Anticipated reliability of liquid Chemical Sterilants

Muscarella, Lawrence F.

doi:10.1016/s0196-6553(98)80040-0

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, such a label claim may paradoxically increase the risk of patient infection. 11 On the other hand, AERs labeled for disinfection routinely and universally recommend this drying step, because it is vital to the prevention of bacterial colonization and patient infection. 4 ' 51113 In accordance with Muscarella's suggestion that the environment may have played a role in the cluster 3 outbreak, 5 Several important lessons and considerations can be learned from this cluster 3 outbreak investigation.…”

Section: To the Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 Further, the FDA is encouraged to consider whether the application of liquid chemical sterilants for the "sterilization" of instruments, particularly in the operating room setting, may be contrary to accepted standards. 11 Claims that the process may instead be "100% sporicidal" may be more appropriate. Future research to demonstrate the specific claims and effectiveness of all types of AERs is recommended, as is the suggestion not to use interchangeably the terms "sterilization" and "disinfection" to describe the effectiveness of a specific AER or other process.…”

Section: To the Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Leading a Horse to Water: Are Crucial Lessons in Endoscopy and Outbreak Investigations Being Learned?

Muscarella

2002

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: To the Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: To the Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

Leading a Horse to Water: Are Crucial Lessons in Endoscopy and Outbreak Investigations Being Learned?

Muscarella

2002

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are All Sterilization Processes Alike?

Muscarella

1998

AORN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automated processes designed to sterilize reusable medical instruments use heat and low-temperature chemicals. Several factors, including the physical properties of the sterilizing agents and whether all of the instruments' surfaces can be adequately cleaned, can cause significant variations in the reliability and effectiveness of the sterilization processes. Instruments exposed to heat-based sterilization processes pose the lowest probability of transmitting diseases between patients. Heat can conduct through many different types of materials and can destroy microorganisms embedded under layers of patient debris. Studies have demonstrated, however, that--unlike heat--low-temperature chemicals require direct contact with the microorganisms to be effective. Moreover, the complex designs of some instruments can adversely affect the low-temperature sterilization processes' outcomes by hindering cleaning and preventing the flow of low-temperature chemicals to all of the instruments' contaminated surfaces. This article will explore the differences between heat-based and low-temperature chemical processes to help health care providers minimize the risk of cross-infection.

show abstract

Medical errors, infection-control breaches and the use of adulterated and misbranded medical devices

Muscarella¹

2012

WJCID

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anticipated reliability of liquid Chemical Sterilants

Cited by 3 publications

References 20 publications

Leading a Horse to Water: Are Crucial Lessons in Endoscopy and Outbreak Investigations Being Learned?

Leading a Horse to Water: Are Crucial Lessons in Endoscopy and Outbreak Investigations Being Learned?

Are All Sterilization Processes Alike?

Medical errors, infection-control breaches and the use of adulterated and misbranded medical devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About