Evaluation of Reprocessing Effectiveness for Flexible Ureteroscopes

Ofstead, Cori L.; Heymann, Otis L.; Quick, Mariah R.; Eiland, John E.; Wetzler, Harry P.

doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2017.04.259

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a 2017 study, researchers identified microbial growth on 2 of 16 sterilized ureteroscopes. The ATP results for one of the scopes exceeded the 200 RLU benchmark, and all scopes had protein detected with visual debris in the channels 19 . Sheitoyan‐Pesant et al 11 reported an increase in SSIs related to a practice change in the decontamination of the ultrasonic surgical aspirator used during craniotomy procedures.…”

Section: Airborne Sources and Control Of Contaminantsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Researchers can measure surface contamination by culturing specific microorganisms; assessing CFUs, adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and relative light units (RLUs); visually inspecting surfaces; and using fluorescent marking gel with allocation‐of‐contamination ratings 5,7,9,13,15,40,46‐50 . Microorganisms identified in a few of the studies that examined surface contamination included S aureus , methicillin‐resistant S aureus , S epidermidis , Enterobacter , Acinetobacter species, and Pseudomonas species 19,47‐49,51,52 …”

Section: Airborne Sources and Control Of Contaminantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5,7,9,13,15,40,[46][47][48][49][50] Microorganisms identified in a few of the studies that examined surface contamination included S aureus, methicillin-resistant S aureus, S epidermidis, Enterobacter, Acinetobacter species, and Pseudomonas species. 19,[47][48][49]51,52 Alfonso-Sanchez et al 5 examined contamination of OR surfaces and its association with SSIs in a longitudinal multifacility prospective study with a sample size of 18,910 patients. The researchers reported an overall 6.7% rate of SSI, but the rate of SSI was minimal in the absence of CFUs and environmental or surface contamination (0.34%).…”

Section: Contact Sources and Control Of Contaminantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ATP results for one of the scopes exceeded the 200 RLU benchmark, and all scopes had protein detected with visual debris in the channels. 19 Sheitoyan-Pesant et al 11 reported an increase in SSIs related to a practice change in the decontamination of the ultrasonic surgical aspirator used during craniotomy procedures. The rate of SSI from 2002 to 2014 increased from 0.6% to 4.4%; from January to June 2015, the rate increased to 8.75% (N ¼ 80 patients).…”

Section: Surgical Instruments Equipment and Communication Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 When aligned with evidence-based standards, the behavior and practices of HCPs can reduce the degree of OR microbial contamination. 11,12,[15][16][17][18][19] Surgery has risks and benefits, but neither the patient nor the HCP expects an SSI to be one of the outcomes. Therefore, attempts to decrease risks from endogenous and exogenous sources remain an essential component of overseeing a harm-free operative environment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Minimizing Sources of Airborne, Aerosolized, and Contact Contaminants in the OR Environment

Armellino¹

2017

AORN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surgical site infections are unintended consequences of surgery that can cause harm to patients and place financial burdens on health care organizations. Extrinsic factors in the OR-including health care providers' behavior and practices that modify air movement, the physical environment, equipment, or surgical instruments-can increase microbial contamination. Microbes can be transported into the surgical incision by airborne or contact routes and contribute to a surgical site infection. Simple practices to prevent infection-such as minimizing airborne particles and contaminants, maintaining equipment according to the manufacturer's recommendations, cleaning and disinfecting the environment and surgical instruments, and performing proper hand hygiene-can reduce the degree of microbial contamination. Perioperative leaders and health care providers can help decrease the patient's risk of surgical site infection with proactive preventive practices that break the chain of infection.

show abstract

Section: Airborne Sources and Control Of Contaminantsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Airborne Sources and Control Of Contaminantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Contact Sources and Control Of Contaminantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Surgical Instruments Equipment and Communication Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Minimizing Sources of Airborne, Aerosolized, and Contact Contaminants in the OR Environment

Armellino¹

2017

AORN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Single‐use versus reusable rhinolaryngoscopes for inpatient otorhinolaryngology consults: Resident and patient experience

Bowen,

Macielak,

Fussell

et al. 2023

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesSingle‐use rhinolaryngoscopes were brought to market in 2019 as an alternative to traditional reusable scopes and have garnered interest across settings given portability and potential cost advantages. While single‐use was previously evaluated compared to traditional devices, the overall impact to the consult experience for both users and patients has not been captured.MethodsEighteen residents performed consults with both single‐use and reusable rhinolaryngoscope systems on alternating weeks. A five‐question cumulative survey administered across three assessment points over a 12‐week period using a five‐point rating system to rate favorability. Residents and patients also completed four‐point scale surveys following procedure(s) to capture the consult experience. Statistical analyses were performed to measure significance differences between survey responses between the two systems.ResultsSingle‐use rhinolaryngoscopes received higher overall ratings compared with reusables across each metric captured including overall consult time (4.3 vs. 2.2, p < .001), multiscope consults (4.4 vs. 3.1, p < .001), patient communication (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), teaching opportunities (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), and overall ease of use (4.7 vs. 2.6, p < .001). Residents rated single‐use higher than reusable after each procedure in terms of ease of use (1.07 vs. 2.68, p < .001) and visual clarity (1.27 vs. 1.89, p = .003), while patients rated single‐use higher for understanding of illness (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001) and understanding of treatment rationale (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001).ConclusionResident and patient experience feedback favored single‐use rhinolaryngoscopes compared to reusable scope technology across multiple surveyed measurables. Single‐use rhinolaryngoscopes provide a viable tool for otorhinolaryngologist and other clinicians to perform rhinolaryngoscopy consults.Level of Evidence4.

show abstract

Costs involved in compliance with new endoscope reprocessing guidelines

Hoffman,

Cool

2024

Clin Endosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The new AAMI standards recommend several major changes that can add both substantial time and cost to endoscope reprocessing.Background/Aims: In March 2022, the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) released the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/AAMI ST91:2021, their latest update on comprehensive, flexible, and semirigid endoscope reprocessing. These updated standards recommend the sterilization of high-risk endoscopes when possible and provide new recommendations for the precleaning, leak testing, manual cleaning, visual inspection, automated reprocessing, drying, storage, and transport of endoscopes. Methods: ANSI/AAMI ST91:2021 was compared with ANSI/AAMI ST91:2015 for major reprocessing differences that result in either time and/or cost increases. Time estimates were captured by explicit recommendation inclusion or taken from the literature. All the costs were estimated using publicly available resources. Results:The updated standards represent a potential 24.3-minute and 52.35 to 67.57 United States dollars increase per procedure in terms of reprocessing time and spending, respectively, not including capital investments. Capital costs per procedure were highly dependent on the procedure volume of the facility. Conclusions:The new AAMI standards recommend several major changes, such as sterilization, for facilities to reprocess and manage endoscopes between uses. As more facilities increase their reprocessing methods to reflect the updated standards, they do so at a cost and introduce several delays. As the reprocessing landscape evolves, facilities should consider their true costs and alternative solutions, such as single-use endoscopes.

show abstract

Evaluation of Reprocessing Effectiveness for Flexible Ureteroscopes

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Minimizing Sources of Airborne, Aerosolized, and Contact Contaminants in the OR Environment

Minimizing Sources of Airborne, Aerosolized, and Contact Contaminants in the OR Environment

Single‐use versus reusable rhinolaryngoscopes for inpatient otorhinolaryngology consults: Resident and patient experience

Costs involved in compliance with new endoscope reprocessing guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About