Assessing Changes in Stethoscope Hygiene During COVID-19: A Multicentre Cross-Sectional Study

Stethoscope barriers narrative review; It's time for a strategy unfriendly to multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs)

The current standard of stethoscope hygiene doesn't eliminate the transmission of harmful pathogens, including multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs). In the era of the increasing prevalence of MDRO infections, the use of new systems providing touch free barriers may improve patient safety versus traditional stethoscope cleaning practices with chemical agents. Our purpose was to provide a narrative literature review regarding barriers as an improvement over the current standard of care for stethoscope hygiene. Searching PubMed, articles were identified if they were in English and published after 1990, using the search term "stethoscope barrier", or if they were from a previously published stethoscope hygiene article using "author's name + stethoscope". Included articles evaluated or discussed stethoscope barriers. Of 28 manuscripts identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers were considered superior to alternatives if they were single use, disposable, applied in a touch free fashion, were impervious to pathogens, provided an aseptic patient contact, and were acoustically invisible. Use of a practitioner's personal stethoscope with a disposable diaphragm barrier should be recommended as a new standard of care as this represents an improvement in patient safety and patient experience when compared to the disposable stethoscope or isopropyl alcohol stethoscope diaphragm cleaning.

Personal stethoscope disinfection practices and bacterial contamination: A cross-sectional study at the University Hospital Emergency Department in Belgrade, Serbia

BACKGROUND

A significant reduction in bacterial growth on stethoscope membranes has been noticed after performing daily disinfection. Nevertheless, disinfection is rarely performed. We aimed to assess self-reported stethoscope disinfection practices among medical doctors, detect bacterial contamination on personal stethoscopes, and estimate the effectiveness of 70% ethanol as a stethoscope disinfecting agent.

METHODS

To determine stethoscope disinfection practices, participants filled out a questionnaire (N = 47), followed by providing stethoscopes for bacterial analysis. Differences in bacterial contamination were observed through the self-reported frequency and method of stethoscope disinfection. The effect of disinfecting with 70% ethanol was evaluated by comparing the presence of bacterial growth before and after disinfection.

RESULTS

The presence of bacterial growth was found in 78.7% of the stethoscope samples, with the median (interquartile range) number of colony-forming units at 25 (10-105). The frequency of disinfection greatly impacted the number of colony-forming units, and the method affected the presence of bacterial growth. Disinfection of stethoscope membranes using 70% ethanol resulted in a compelling 97.3% reduction of bacterial growth.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate stethoscope disinfection is highly efficient in reducing bacterial contamination and as such should be considered a critical step in hygienic practices.

Real-world evaluation of the Stemoscope electronic tele-auscultation system

BACKGROUND

With the spread of COVID-19, telemedicine has played an important role, but tele-auscultation is still unavailable in most countries. This study introduces and tests a tele-auscultation system (Stemoscope) and compares the concordance of the Stemoscope with the traditional stethoscope in the evaluation of heart murmurs.

METHODS

A total of 57 patients with murmurs were recruited, and echocardiographs were performed. Three cardiologists were asked to correctly categorize heart sounds (both systolic murmur and diastolic murmur) as normal vs. abnormal with both the Stemoscope and a traditional acoustic stethoscope under different conditions. Firstly, we compared the in-person auscultation agreement between Stemoscope and the conventional acoustic stethoscope. Secondly, we compared tele-auscultation (recorded heart sounds) agreement between Stemoscope and acoustic results. Thirdly, we compared both the Stemoscope tele-auscultation results and traditional acoustic stethoscope in-person auscultation results with echocardiography. Finally, ten other cardiologists were asked to complete a qualitative questionnaire to assess their experience using the Stemoscope.

RESULTS

For murmurs detection, the in-person auscultation agreement between Stemoscope and the acoustic stethoscope was 91% (p = 0.67). The agreement between Stemoscope tele-auscultation and the acoustic stethoscope in-person auscultation was 90% (p = 0.32). When using the echocardiographic findings as the reference, the agreement between Stemoscope (tele-auscultation) and the acoustic stethoscope (in-person auscultation) was 89% vs. 86% (p = 1.00). The system evaluated by ten cardiologists is considered easy to use, and most of them would consider using it in a telemedical setting.

CONCLUSION

In-person auscultation and tele-auscultation by the Stemoscope are in good agreement with manual acoustic auscultation. The Stemoscope is a helpful heart murmur screening tool at a distance and can be used in telemedicine.