Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making.

Background Recent outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) have brought attention to the infection risk from procedures performed with duodenoscopes. Prior to these MDRO outbreaks, procedures with duodenoscopes were considered safe and low risk for exogenous infection transmission, provided they were performed in strict accordance with manufacturer instructions for use and multisociety reprocessing guidelines. The attention and efforts of the scientific community, regulatory agencies, and the device industry have deepened our understanding of factors responsible for suboptimal outcomes. These include instrument design, reprocessing practices, and surveillance strategies for detecting patient and instrument colonization. Various investigations have made it clear that current reprocessing methods fail to consistently deliver a pathogen-free instrument. The magnitude of infection transmission has been underreported due to several factors. These include the types of organisms responsible for infection, clinical signs presenting in sites distant from ERCP inoculation, and long latency from the time of acquisition to infection. Healthcare providers remain hampered by the ill-defined infectious risk innate to the current instrument design, contradictory information and guidance, and limited evidence-based interventions or reprocessing modifications that reduce risk. Therefore, the objectives of this narrative review included identifying outbreaks described in the peer-reviewed literature and comparing the findings with infections reported elsewhere. Search strategies included accessing peer-reviewed articles, governmental databases, abstracts for scientific conferences, and media reports describing outbreaks. This review summarizes current knowledge, highlights gaps in traditional sources of evidence, and explores opportunities to improve our understanding of actual risk and evidence-based approaches to mitigate risk.

The impact of continuous electrical microcurrent on acute and hard-to-heal wounds: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Wound infections result in considerable morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Antibiotic resistance has complicated wound healing, and new, non-antibiotic-based treatment methods are being developed. AIMS: To evaluate evidence on the safety, efficacy and real-world effectiveness of electroceutical devices (ECDs) that provide continuous electrical stimulation to wounds. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted to identify primary studies published between 2009 and 2019 that described therapeutic wound treatment using portable ECDs. Studies were included if the ECD delivered continuous electrical current directly to the wound area for the duration of treatment. RESULTS: Of 171 citations identified in the search, 13 articles met the inclusion criteria and were analysed. Nine studies evaluated dressings embedded with zinc and silver particles that generated electricity electrochemically, and four evaluated electrode-based units with external batteries. ECDs were effective in healing complex, hard-to-heal wounds that had not responded to other treatments. Four studies showed that ECDs led to complete closure of wounds without complications, and in some cases healed wounds faster than standard of care (SOC). One study found that ECDs resulted in higher ratings by both patients and surgeons than SOC for the progression of wound healing and scar appearance. Additionally, three studies found ECD treatment was less expensive than SOC, due to patients requiring fewer dressing changes or nurse visits. CONCLUSION: ECDs appeared to be a safe, effective and cost-effective method for treating severe, complex and challenging wounds, including hard-to-heal wounds, surgical incisions and skin graft donor sites.

Challenges in achieving effective high-level disinfection in endoscope reprocessing.

Endoscope reprocessing is often ineffective, and microbes frequently remain on endoscopes after the use of high-level disinfectants (HLDs). Several factors impact reprocessing effectiveness, including non-adherence to guidelines, use of damaged endoscopes, use of insoluble products during endoscopy, insufficient cleaning, contaminated rinse water, and inadequate drying before storage. Our team suspected that issues with HLD chemistries and monitoring could also contribute to reprocessing failures. We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of published literature, our interviews with frontline personnel, and evidence from our previous studies. The evidence showed that reusable HLDs commonly failed tests for minimum effective concentration (MEC) before their maximum usage periods. MEC tests also detected failures associated with single-use HLDs that did not fully deploy. These failures were due to product issues, process complexities, and personnel non-adherence with guidelines and manufacturer instructions. HLDs will likely continue to be used for the foreseeable future. More research is needed to assess real-world practice patterns related to the high-level disinfection step and MEC testing and to establish more realistic usage periods for reusable HLD chemistries. Manufacturers and researchers should evaluate the ability of technological solutions and engineered safeguards to overcome human error. Recognition of the need for quality improvement is growing, and infection preventionists should take action to build on this momentum and collaborate with manufacturers, endoscopists, and reprocessing personnel to improve the effectiveness of high-level disinfection.