Disinfection in endoscopy

Endoscopic decontamination: an audit and practical review

A comprehensive audit of endoscopic decontamination practices throughout a 1200-bedded teaching hospital trust was undertaken, prior to a review of the current policy and consideration of alternative disinfectants. Pharmacy records of glutaraldehyde usage, occupational health staff survey data of glutaraldehyde exposure, discussions with all departments where endoscopy might be conducted and information from all companies supplying endoscopes and allied equipment were reviewed. In total, 56 endoscopes were found to be in use in 16 areas of the Trust. In the main designated endoscopy units, compliance with the established policy was generally good, but in other areas, equipment which could tolerate autoclaving was being disinfected with chemical sterilants; some units were still using endoscopes which were not fully immersible and there was widespread use of disinfectant troughs, rather than automated washer-disinfectors. In most cases, this was because staff were concerned about endoscopy equipment passing to a central processing department with potential delays and losses. An updated Trust-wide endoscopy policy, using glutaraldehyde and incorporating the current British Thoracic Society, British Gastroenterological Society and British Urological Society guidelines, has now been implemented. The issues around this and alternative disinfectants are discussed.

Nosocomial transmission of imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa following bronchoscopy associated with improper connection to the Steris System 1 processor

OBJECTIVE

To assess nosocomial transmission of imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (IRPA) following bronchoscopy during August through October 1998.

DESIGN

Traditional and molecular epidemiological investigation of a case series.

SETTING

University-affiliated community hospital.

PATIENTS

18 patients with IRPA bronchial-wash isolates.

INTERVENTIONS

We reviewed clinical data, performed environmental cultures and molecular analysis of all IRPA isolates, and observed disinfection of bronchoscopes.

RESULTS

Of 18 patients who had IRPA isolated from bronchoscopic or postbronchoscopic specimens, 13 underwent bronchoscopy for possible malignancy or undiagnosed pulmonary infiltrates. Following bronchoscopy, 3 patients continued to have IRPA isolated from sputum and demonstrated clinical evidence of infection requiring specific antimicrobial therapy. The remaining 15 patients had no further IRPA isolated and remained clinically well 3 months following bronchoscopy. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis revealed that all strains except one were >95% related. STERIS SYSTEM 1 had been implemented in July 1998 as an automatic endoscope reprocessor (AER) for all endoscopes and bronchoscopes. Inspection of bronchoscope sterilization cycles revealed incorrect connectors joining the bronchoscope suction channel to the STERIS SYSTEM 1 processor, obstructing peracetic acid flow through the bronchoscope lumen. No malfunction warning was received, and spore strips remained negative.

CONCLUSIONS

The similarity of diverse connectors and limited training by the manufacturer regarding AER for bronchoscopes were the two factors responsible for the outbreak. Appropriate connections were implemented, and there was no further bronchoscope contamination. We suggest active surveillance of all bronchoscopy specimen cultures, standardization of connectors of various scopes and automated processors, and systematic education of staff by manufacturers with periodic on-site observation.

An audit of bronchoscopy practice in the United Kingdom: a survey of adherence to national guidelines

BACKGROUND

Both patient and staff safety are of major importance during the procedure of fibreoptic bronchoscopy. Patient safety depends partly on adequate disinfection of instruments and accessories used as well as careful monitoring during the procedure. Adequate facilities, manpower and training are also essential. Staff safety depends partly on adequate procedures to minimise any risks of sensitisation to agents such as glutaraldehyde. An audit was carried out of bronchoscopy procedures in hospitals in the UK and the findings were compared with published guidelines on good practice and clinical consensus.

METHODS

A postal questionnaire was sent to 218 bronchoscopy units in the UK. Findings were then compared with published evidence of good practice in the areas of disinfection, including the use of glutaraldehyde, patient monitoring, manpower, facilities, and training.

RESULTS

A 73% response rate was obtained. Recommended minimum disinfection times before and after routine bronchoscopies were not achieved by 35% of units. No disinfection was carried out in 34% of units before emergency bronchoscopies and in 19% of units after suspected cases of tuberculosis. Adequate rinsing of the bronchoscope with sterile or filtered water was not carried out by 43% of units. Contrary to recommendations, 31% of departments were still using glutaraldehyde in the patient examination room and inadequate room ventilation was common. Protective clothing was often not worn by staff during bronchoscopy. Inadequate intravenous access and use of supplementary oxygen were found in many units. Practice standards were higher in departments where dedicated bronchoscopy/endoscopy units of the hospital were used, and also where staff had been on external training courses.

CONCLUSIONS

This audit has shown that many units do not adhere to guidelines on disinfection procedures and patient monitoring. Unnecessary potential risks due to staff exposure to glutaraldehyde were apparent. National guidelines on good practice are not being followed in areas which may potentially affect patient and staff safety.

An audit of bronchoscopy practice in the United Kingdom: a survey of adherence to national guidelines

BACKGROUND

Both patient and staff safety are of major importance during the procedure of fibreoptic bronchoscopy. Patient safety depends partly on adequate disinfection of instruments and accessories used as well as careful monitoring during the procedure. Adequate facilities, manpower and training are also essential. Staff safety depends partly on adequate procedures to minimise any risks of sensitisation to agents such as glutaraldehyde. An audit was carried out of bronchoscopy procedures in hospitals in the UK and the findings were compared with published guidelines on good practice and clinical consensus.

METHODS

A postal questionnaire was sent to 218 bronchoscopy units in the UK. Findings were then compared with published evidence of good practice in the areas of disinfection, including the use of glutaraldehyde, patient monitoring, manpower, facilities, and training.

RESULTS

A 73% response rate was obtained. Recommended minimum disinfection times before and after routine bronchoscopies were not achieved by 35% of units. No disinfection was carried out in 34% of units before emergency bronchoscopies and in 19% of units after suspected cases of tuberculosis. Adequate rinsing of the bronchoscope with sterile or filtered water was not carried out by 43% of units. Contrary to recommendations, 31% of departments were still using glutaraldehyde in the patient examination room and inadequate room ventilation was common. Protective clothing was often not worn by staff during bronchoscopy. Inadequate intravenous access and use of supplementary oxygen were found in many units. Practice standards were higher in departments where dedicated bronchoscopy/endoscopy units of the hospital were used, and also where staff had been on external training courses.

CONCLUSIONS

This audit has shown that many units do not adhere to guidelines on disinfection procedures and patient monitoring. Unnecessary potential risks due to staff exposure to glutaraldehyde were apparent. National guidelines on good practice are not being followed in areas which may potentially affect patient and staff safety.