Pachymeter Use and Disinfection Practice in the United Kingdom: A National Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Pachymetry plays a crucial role in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma and corneal diseases. There have been several outbreaks of epidemic ocular infections in ophthalmology clinics worldwide with reports of viral, parasitic, and prion disease. Contact pachymetry is a possible vehicle of transmission due to its risk of contamination. We aim to identify the types of pachymetry used and methods employed for cleaning and disinfection in eye units throughout the United Kingdom. METHODS: A telephone survey was carried out, and a senior nurse or sister questioned based on the proforma created. A follow-up email was sent to units that did not respond with the questionnaire attached. RESULTS: Of 109 responses, 10 eye units were unaware of the device name and 4 were unaware of the cleaning method used. Overall, 69/105 (66%) were cleaned with some form of alcohol wipe between patients, 12/105 (11%) used presept solution to soak the pachymetry head mainly 5 to 10 minutes, with 2 units soaking for 20 to 30 minutes. Milton solution was used by 4 units (4%) (10 s to 10 min). Three used a hydrogen peroxide solution for 10 minutes (3%). Three (3%) used an alcohol solution. Fifteen (14%) units used some chlorine-based solution (actichlor/chloraprep) for 5 to 10 minutes. Two (2%) units combined an alcohol-based wipe with solution to soak afterward. CONCLUSIONS: There is a large variation in methods and duration of tip disinfection with only a few units following the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) guidelines on pachymeter disinfection. The majority of eye units use alcohol/chlorine-based wipes for cleaning the pachymetry heads which is against the current recommended guidelines. The average immersion time when solutions were used was 5 to 10 minutes.

Disposable versus non-disposable tonometer prisms: a UK national survey.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of disposable tonometer versus non-disposable tonometer use in the UK and to determine methods of decontamination and frequency of replacement of prisms.A total of 137 ophthalmology departments were interviewed by telephone using a structured questionnaire. The main outcome measured were:types of tonometer prisms used in clinic (disposable, non-disposable and/or other)average disposable prisms used per clinic sessionaverage lifespan of non-disposable prismsprism preference by glaucoma and other teams within department.A cost and benefit analysis was then performed on the data acquired. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five departments were identified for the survey. Of these, 137 (88.3%) responded. Eighty-one departments (59.1%) used Tonosafe prisms alone, whereas 22 departments (16.1%) used Goldmann non-disposable prisms exclusively. Thirty-five departments (64%) on average have a change rate of 26.5% per year (range: 0-100, median: 20) attributed to damage, loss or theft. Sixteen departments (29%) reported that prisms were used until damaged or lost. Four departments (7%) were uncertain of their prism usage and could not provide further information. CONCLUSIONS: Majority of eye departments in the UK opt for disposable prisms. This survey shows the perceived cost-effectiveness of disposable prisms is overestimated when the true cost of disinfection and damage is taken into account. Significant cost savings coupled with the low risk of infectivity (if decontaminated properly) should prompt clinicians and ophthalmic departments worldwide to reconsider the use of non-disposable prisms.