Ultrasound probe use and reprocessing: Results from a national survey among U.S. infection preventionists

Carrico, Ruth; Furmanek, Stephen; English, Connor

doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2018.03.025

Cited by 29 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, 11% declared they cleaned the probe at the end of the session only, without any further cleaning procedure between two TVS scans 6 . In contrast, in a recently-published national questionnaire survey in the USA, most (96%) infection preventionists declared adequate compliance with HLD after endocavitary scan in their facility 9 . In our experience (data not shown), compliance with local guidelines did not match with what was expected based on local protocols implemented by infection preventionists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Transvaginal ultrasound probes are human papillomavirus‐free following low‐level disinfection: cross‐sectional multicenter survey

Heard

Roueli

Lafourcade

et al. 2019

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the frequency of detection of high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) on transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) probes and keyboards and evaluate operator compliance with national recommendations for prevention of cross‐infection during TVS. Methods This was a multicenter observational survey involving 46 public and private centers, in the Paris region of France, in which at least five consecutive TVS examinations were performed per day. We audited 676 TVS procedures. We recorded preventive hygiene actions undertaken by the operator at three stages: (1) during TVS; (2) during probe disinfection; and (3) during preparation of the probe for the next TVS. After probe disinfection, we collected one sample from the bare probe and one from the ultrasound keyboard; following probe preparation for the next examination, an additional sample was obtained from the covered probe. The samples were tested for presence of hrHPV DNA using the Cobas® 4800 System. Results We did not detect hrHPV DNA in samples collected from uncovered or covered probes (0%; 95% CI, 0.00–0.55%). Keyboard samples were positive for hrHPV in two cases (0.3%; 95% CI, 0.04–1.07%). During TVS, the operator avoided touching the keyboard with a hand that had touched the patient's vulva in 86% of cases and held the probe with a gloved hand in 68%. Before probe disinfection, the operator wore new gloves, or performed hand disinfection in 8% of cases. The probe disinfection technique used was adequate in 87% of cases, not performed at all in 12% and insufficient in 1%. Before preparing the probe for the next scan, the operators disinfected their hands or used new gloves in 81% of cases. The probe cover and the coupling gel used complied with recommendations in 98% and 46% of cases, respectively. Of the seven preventive hygiene actions recommended in national guidelines, all were performed in 2%, three to six in 95% and two in 3% of observations. In four (9%) centers, disinfection was not performed in over half the observations. Conclusions No evidence of hrHPV DNA was found on TVS probes and probe covers following low‐level disinfection, despite suboptimal compliance with hygiene guidelines. Routine TVS practice could be made easier and safer with a global approach to probe disinfection and hand hygiene. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Transvaginal ultrasound probes are human papillomavirus‐free following low‐level disinfection: cross‐sectional multicenter survey

Heard

Roueli

Lafourcade

et al. 2019

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The response rate was consistent or higher than other similar surveys. 9 The demographics contained a high percentage of respondents (n = 1354, 92%) who were employed by inpatient hospital facilities. Ninety-seven respondents (7%) worked for outpatient facilities, 18 respondents (1%) worked in other types of facilities including home health, and 6 respondents did not indicate facility type.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey of Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Intravenous Practices: A Report of Supply Usage and Variability Between Clinical Roles and Departments

Moureau¹,

Gilbert

2020

Journal of the Association for Vascular Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights Abstract Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous (UGPIV) supply usage practices by clinicians working in vascular access, in emergency departments (EDs), or in other roles. Methodology: In 2019, a voluntary cross-sectional descriptive survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey. Data collected included demographics, practice-oriented information, procedural activities, and supplies used for UGPIV insertions. Frequency distributions and results of Fisher’s exact test and one-way analysis of variance were reported using R v.3.5.2. Results: A total of 26,649 surveys were distributed with a response rate of 5.5% (n = 1475). Forty-eight percent of respondents (n = 709) indicated that they worked in a vascular access role, 310 (21%) worked in an ED, and 455 (31%) categorized their role as other. Clinically meaningful differences existed in all variables for UGPIV procedures and supplies between departments (P < 0.0001) and in all care settings. Using an investigator-constructed overall metric of supplies used, important differences were demonstrated between personnel supply use in vascular access roles and other roles (P < 0.0001) and personnel in EDs and other roles (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Use of supplies for UGPIV insertions varies by department. The variability in supply usage for UGPIV insertions revealed by this survey suggests a need for clinical education on guideline application and evaluation of compliance with policies to promote standardization of supplies for UGPIV insertion.

show abstract

“…[5][6][7] A 2017 survey of US infection preventionists (IPs) revealed variation in following these guidelines, with 22%-96% compliance depending on the procedure, which suggest that patients could be at increased risk for preventable infections. 8 In this project, we investigated ultrasound use and barriers to reprocessing probes at ambulatory sites.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and facilitators to standardization of ultrasound use and probe disinfection in the ambulatory setting

Safdar

Shirley

2020

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ultrasound probe use and reprocessing: Results from a national survey among U.S. infection preventionists

Cited by 29 publications

References 15 publications

Transvaginal ultrasound probes are human papillomavirus‐free following low‐level disinfection: cross‐sectional multicenter survey

Transvaginal ultrasound probes are human papillomavirus‐free following low‐level disinfection: cross‐sectional multicenter survey

Survey of Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Intravenous Practices: A Report of Supply Usage and Variability Between Clinical Roles and Departments

Barriers and facilitators to standardization of ultrasound use and probe disinfection in the ambulatory setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About