Microbial Load in Septic and Aseptic Procedure Rooms

Evaluation of the practice of reprocessing ORs in German hospitals from an infection prevention and control perspective

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the cleaning and disinfection of operating rooms (ORs) status quo focusing on hygiene plans in German hospitals.

METHODS

In 2016, a structured online survey was sent to infection prevention and control (IPC) specialists at the cost calculation hospitals of the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) and all university hospitals in Germany (n = 365).

RESULTS

With a response rate of 27.4%, 78% stated that written hygiene plans were available. After cleaning and disinfecting an OR with a "septic" patient, 55% waited until surfaces were dry before reusing in accordance with national recommendations, 27% waited > 30 min. Additionally, 28% of hospitals had ORs only for "septic" patients. In 56% "septic" patients were only operated on at the end of the program. Postoperative monitoring of patients with bacteria with special IPC requirements took place in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) (29%), operating room (OR) (52%), intensive care unit (ICU) (53%), and in the intermediate care unit (IMC) (19%).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Despite written hygiene plans in place the partly long duration of OR nonuse time following IPC measures, the consistent continued use of stratification for "septic" patients and the postoperative follow-up care of patients with colonizing/infecting bacteria with special IPC requirements in the OR and high care areas represent relevant potential for improvement.

Effectiveness of architectural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres for improving process quality and patient outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Architectural division of aseptic and septic operating theatres is a distinct structural feature of surgical departments in Germany. Internationally, hygienists and microbiologists mainly recommend functional separation (i.e. aseptic procedures first) without calling for separate operating floors and rooms. However, patients with severe musculoskeletal infections (e.g. joint empyema, spondylodiscitis, deep implant-associated infections) may benefit from the permanent availability of septic operating capacities without delay caused by an ongoing aseptic surgical program. A systematic literature review on the influence of a structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality has not yet been conducted.

METHODS

Systematic literature search in PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, screening of referenced citations, and assessment of grey literature.

RESULTS

A total of 572 articles were found through the systematic literature search. No head-to-head studies (neither randomised, quasi-randomised nor observational) were identified which examined the impact of structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality.

CONCLUSIONS

This review did not identify evidence in favour nor against architectural separation of septic or aseptic operating theatre. Specifically, there is no evidence of a harmful effect of architectural separation. Unless prospective studies, ideally randomised trials, will be available, it is unjustified to call for abolishing established hospital structures. Future investigations must address patient-centered endpoints, surgical site infections, process quality and hospital economy.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews): CRD42018086568.