A prospective, multicenter, clinical study of duodenoscope contamination after reprocessing.

OBJECTIVE: Several clinical procedures utilize duodenoscopes, which are processed for reuse after the procedures are completed. However, infection outbreaks due to improper duodenoscope processing occur frequently. To address this, we aimed to assess the contamination rates of duodenoscopes after reprocessing in nonoutbreak settings. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective study in 16 clinical sites in the United States. METHODS: We sampled and cultured reprocessed duodenoscopes following the FDA/CDC/ASM guideline; "Duodenoscope Surveillance Sampling and Culturing - Reducing the Risks of Infection." High-concern (HC) organisms were those highly associated with disease, including gram-negative rods, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus lugdunensis, ß-hemolytic Streptococcus, Enterococcus spp, and yeasts. We evaluated duodenoscopes with ≥1 CFU of organisms after reprocessing. The reprocessing environments were also sampled and cultured. RESULTS: We assessed 859 newer-model (NM) duodenoscopes (TJF-Q180V) and 850 older-model (OM) duodenoscopes (TJF-160F/VF); of these, 35 NM samples (4.1%) and 56 OM samples (6.6%) were contaminated with HC organisms. We detected and classified the HC organisms as gastrointestinal (45.4%), human origin (16.7%), environmental (24.1%), waterborne (13.0%), and unidentified (0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: We detected an overall HC contamination rate of 5.3% in nonoutbreak settings. Although the relationship between endoscopic contamination and the occurrence of infections remains unclear, attempts should continue to be made to further reduce contamination rates. Additional improvements to the manufacturer's instructions for use, human factors during the reprocessing procedure, ongoing training programs, cleanliness of reprocessing environments, and the design of the distal end of the duodenoscope should be considered.

Registered dietitians' coding practices and patterns of code use.

Coding, coverage, and reimbursement are vital to the clinical segment of our profession. The objective of this study was to assess understanding and use of the medical nutrition therapy (MNT) procedure codes. Its design was a targeted, cross-sectional, Internet survey. Participants were registered dietitians (RDs) preselected based on Medicare Part B provider status, randomly selected RDs from the American Dietetic Association database based on clinical practice designation, and self-selected RDs. Parameters assessed were knowledge and use of existing MNT and/or alternative procedure codes, barriers to code use/compensation, need for additional codes for existing/emerging services, and practice demographics. Results suggest that MNT is being reimbursed for a variety of diseases and conditions. Many RDs working in clinic settings are undereducated about code use of any kind, reporting that code selection frequently is determined not by the RD providing the service, but by "someone else." Self-employed RDs are less likely to rely on others to administrate paperwork required for reimbursement, including selection of procedure codes for billable nutrition services. Self-employed RDs are more likely to be reimbursed by private or commercial payers and RDs working in clinic settings are more likely to be reimbursed by Medicare; however, the proportion of Medicare providers in both groups is high. RDs must be knowledgeable and accountable for both the business and clinical side of their nutrition practices; using correct codes and following payers' claims processing policies and procedures. This survey and analysis is a first step in understanding the complex web of relationships between clinical practice, MNT code use, and reimbursement.