiation or gaseous decontamination is encouraged. Anesthesiologists must undergo formal training in sterile drug preparation and administration.

Disinfection of laryngoscopes: A survey of practice

Background and Aims:

The laryngoscope is a common piece of equipment used by anaesthesiologists. It has been identified as a potential source of cross infection. Although guidelines exist regarding appropriate disinfection practices, recent reviews suggest ineffectiveness of current methods of disinfection and poor compliance with the established protocols. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey to study the current disinfection practices being followed by a cross section of anaesthesiologists.

Methods:

A simple questionnaire containing 13 questions was distributed amongst anaesthesiologists in an anaesthesia conference. Data were analysed with percentage analysis.

Results:

Out of 250 delegates who attended the conference, 150 submitted the completed questionnaires. Residents constituted 41% and 46% were consultants. Eighteen (12%) used only tap water for cleaning and 132 (88%) used a chemical agent after rinsing with water. Out of 132, 76 (51%) used detergent/soap solution, 29 (19%) would wash and then soak in disinfectant or germicidal agents (glutaraldehyde, povidone iodine and chlorhexidine) and 18 (12%) would wipe the blade with an alcohol swab. With respect to disinfection of laryngoscope handles, 70% respondents said they used an alcohol swab, 18% did not use any method, 9% were not aware of the method being used, while 3% did not respond.

Conclusion:

Our results indicate wide variation in methods of decontamination of laryngoscopes. Awareness regarding laryngoscope as a potential source of infection was high. We need to standardise and implement guidelines on a national level and make available resources which will help to improve patient safety.

Laryngoscopes: Evaluation of microbial load of blades

BACKGROUND

Laryngoscope blades were analyzed, and the presence of blood, bodily fluids, and microorganisms was verified, indicating their potential as a source of cross contamination during clinical usage. The way in which the blades are cleaned and disinfected in daily practice may place the patient and health care team at risk. The aim of this study was to determine the bacterial and fungal load on this equipment.

METHODS

Descriptive cross-sectional study. A total of 83 laryngoscope blades, ready for use, were analyzed for their bacterial and fungal load at 2 university hospitals.

RESULTS

The microbiologic analysis revealed the presence of microorganisms in 76.2% of cases at institution 1 and 92.7% of cases at institution 2, with microbial loads >10(1) colony forming units in 31.2% and 44.7% of cases, respectively. At both institutions, potentially pathogenic microorganisms were found, including Candida sp, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus agalactiae, extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, multiresistant Acinetobacter baumannii, Pantoea sp, Enterobacter gergoviae, Escherichia coli, and Proteus mirabilis.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that the use of laryngoscope blades at these 2 institutions present a potential risk. Based on these findings, action needs to be taken so a higher level of safety can be offered to patients and health care professionals who have direct contact with this equipment.