Decontaminated Single-Use Devices: An Oxymoron That May Be Placing Patients at Risk for Cross-Contamination

Abstract

None of the reprocessed single-use instruments were effectively cleaned, disinfected, or sterilized. This condition may provide an opportunity for the viability of nonresistant or nosocomial organisms and viruses. Additionally, reprocessing procedures may result in material destruction of fragile devices. Cost-saving initiatives that have inspired reprocessing of single-use devices, despite the absence of data establishing the efficacy of decontamination and the durability of materials throughout reprocessing, should be pushed into the background.

Specific hygiene issues relating to reprocessing and reuse of single-use devices for laparoscopic surgery

“…The results of our investigation demonstrate high similarity to those of a previous study, performed with single-use and reusable accessories for¯exible endoscopes [14,20]. Both studies suggest that disposable devices are not successfully decontaminated using current policies for reprocessing and may suer material destruction during these procedures.…”

Cleaned, Ready-to-Use, Reusable Electrocardiographic Lead Wires as a Source of Pathogenic Microorganisms

“…Although the prevalence of MRsA in health care workers according to work environment seemed to match our findings, too few studies of bacterial growth on hospital surfaces associated with patient care were conducted in or analyzed according to the work environment to draw conclusions. Moreover, pathogens may persist on inanimate dry surfaces for months, 14 cleaning procedures may facilitate the distribution of bacterial contaminants, 15 and health care workers may transmit bacteria to patients and hospital surfaces. Thus, work environment may play both a direct and an indirect role in the prevalence of bacterial growth on specific surfaces, such as ECg lead wires.…”

Importance of cleaning for reprocessing endoscopes and thermolabile sterile medical devices: French use and regulations

“…Their use can lead to increased risks linked to biofilm. 6,7 In view of this, it was decided that reinforced cleaning would be routinely required, 7 -9 usually in addition to the former procedure, and that a policy encouraging use of peracetic acid or chloridebased products instead of glutaraldehyde at the disinfection phase should be put in place. The latter has not yet quite undergone implementation in France, since a complete AFSSAPS study of the formulations available on the market is still underway.…”