[Occupational exposure to sevoflurane in pediatric operating rooms: the multi-point sampling method for risk assessment]. / Esposizione professionale al sevoflurano nelle sale operatorie di pertinenza pediatrica: il contributo del monitoraggio ambientale con tecnica multi-punto nella valutazione del rischio.

Several studies have shown that occupational exposure to anesthetic gases might be higher during pediatric surgery, probably due to the increased use of inhalational induction techniques. Our study aims to assess the level of exposure to sevoflurane in two rooms of pediatric surgery, using multi-point sampling method for environmental monitoring. The gas concentrations as well as its dispersion were measured in strategic points in the rooms for a total of 44 surgical interventions. Although the average of these concentrations has been rather low (1.32, SD +/- 1:55 ppm), the results obtained have documented a significant distribution kinetics difference inside the rooms as function of multiple factors among which there were the anesthetic technique used and the team involved. Therefore the method described allows to correctly analyze the spread of anesthetic gases and suggests a different risk stratification which may be dependent on the professional work.

Development of a checklist as self-assessment tool to evaluate the reprocessing of endoscopic instruments in an Italian teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to develop a checklist, as a self-assessment tool, for evaluating all the items involved in the endoscope reprocessing that could be useful for the improvement and/or development of a safety endoscope reprocessing system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-step modified Delphi method, with an embedded qualitative component, was adopted to develop the checklist. According to it, corrective actions were performed before its further re-administration. Contextually, the microbiological surveillance of the endoscopes and of the wash disinfector machine was carried out. RESULTS: Five areas were included in the checklist. After the 1st checklist application, only one of three wards reached the excellent scores in all the items. The other two wards showed an improvement in the Traceability and Endoscope Reprocessing areas after corrective actions. The McNemar's test reported significant difference in the proportion of satisfactory results before and after the 1st and 2nd checklist application. The microbiological surveillance, conducted after the 1st administration, showed unsatisfactory results for the 2 bronchoscopes available in the Intensive Care Unit and for 2 automated endoscope reprocessors. The analysis performed after the 2nd administration showed good results. CONCLUSIONS: The periodic administration of the checklist is functional for a self-assessment of quality reprocessing procedures carried out in the large endoscopic services and in the wards occasionally providing those services, according to the good practice guidelines and for any corrective actions to increase the safety.