Fluid retention in endoscopes: A real-world study on drying effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Outbreaks linked to inadequate endoscope drying have infected numerous patients, and current standards and guidelines recommend at least 10 minutes of forced air for drying channels. This study evaluated a new forced-air drying system (FADS) for endoscopes. METHODS: Drying was assessed using droplet detection cards; visual inspection of air/water connectors, suction connectors, and distal ends; and borescope examinations of endoscope interiors. Assessments were performed after automated endoscope reprocessor (AER) alcohol flush and air purge cycles and after 10-minute FADS cycles. RESULTS: Researchers evaluated drying during encounters with 22 gastroscopes and 20 colonoscopes. After default AER alcohol and air purge cycles, 100% (42/42) of endoscopes were still wet. Substantial fluid emerged from distal ends during the first 15 seconds of the FADS cycle, and droplets also emerged from air/water and suction connectors. Following FADS cycle completion, 100% (42/42) were dry, with no retained fluid detected by any of the assessment methods. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple endoscope ports and channels remained wet after AER cycles intended to aid in drying but were dry after the FADS cycle. This study reinforced the need to evaluate the effectiveness of current drying practices and illustrated the use of practical tools in a real-world setting.

Beyond Endoscopes: Pilot Study of Surgical Instrument Lumen Inspection.

Objective: Borescope examinations of endoscope channels are commonly described in literature, but no studies on surgical instrument lumen inspection have been published recently. Inadequately processed surgical instruments have been implicated in patient infections. This study assessed the utility of borescopes for inspecting surgical instruments. Methods: The study team inspected and photographed sterilized, patient-ready arthroscopic shaver handpieces and suction tips using a tablet camera and borescopes to characterize internal anatomy, defects found in lumens, and the impact of recleaning on debris or residues. Results: Ten suctions and eight shavers were inspected. All suctions had internal ridges and suction holes that were perpendicular to the lumen. All shavers had visible ridges, elbows, and lever mechanisms inside lumens. Of the 18 instruments, 16 (88%) had internal features that appeared rough or jagged and 17 (94%) had visible debris or discoloration in the lumens. Recleaning efforts generally were effective for suctions, but multiple rounds of recleaning with enhanced steps were less effective for shavers, which were replaced. Researchers documented retained soil and brush bristles in several new shavers despite following manufacturer instructions for cleaning and found visible damage and discoloration within five uses. Discussion: This study demonstrated the value of borescope examinations for surgical instrument lumens. Visual inspections identified anatomical features that could influence cleaning effectiveness and detected residual soil, discoloration, and debris in most instruments. The findings suggested that manufacturer cleaning instructions were insufficient and additional cleaning was not always effective. In response, the site's multidisciplinary team strengthened risk assessment protocols and enhanced their cleaning practices.

Improving mastery and retention of knowledge and complex skills among sterile processing professionals: A pilot study on borescope training and competency testing.

BACKGROUND: Health care is shifting toward minimally invasive procedures requiring increasingly complex instruments and sophisticated processing technologies. Effective training methods are needed to ensure sterile processing professionals acquire and retain essential skills. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a new training model that supports mastery and retention of complex key skills. METHODS: The model was pilot-tested with training focused on visual inspection of endoscopes. Pre- and post-training tests were administered to enhance learning during a face-to-face workshop that interspersed lectures and hands-on practice, followed by structured homework, and an online booster session. Surveys assessed satisfaction and confidence levels. RESULTS: Mean test scores for nine certified sterile processing employees increased significantly following the workshop (41% vs 84%, P < .001). After the workshop, all trainees identified actionable visible defects on patient-ready endoscopes in their facilities. Test scores remained high after 2 months (90%), and trainees reported higher technical confidence and satisfaction levels after training. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated effectiveness and clinical relevance of a new, evidence-based model for training sterile processing professionals that incorporated pretesting, lectures, hands-on practice, a training booster, and post-testing to enhance learning. This model may be applicable to other complex skills necessary for infection prevention and patient safety.

The utility of lighted magnification and borescopes for visual inspection of flexible endoscopes.

INTRODUCTION: Infections have been linked to damaged or contaminated endoscopes with visible defects. Endoscope processing standards and guidelines state endoscopes should be visually inspected every time they are used. This study evaluated a new visual inspection program using magnification and borescopes in an endoscopy department that had not previously utilized these tools. METHODS: Site personnel were given visual inspection tools and training before systematically examining fully processed endoscopes twice during a 2-month period. A risk assessment protocol was used to determine whether endoscopes required recleaning, repair, or other action. Findings were documented using log sheets, photographs, and videotapes. RESULTS: Visible damage and residue or debris were observed in 100% of 25 endoscopes at both assessments, and 76% required repair. Defects at baseline included scratches (88%); channel shredding or peeling (80%); adhesive band disintegration (80%); residual soil or debris (white 84%; black 68%; brown 40%; yellow/green 36%; and orange/red 8%); retained fluid (52%); and dents (40%). Findings were similar at follow-up. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: Visual inspection with magnification and borescopes identified actionable defects that could interfere with processing effectiveness in 100% of endoscopes. Infection preventionists have a critical role to play in supporting processing personnel now that standards, guidelines, and manufacturer instructions recommend enhanced visual inspection of every endoscope, every time.

Splash generation and droplet dispersal in a well-designed, centralized high-level disinfection unit.

BACKGROUND: Sterile processing personnel routinely decontaminate medical devices that are heavily soiled with blood, tissue, and secretions. Contamination may spread throughout processing areas, potentially exposing personnel and patient-ready devices, especially when there is insufficient separation between the dirty and clean areas. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify activities that generate splash, determine how far droplets travel during manual cleaning, characterize the impact of practices on splash generation, and assess effectiveness of personal protective equipment (PPE) at preventing splash exposure to technicians and visitors in the decontamination unit. METHODS: Moisture-detection paper was affixed to PPE and environmental surfaces in a new processing department designed to optimize workflow and prevent cross-contamination. Droplet generation and dispersal were assessed during manual cleaning of a colonoscope and a transvaginal ultrasound probe. RESULTS: Splash was generated by most activities and droplets were detected up to 7.25 feet away. Transporting wet endoscopes dispersed droplets on a 15-foot path from the sink to the automated endoscope reprocessor. Extensive droplets were detected on PPE worn by technicians at the sink and observers 3-4 feet away. CONCLUSIONS: Manual cleaning of devices generated substantial splash, drenching technicians and the environment with droplets that traveled more than 7 feet. Engineering controls and better PPE are needed to reduce personnel exposure and risks associated with the potential dispersal of contaminated fluids throughout the facility.

Reprocessing Effectiveness for Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Critical Look at the Evidence.

Flexible ureteroscopes are essential devices, and reusable models require meticulous cleaning and sterilization between procedures. Reprocessing is complex, time-consuming, and difficult due to the instrument's small size, fragility, and internal channel. The Food and Drug Administration recently raised concerns about the effectiveness of ureteroscope reprocessing. Due to inadequate reprocessing and maintenance, contaminated and damaged ureteroscopes pose risks to patient safety. This review describes ureteroscope reprocessing methods and summarizes evidence on reprocessing effectiveness and documented outcomes associated with the use of damaged or inadequately cleaned and sterilized ureteroscopes.

Droplet dispersal in decontamination areas of instrument reprocessing suites.

BACKGROUND: Personnel working in sterile processing or endoscope reprocessing departments are at high risk of exposure to tissue, blood, and patient fluids when decontaminating reusable medical instruments and equipment. The effectiveness of protective measures for reprocessing personnel has not yet been systematically evaluated in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: This pilot project aimed to identify reprocessing activities that generate splashes, determine how far droplets can travel in decontamination areas, and assess personal protective equipment exposure during routine activities. METHODS: Moisture-detection paper was affixed to environmental surfaces and personal protective equipment in a sterile processing department. Droplet dispersal was assessed after personnel simulated performance of routine reprocessing tasks. RESULTS: Visible droplets were generated during every reprocessing activity except running the sonication sink. Droplets traveled at least 3 feet when filling a sink, brushing a ureteroscope, and using a power sprayer to rinse a basin. Some activities dispersed droplets up to 5 feet from the sink. Personal protective equipment was splashed during most activities and did not prevent skin exposure even when properly donned and doffed. CONCLUSION: This hypothesis-generating pilot project found that routine reprocessing activities generated substantial splashing, and currently recommended personal protective equipment did not adequately protect sterile processing personnel from exposure.

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.

A Systematic Review of Disposable Sheath Use During Flexible Endoscopy.

Flexible endoscopes are exposed to blood, mucus, and other secretions during procedures. Single-use sheaths are designed to prevent contact between contaminants and reusable endoscope components. This systematic review examined findings from 22 studies that assessed endoscopic sheath use during urologic, gastrointestinal, or respiratory procedures. The evidence showed that sheaths were durable and yielded faster endoscope turnover times because their reusable components did not require high-level disinfection or sterilization. After a brief learning period, health care providers successfully assembled and maneuvered sheathed endoscopes. Patients generally did not experience greater discomfort during procedures in which sheaths were used. Microbial cultures of sheathed endoscopes were negative or similar to unsheathed endoscopes. More research is needed to evaluate the potential effect of disposable sheaths on infection risks. The evidence suggests that sheaths are a viable option for reliably providing a barrier between endoscopes and patients without affecting the quality of endoscopic procedures.

Widespread clinical use of simethicone, insoluble lubricants, and tissue glue during endoscopy: A call to action for infection preventionists.

BACKGROUND: Current methods for reprocessing flexible endoscopes do not consistently eliminate organic soil. The off-label use of simethicone as a defoaming agent may contribute to reprocessing failures, and endoscope manufacturers have cautioned against its use. METHODS: We sought evidence of simethicone use by interviewing hospital personnel, conducting audits, inspecting endoscopes, and conducting tests. RESULTS: Researchers examined 69 fully reprocessed endoscopes in 4 hospitals. Microbial cultures were positive for ≥50% of endoscopes. Researchers observed cloudy, shimmery fluid resembling simethicone inside channels and under a duodenoscope elevator mechanism. Crystallized white fragments were observed protruding from a gastroscope water jet outlet. Oily, sticky residue was found on endoscopes, and a 3-dimensional mass was found inside an endoscopic ultrasound endoscope. Hospital personnel reported the use of simethicone, cooking oil and silicone sprays, and tissue glue during endoscopy. DISCUSSION: The off-label use of defoaming agents, lubricants, and tissue glue is common and many endoscopists consider these products essential. Our findings suggest these substances are not removed during reprocessing and may impact reprocessing effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Infection preventionists should determine whether these products are used in their institutions and evaluate methods for removing them. New policies may be needed to support procedural success and effective endoscope reprocessing.