AORN Recommended Practices Committee. Recommended practices for cleaning, handling and processing anesthesia equipment

Surface contamination in the operating room: use of adenosine triphosphate monitoring

PURPOSE

We prospectively investigated contamination of high-contact surfaces in the operating room (OR) using adenosine triphosphate (ATP) monitoring. We tested whether contamination would increase from morning (AM) to afternoon (PM), despite cleaning between cases. Second, we compared the degree of OR contamination to non-OR control sites.

METHODS

ORs with high case volumes were selected for the study. Ten sites in each OR were swabbed using the AccuPoint^® HC ATP Sanitation Monitoring device, which provided a numerical measure of contamination (relative light units, RLUs). According to the manufacturer, surfaces are considered clean at ≤ 400 RLUs. AM measurements were taken before the start of surgical cases and PM measurements were taken after cases were completed.

RESULTS

Eighty morning and 70 afternoon samples were obtained from 8 ORs. Apart from the OR floor, laryngoscope handles had the highest level of morning contamination (1204 RLUs, interquartile range 345, 2603), with 75% of AM samples and 100% of PM samples exceeding 400 RLUs. This contamination was comparable to hospital toilet seats (87% of samples exceeding 400 RLUs). No sites showed statistically significant increases in contamination from AM to PM.

CONCLUSION

Apart from the OR floors, laryngoscope handles emerged as a key OR site where improved cleaning practices may reduce cross-contamination risk. While some sites showed increased contamination over the course of the day, none of these met statistical significance thereby offering tentative evidence that current cleaning practices during case turnover are effective for most sites.

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.

Life Cycle Assessment and Costing Methods for Device Procurement: Comparing Reusable and Single-Use Disposable Laryngoscopes

BACKGROUND

Traditional medical device procurement criteria include efficacy and safety, ease of use and handling, and procurement costs. However, little information is available about life cycle environmental impacts of the production, use, and disposal of medical devices, or about costs incurred after purchase. Reusable and disposable laryngoscopes are of current interest to anesthesiologists. Facing mounting pressure to quickly meet or exceed conflicting infection prevention guidelines and oversight body recommendations, many institutions may be electively switching to single-use disposable (SUD) rigid laryngoscopes or overcleaning reusables, potentially increasing both costs and waste generation. This study provides quantitative comparisons of environmental impacts and total cost of ownership among laryngoscope options, which can aid procurement decision making to benefit facilities and public health.

METHODS

We describe cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) methods and apply these to reusable and SUD metal and plastic laryngoscope handles and tongue blade alternatives at Yale-New Haven Hospital (YNHH). The US Environmental Protection Agency's Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) life cycle impact assessment method was used to model environmental impacts of greenhouse gases and other pollutant emissions.

RESULTS

The SUD plastic handle generates an estimated 16-18 times more life cycle carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq) than traditional low-level disinfection of the reusable steel handle. The SUD plastic tongue blade generates an estimated 5-6 times more CO2-eq than the reusable steel blade treated with high-level disinfection. SUD metal components generated much higher emissions than all alternatives. Both the SUD handle and SUD blade increased life cycle costs compared to the various reusable cleaning scenarios at YNHH. When extrapolated over 1 year (60,000 intubations), estimated costs increased between $495,000 and $604,000 for SUD handles and between $180,000 and $265,000 for SUD blades, compared to reusables, depending on cleaning scenario and assuming 4000 (rated) uses. Considering device attrition, reusable handles would be more economical than SUDs if they last through 4-5 uses, and reusable blades 5-7 uses, before loss.

CONCLUSIONS

LCA and LCC are feasible methods to ease interpretation of environmental impacts and facility costs when weighing device procurement options. While management practices vary between institutions, all standard methods of cleaning were evaluated and sensitivity analyses performed so that results are widely applicable. For YNHH, the reusable options presented a considerable cost advantage, in addition to offering a better option environmentally. Avoiding overcleaning reusable laryngoscope handles and blades is desirable from an environmental perspective. Costs may vary between facilities, and LCC methodology demonstrates the importance of time-motion labor analysis when comparing reusable and disposable device options.

Prevention of disease transmission during flexible laryngoscopy

The medical literature was reviewed to evaluate the risk of disease transmission and nosocomial infection associated with flexible laryngoscopes. These instruments have been reported to be contaminated with blood, body fluids, organic debris, and potentially pathogenic microorganisms during routine clinical use. Failure to reprocess properly a flexible laryngoscope may, therefore, result in patient-to-patient disease transmission. Different types of biocidal agents, including 70% isopropyl alcohol, quaternary ammonium compounds, and 2% glutaraldehyde have been reported to be used to disinfect flexible laryngoscopes. A logic, or algorithm, was developed to evaluate the adequacy of these and other types of biocidal agents used during instrument reprocessing. This review determined that flexible laryngoscopes are semicritical instruments that require high-level disinfection (or sterilization) to prevent nosocomial infection. Whereas 70% isopropyl alcohol, quaternary ammonium compounds, and other products that achieve intermediate-level or low-level disinfection are contraindicated for reprocessing flexible laryngoscopes, 2% glutaraldehyde and other products that achieve high-level disinfection (or sterilization) are recommended for reprocessing these instruments to prevent nosocomial infection. A formal set of step-by-step guidelines for reprocessing flexible laryngoscopes is provided. Use of a disposable sheath to cover and protect the flexible laryngoscope from contamination during clinical use is discussed.

Recommendations to resolve inconsistent guidelines for the reprocessing of sheathed and unsheathed rigid laryngoscopes

Neither a consensus statement nor a formal set of step-by-step guidelines for reprocessing rigid laryngoscopes have been published or endorsed by professional organizations. Several published guidelines, standards, and clinical reports were reviewed to evaluate the risk of nosocomial infection associated with the use of rigid laryngoscopes, to determine their minimum reprocessing requirements. This review found that the recommendations of some guidelines and standards for reprocessing rigid laryngoscopes are incomplete, inadequate, and inconsistent with one another, and that current practices for reprocessing rigid laryngoscopes are reported to be inadequate and lack standardization. It is recommended that a consensus statement be developed that standardizes the reprocessing of rigid laryngoscopes and requires cleaning followed by high-level disinfection (or sterilization) and drying of the rigid laryngoscope's blade and handle to prevent nosocomial infection, regardless of whether a protective barrier or sheath is used during the procedure.