Endoscope Reprocessing Methods: A Prospective Study on the Impact of Human Factors and Automation

Ensuring patient safety during cystocopy: risk assessment of device reprocessing through healthcare failure mode and effects analysis

INTRODUCTION

Flexible cystoscopy is a widely performed urological procedure, with millions conducted annually. However, cystoscope contamination rates are relatively high, ranging from 2 to 21%, and infections may go undetected. Proper reprocessing of cystoscopes is a critical step in ensuring the safe use of these devices, which underscores the importance of studying it more thoroughly. The aim of this article is to describe the stages of cystoscope reprocessing in the Urology Department of a tertiary Hospital, identifying the potential failures of the system before they occur, quantifying its risks and recommending improvement actions to enhance overall safety and efficiency.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This qualitative study was conducted using the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis methodology in different phases. First, data on structure, equipment and work processes were collected through direct observation and staff interviews. Then, processes and sub-processes were described along with their possible failures and underlying causes. Risks of this potential failures (failure modes) were quantified using the Risk Priority Number (RPN), calculated as the product of their frequency, severity and detectability. Improvement actions to mitigate failures with the highest NRP were proposed based on expert consensus and literature review.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

9 processes and 11 sub-processes were identified, along with 16 failure modes. The key failure modes, those with an RPN > 100 included incorrect manual high-level disinfection, incorrect cleaning due to lack of brushing and lack of traceability. These failures were primarily caused by insufficient staff training, short intervals between procedures, and inadequate infrastructure. To address these issues, expert recommendations included providing comprehensive training for staff, improving reprocessing infrastructure by optimizing room layout, and ensuring an adequate supply of cystoscopes to reduce time constraints. Additionally, prioritizing automatic high-level disinfection and implementing a traceability system were proposed to enhance process reliability and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

Inadequate organizational structure and equipment can compromise patient safety during high-care activities. After analyzing cystoscope reprocessing at our center, three critical failure modes (NPR > 100) were identified: lack of traceability, improper cleaning due to insufficient brushing, and improper manual high-level disinfection (HLD). To address these issues, we proposed actions including improve staff training, increase the cystoscope supply, and enhance the unit's infrastructure. These findings may guide other healthcare professionals in improving reprocessing safety.

Multisociety guidance for sterilization and high-level disinfection

SHEA, in partnership with ASGE, APIC, AAMI, AORN, HSPA, IDSA, SGNA, and The Joint Commission, developed this multisociety infection prevention guidance document for individuals and organizations that engage in sterilization or high-level disinfection (HLD). This document follows the CDC Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities. This guidance is based on a synthesis of published scientific evidence, theoretical rationale, current practices, practical considerations, writing group consensus, and consideration of potential harm when applicable. The supplementary material includes a summary of recommendations. The guidance provides an overview of the Spaulding Classification and considerations around manufacturers' instructions for use (MIFUs). Its recommendations address: point-of-use treatment prior to sterilization or HLD, preparation of reusable medical devices at the location of processing, sterilization, and immediate use steam sterilization (IUSS), HLD of lumened and non-lumened devices, processing of reusable medical devices used with lubricating or defoaming agents, monitoring for effectiveness of processing, handling of devices after HLD, augments and alternatives to HLD, processing of investigational devices, tracking of reusable medical devices, and approaches to implementation.

Novel water-based automated endoscope cleaning process vs conventional manual cleaning for reducing duodenoscope contamination

Background and study aims

Duodenoscope contamination remains a persistent problem, exposing patients to infection risks. Automation in reprocessing may limit human error, reduce workload, and increase uniformity and traceability. However, its effectiveness should be evaluated before implementation. This study assessed the impact of implementing a novel water-based automated endoscope cleaning process on duodenoscope contamination.

Methods

This before-and-after intervention study compared duodenoscope cleaning methods. From January 2022 to December 2023, conventional manual cleaning was used. From January 2024 to June 2024, the AquaTYPHOON system (AT) replaced manual cleaning. Cultures from Pentax ED34-i10T2 patient-ready duodenoscopes were collected. The main outcome was the contamination rate with microorganisms of gut or oral origin (MGO). Secondary outcomes included contamination with solely gut bacteria. Non-inferiority of the AT was tested using a generalized estimating equation with a non-inferiority margin of 5%.

Results

During the manual cleaning period, 333 duodenoscope cultures of eight duodenoscopes were collected; during the AT period, 100 cultures were collected. Pre-introduction of the AT, the contamination rate with MGO was 21.6%, which fell to 16% post-introduction (risk difference: -5.6%, upper bound 90% confidence interval [CI] 6.8%). For gut bacteria, the contamination rate decreased from 14.4% to 9% (risk difference: -5.4%, upper bound 90% CI 3.9%), indicating non-inferiority.

Conclusions

AT reduced the contamination rate with MGO, but non-inferiority was not demonstrated. For gut bacteria, AT was non-inferior to manual cleaning. These results are promising. However, future studies should confirm these findings in larger samples and explore other advantages of using the AT in duodenoscope cleaning.

An investigation into cleaning quality of suction-type metal lumen instruments: a cross-sectional study

The highest unqualified cleaning rate of suction-type lumen instruments is a major challenge for a central sterile supply department (CSSD). However, A few comprehensive studies have analyzed the main factors affecting cleaning quality. In response, this study aimed to explore the current state and the factors affecting the cleaning quality of reused suction-type metal lumen instruments in CSSD. The results revealed that the qualified cleaning rates determined by the 5x magnifier visual inspection with light source method, OB reagent method, and ATP bioluminescence detection method were 94.2%, 72.6%, and 60.5%, respectively. The results also showed a significant difference between the three methods (X2 = 60.293, P < 0.001). Meanwhile, the binary logistic regression analysis revealed that the time interval between instrument recycling and cleaning, pollution level, pretreatment soaking time, cleaning technique, and the presence of visible bloodstains or dirt after pretreatment are independent risk factors that influence the cleaning quality of suction-type metal lumen instruments. Based on these results, the cleaning quality of suction-type metal lumen instruments needs further improvement.

Impact of duodenoscope reprocessing factors on duodenoscope contamination: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Despite adherence to reprocessing protocols, duodenoscopes frequently remain contaminated, highlighting significant knowledge gaps in reprocessing efficiency.

AIM

To identify risk factors in duodenoscope reprocessing procedures affecting contamination rates.

METHODS

Cultures from Pentax ED34-i10T2 duodenoscopes collected between February 2022 and December 2023 were included. Contamination was determined by the presence of micro-organisms of gut or oral origin (MGO). Data on duodenoscope use, reprocessing lead times and personnel were retrieved from electronic medical records. Risk factors were derived from reprocessing guidelines and literature. These included a delay >30 min in initiating manual cleaning, manual cleaning duration of ≤5 min, drying time <90 min, personnel reprocessing frequency, and storage exceeding seven days. A logistic mixed-effects model evaluated these factors' impact on duodenoscope contamination.

FINDINGS

Out of 307 duodenoscope cultures, 58 (18.9%) were contaminated with MGO. Throughout the study period, the duodenoscopes underwent 1296 reprocessing cycles. Manual cleaning times of ≤5 min significantly increased contamination odds (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-2.34; P = 0.01). Increased usage of a duodenoscope was associated with reduced odds of contamination (aOR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64-0.995; P = 0.045). Other studied risks showed no clear association with contamination rates.

CONCLUSION

Manual cleaning times of ≤5 min increased the odds of contamination with MGO. Delays in reprocessing initiation and incomplete drying, traditionally considered as risk factors, were not associated with an increased risk of contamination in this study. Future research should explore whether enhanced surveillance of reprocessing times can mitigate duodenoscope contamination.

Current management status of cleaning and disinfection for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the current status of cleaning and disinfection management for digestive endoscopy, provide data for standardization processing techniques, and improve the quality of cleaning and disinfection. Methods Two reviewers independently and comprehensively searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and CBM databases on February 1, 2023. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were strictly followed during the literature survey and data extraction. All observational studies detailing the current cleaning and disinfection management status for digestive endoscopy in hospitals were included. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 16.0 software. Results After removing different articles, the meta-analysis finally included 54 articles associated with multiple countries. The authors favor auditing staffers to confirm compliance with guidelines. The meta-analysis results indicated a configuration rate of 76% (95% CI: 68-83%) for separate rooms designated for reprocessing; 79% (95% CI: 72-84%) for reprocessing rooms with adequate ventilation; 30% (95% CI: 24-36%) for automated endoscope washer-disinfectors; 68% (95% CI: 55-81%) for complete protective equipment usage; 90% (95% CI: 83-95%) for the configuration rate of endoscope and accessory storage cabinets; 50% (95% CI: 38-61%) for changing enzymatic-type detergents after each use; 51% (95% CI: 30-71%) for the use of purified or sterilized water for final rinsing; 80% (95% CI: 70-88%) for monitoring disinfectant concentration; 87% (95% CI: 80-93%) for microbial monitoring; and 44% (95% CI: 26-62%) for the usage of protective equipment. Conclusion The configuration of the automated endoscope washer-disinfector, non-standard cleaning and disinfection procedures, and a lack of occupational protection awareness among personnel responsible for cleaning and disinfecting digestive endoscopy were all apparent issues. It was suggested that all departments enhance their levels of management and supervision, standardize reprocessing procedures and quality control details, upgrade hardware facilities and spatial layouts, reinforce personnel training, and increase staff awareness of nosocomial infection risks.

Simulated-use evaluation of rapid ChannelCheck™ cleaning test for optimal detection of organic residues in flexible endoscope channels

BACKGROUND

The need to monitor manual cleaning of high-risk endoscopes is recommended or more so required by the current endoscope reprocessing guidelines. The objective of this study was to establish the optimal extraction volume for colonoscopes and bronchoscopes and demonstrate the extraction efficacy for the ChannelCheck™ rapid test.

METHODS

The test soil utilized as a positive control was ATS2015 containing 20% defibrinated bovine blood. The extraction from the instrument channel of a colonoscope and bronchoscope was evaluated to establish the optimal extraction volume and the extraction efficacy for protein, carbohydrate and haemoglobin.

RESULTS

Of the extraction volumes tested, 10 mL was optimal for both colonoscopes and bronchoscopes. The extraction efficacy was 91% for carbohydrate, 83.7% for haemoglobin and 82.4% for protein.

CONCLUSIONS

The limit of detection for these analytes by the ChannelCheck rapid test meet or exceed the established levels that correlate with adequate manual cleaning of flexible endoscopes.

The Evolution of Spinal Endoscopy: Design and Image Analysis of a Single-Use Digital Endoscope Versus Traditional Optic Endoscope

Spinal endoscopy has evolved significantly since its inception, offering minimally invasive solutions for various spinal pathologies. This study introduces a promising innovation in spinal endoscopy-a single-use digital endoscope designed to overcome the drawbacks of traditional optic endoscopes. Traditional endoscopes, despite their utility, present challenges such as fragility, complex disinfection processes, weight issues, and susceptibility to mechanical malfunctions. The digital endoscope, with its disposable nature, lighter weight, and improved image quality, aims to enhance surgical procedures and patient safety. The digital endoscope system comprises a 30-degree 1000 × 1000 pixel resolution camera sensor with a 4.3 mm working channel, and LED light sources replacing optical fibers. The all-in-one touch screen tablet serves as the host computer, providing portability and simplified operation. Image comparisons between the digital and optic endoscopes revealed advantages in the form of increased field of view, lesser distortion, greater close-range resolution, and enhanced luminance. The single-use digital endoscope demonstrates great potential for revolutionizing spine endoscopic surgeries, offering convenience, safety, and superior imaging capabilities compared to traditional optic endoscopes.

What Are the Ready-to-Use Endoscope Channels Hiding?: Unraveling the Risks of Safe Reuse

Contamination due to failures or omissions in the reprocessing steps of gastrointestinal endoscopes is common in clinical practice. Ensuring the proper execution of each step is a challenge for reprocessing personnel. This cross-sectional study was conducted in an endoscopy setting between March and May 2021. We performed interviews about reprocessing practices, analyzed the life history of the equipment, and performed inspections through a borescope video of gastrointestinal endoscope channels that were stored and ready for use. A borescope is a complementary tool used to validate endoscope reprocessing, evaluate the internal visualization of channels, and identify changes that can compromise the safety of its use, which are often not detected in the leak test. Thirteen biopsy channels from stored gastrointestinal endoscopes were inspected. We found that 85% had stains and grooves, 69% contained moisture, and 46% had debris. There was at least one noncompliance issue in all of the channels inspected.

Reprocessing semicritical items: An overview and an update on the shift from HLD to sterilization for endoscopes

BACKGROUND

Semicritical medical devices are defined as items that come into contact with mucous membranes or nonintact skin (e.g., gastrointestinal endoscopes, endocavitary probes). Such medical devices require minimally high-level disinfection.

METHODS

Analyze the methods used to reprocess semicritical medical devices and identify methods and new technologies to reduce the risk of infection.

RESULTS

The reprocessing methods for semicritical medical devices is described as well as a shift from high-level disinfection to sterilization for lumened endoscopes.

CONCLUSIONS

Strict adherence to current guidelines and transition to sterilization for endoscopes is required as more outbreaks have been linked to inadequately disinfected endoscopes and other semicritical items than any other reusable medical devices.

Effect of an automated flexible endoscope channel brushing system on improving reprocessing quality: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Qualified reprocessing, of which meticulous channel brushing is the most crucial step, is essential for prevention and control of endoscopy-associated infections. However, channel brushing is often omitted in practice. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of an automated flexible endoscope channel brushing system (AECBS) on improving the quality of endoscope reprocessing.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted between 24 November 2021 and 22 January 2022 at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China. Eligible endoscopes were randomly allocated to the auto group (channels brushed by AECBS) or the manual group (channels brushed manually), with sampling and culturing after high-level disinfection and drying. The primary end point was the proportion of endoscopes with positive cultures.

RESULTS

204 endoscopes in the auto group and 205 in the manual group were analyzed. The proportion of endoscopes with positive cultures was significantly lower in the auto group (15.2 % [95 %CI 10.7 %-21.0 %]) than in the manual group (23.4 % [95 %CI 17.9 %-29.9 %]).

CONCLUSIONS

AECBS could effectively reduce bioburden and improve reprocessing quality of gastroscopes and colonoscopes. AECBS has the potential to replace manual brushing and lower the risk of endoscopy-associated infections, providing a new option for the optimization of reprocessing.

A review of Spaulding's classification system for effective cleaning, disinfection and sterilization of reusable medical devices: Viewed through a modern-day lens that will inform and enable future sustainability

Despite advances in medicine and innovations in many underpinning fields including disease prevention and control, the Spaulding classification system, originally proposed in 1957, remains widely used for defining the disinfection and sterilization of contaminated re-usable medical devices and surgical instruments. Screening PubMed and Scopus databases using a PRISMA guiding framework generated 272 relevant publications that were used in this review. Findings revealed that there is a need to evolve how medical devices are designed, and processed by cleaning, disinfection (and/or sterilization) to mitigate patient risks, including acquiring an infection. This Spaulding Classification remains in use as it is logical, easily applied and understood by users (microbiologists, epidemiologists, manufacturers, industry) and by regulators. However, substantial changes have occurred over the past 65 years that challenge interpretation and application of this system that includes inter alia emergence of new pathogens (viruses, mycobacteria, protozoa, fungi), a greater understanding of innate and adaptive microbial tolerance to disinfection, toxicity risks, increased number of vulnerable patients and associated patient procedures, and greater complexity in design and use of medical devices. Common cited examples include endoscopes that enable non- or minimal invasive procedures but are highly sophisticated with various types of materials (polymers, electronic components etc), long narrow channels, right angle and heat-sensitive components and various accessories (e.g., values) that can be contaminated with high levels of microbial bioburden and patient tissues after use. Contaminated flexible duodenoscopes have been a source of several significant infection outbreaks, where at least 9 reported cases were caused by multidrug resistant organisms [MDROs] with no obvious breach in processing detected. Despite this, there is evidence of the lack of attention to cleaning and maintenance of these devices and associated equipment. Over the last few decades there is increasing genomic evidence of innate and adaptive resistance to chemical disinfectant methods along with adaptive tolerance to environmental stresses. To reduce these risks, it has been proposed to elevate classification of higher-risk flexible endoscopes (such as duodenoscopes) from semi-critical [contact with mucous membrane and intact skin] to critical use [contact with sterile tissue and blood] that entails a transition to using low-temperature sterilization modalities instead of routinely using high-level disinfection; thus, increasing the margin of safety for endoscope processing. This timely review addresses important issues surrounding use of the Spaulding classification system to meet modern-day needs. It specifically addresses the need for automated, robust cleaning and drying methods combined with using real-time monitoring of device processing. There is a need to understand entire end-to-end processing of devices instead of adopting silo approaches that in the future will be informed by artificial intelligence and deep-learning/machine learning. For example, combinational solutions that address the formation of complex biofilms that harbour pathogenic and opportunistic microorganisms on the surfaces of processed devices. Emerging trends are addressed including future sustainability for the medical devices sector that can be enabled via a new Quintuple Helix Hub approach that combines academia, industry, healthcare, regulators, and society to unlock real world solutions.

A Single-Blind Study Testing the Preparation Accuracy of Bedside Precleaning Solutions Used for Flexible Endoscopes

Endoscopy-related pathogen transmission may occur if microorganisms are spread from patient to patient by contaminated equipment. Effective and safe endoscope reprocessing includes bedside precleaning, mechanical cleaning, high-level disinfection, storage, and drying. The aim of this research study was to observe and report on the variation in practice regarding the use of detergent for bedside precleaning of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Endoscopy nurses working in the endoscopy unit at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, Australia, prepared four samples of detergent solution as per normal routine. Twenty-nine nurses participated providing in total 116 samples. There was a significant variation in detergent concentration. The detergent concentration variated between 2.00 and 288.20 ml/L ( M = 34.55, SD = 39.21). Two samples revealed lower concentrations than required. More than 25% of the samples contained at least a 10 times higher concentration than required (>40 ml/L). Current practice of bedside precleaning of gastrointestinal endoscopes was not deemed safe or cost-effective as it did not guarantee an adequate concentration of detergent. More precise methods to establish the required concentration of the bedside precleaning solution were introduced to improve practice.

Criteria for the Use, Processing, and Disposal of Flexible Endoscope Cleaning Brushes

Objectives: To ensure effectiveness in the endoscope channel cleaning process, using functional brushes that are in good condition is necessary. This study sought to identify the criteria for acquiring, using, and disposing of cleaning brushes at endoscopy facilities in Brazil. We further sought to evaluate the conditions of the cleaning brushes in use in the facilities. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted between July 2021 and January 2022. Personnel responsible for processing endoscopes were interviewed regarding the use, processing, and disposal of flexible endoscope cleaning brushes. In addition, the brushes used to clean the equipment were inspected. Results: All participants interviewed reported the practice of brushing endoscope channels. Of them, 60% noted the use of disposable brushes, with 40% using reusable brushes. None of the facilities interviewed reported discarding disposable brushes after use. The protocols for disposal of brushes included disposing due to bristle wear (70%), disposal at the end of the day (20%), and an absence of disposal protocols (10%). In addition, 30% of facilities did not clean the bristles before reintroducing them into the channel/lumen, and no facility had an established routine for cleaning brushes between uses. Inspection of brushes revealed that only 20% of facilities had new brushes with no signs of wear or damage. Conclusion: The use of inappropriate brushes/sponges for cleaning endoscope channels and the lack of criteria for the reuse and disposal of brushes increases the risk of cross-contamination, internal damage to channels, and biofilm formation.

Microbiological surveillance post-reprocessing of flexible endoscopes used in digestive endoscopy: a national study

INTRODUCTION

Microbiological surveillance of endoscopes is a safety measure for verifying the quality of reprocessing procedures and identifying contaminated devices, but duodenoscope-related outbreaks are still reported.

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of duodenoscope reprocessing procedures in Italy.

METHODS

Between December 2019 and April 2020, data obtained from microbiological surveillance post-reprocessing in 15 Italian endoscopy units were collected. Sampling was carried out after reprocessing or during storage in a cabinet. In keeping with international guidelines and the Italian position paper, the micro-organisms were classified as high-concern organisms (HCOs) and low-concern organisms (LCOs).

FINDINGS

In total, 144 samples were collected from 51 duodenoscopes. Of these, 36.81% were contaminated: 22.92% were contaminated with HCOs and 13.89% were contaminated with LCOs [2.08% with an LCO load of 11-100 colony-forming units (CFU)/device and 0.69% with an LCO load of >100 CFU/device]. The contamination rate was 27.5% in samples collected after reprocessing, 40% in samples collected during storage in a cabinet that was compliant with EN 16442:2015 (C-I), and 100% in samples collected during storage in a cabinet that was not compliant with EN 16442:2015 (NC-I). The respective HCO rates were 15.00%, 27.27% and 66.67%. Correlation between LCO contamination and storage time was demonstrated (Spearman's rho=0.3701; P=0.0026). The Olympus duodenoscope TJFQ180V demonstrated the lowest rate of contamination (29.82%), although the contamination rate was 100% for duodenoscopes stored in an NC-I cabinet.

CONCLUSION

Microbiological surveillance, along with strict adherence to reprocessing protocols, may help to detect endoscope contamination at an early stage, and reduce the risk of duodenoscope-associated infections.

Assessing nonsexual transmission of the human papillomavirus (HPV): Do our current cleaning methods work?

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is thought to be sexually transmitted; however, there have been a few studies investigating a possible iatrogenic source of infection. Therefore, it is important to assess the cleaning methods of reusable medical devices. This study assessed whether cleaning methods of flexible endoscopes in an otolaryngology clinic are effective against HPV. There were 24 patients with a history of head and neck cancer in the study; however, two outliers were excluded. Nine patients were confirmed to have HPV-associated cancer. PCR was used to measure and quantify the viral genomes of samples collected before and after cleaning. After cleaning, few HPV+ samples had endoscopes with less DNA than before cleaning. Additionally, for several patients with non-HPV-associated head and neck cancer, PCR showed more DNA after cleaning than before cleaning, suggesting residual HPV DNA within the cleaning solution. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between pre- and post-cleaning in both cohorts. Current cleaning methods of reusable endoscopes may not be effective in completely removing viral DNA.

Assessment of postmanual cleaning adenosine triphosphate tests to prevent the use of contaminated duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes: the DETECT study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We investigated whether the use of postmanual cleaning adenosine triphosphate (ATP) tests lowers the number of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes (DLEs) contaminated with gut flora.

METHODS

In this single-center before-and-after study, DLEs were ATP tested after cleaning. During the control period, participants were blinded to ATP results: ATP-positive DLEs were not recleaned. During the intervention period, ATP-positive DLEs were recleaned. DLEs underwent microbiologic sampling after high-level disinfection (HLD) with participants blinded to culture results.

RESULTS

Using 15 endoscopes of 5 different DLE types, we included 909 procedures (52% duodenoscopes, 48% linear echoendoscopes). During the intervention period, the absolute rate of contamination with gut flora was higher (16% vs 21%). The main analysis showed that contamination was less likely to occur in the intervention period (odds ratio, .32; 95% credible interval [CI], .12-.85). A secondary analysis showed that this effect was based on 1 particular duodenoscope type (estimated probability, 39% [95% CI, 18%-64%] vs 9% [95% CI, 2%-21%]), whereas no effect was seen in the other 4 DLE types. In detail, of the 4 duodenoscopes of this type, 2 had lower contamination rates (69% vs 39% and 36% vs 10%). During the control period, both these duodenoscopes had multiple episodes with ongoing contamination with the same microorganism that ended weeks before the start of the intervention period (ie, they were not terminated by ATP testing).

CONCLUSIONS

Postmanual cleaning ATP tests do not reduce post-HLD gut flora contamination rates of DLEs. Hence, postcleaning ATP tests are not suited as a means for quality control of endoscope reprocessing.

Healthcare worker feedback on duodenoscope reprocessing workflow and ergonomics

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this survey study were to assess duodenoscope precleaning and manual cleaning times, identify human factors issues in duodenoscope reprocessing workflow or ergonomics, and ascertain any best practices in duodenoscope reprocessing.

METHODS

Researchers developed the confidential, qualitative, online Duodenoscope Reprocessing Workflow and Ergonomic Design Human Factors Survey with an intended audience of healthcare workers (HCWs) who routinely perform duodenoscope precleaning or manual cleaning. The unrestricted survey link was distributed to target HCW email addresses in December 2020; the survey closed in January 2021.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty-one individuals completed the survey. Most respondents complete duodenoscope precleaning in 10 minutes or less and manual cleaning in 16-to-30 minutes. Most respondents' facilities use fixed distal endcap duodenoscopes. Most respondents experience pressure to work faster when cleaning duodenoscopes and reported that cleaning duodenoscopes caused fatigue or discomfort in at least one body part. Mentoring HCWs and retaining experienced staff were 2 primary duodenoscope reprocessing best practices identified by respondents.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

To enhance duodenoscope cleaning, facilities should provide ample reprocessing work spaces with incorporated height-adjustable work surfaces, train HCWs on validated duodenoscope reprocessing instructions, provide step-by-step instructions for HCWs when duodenoscope cleaning is performed, mentor reprocessing HCWs, and retain experienced staff.

Storage of gastrointestinal endoscopes: when is the safe time for re-use?

ABSTRACT Objectives: to identify the safe storage time for the use of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes after high-level disinfection, as well as the defining criteria for this time. Methods: an integrative literature review was carried out in the Virtual Health Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, considering original articles published since 2000. Results: eleven articles were selected, whose storage times ranged from 1 to 56 days, with a predominance of one to seven days (73%). Several criteria were used to define this time, predominantly the premise of efficient processing (100%), use of alcohol flush (64%), use of drying cabinets (18%), among others. Conclusions: the criteria for determining the storage time did not show a consensus for clinical practice. Expanding the discussion of this theme with the definition of the minimum necessary conditions is of fundamental importance for the reduction of risks and safety of the procedure and the patient.

Duodenoscope-Acquired Infections: Risk Factors to Consider

In the wake of highly publicized duodenoscope-associated outbreaks caused by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO), a herculean effort was made to understand the conditions that led to these transmission events. Although there is now a clearer picture on how these outbreaks happened, there are still significant data gaps when it comes to understanding the rate of duodenoscope-acquired infections (DAIs), especially in nonoutbreak situations. Recent publications indicate that DAIs are still occurring and suggest that infection rates are higher than currently believed. Given this data gap, it is important to identify those patient populations that are most at risk of postprocedure infection, so that appropriate infection control measures may be implemented. Although those patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis are most at risk for infection, there are additional risk factors that should be considered. For the purposes of this review, risk factors for infection were divided into three broad categories as follows: (1) those that increase patient susceptibility to infection, (2) those related to the endoscopic procedure, and (3) those factors that put reusable duodenoscope inventories at risk of contamination. Infection risk is a complex interaction between the immune status of the patient, the characteristics of the infectious agent (antibiotic sensitivity, virulence factors, and epidemiology), and the environment of care. Because of this complexity, any assessment of the risk of infection should be performed on a case-by-case basis. There is a dearth of information on infection risk for those patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograpy (ERCP), especially in the context of the development and implementation of new device technology, and new endoscopic procedures that are increasing in complexity. This narrative review was developed using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms to perform an electronic search in PubMed with the goal of generating a summary of the patient, procedural, and duodenoscope-associated factors that increase the risk of infection in patients undergoing ERCP. This review provides practical information regarding the segmentation of ERCP patients by infection risk, so that endoscopists can make informed decisions about the risk benefits of using enhanced duodenoscope technologies in the care of their patients.

Current State and Future of Infection Prevention in Endoscopy

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy units tend to be busy environments in which numerous categories of staff provide moderately complex procedural care to high volumes of patients. The prevention of infections of both patients and staff is a never-ending endeavor for both inpatient and outpatient environments. Necessary considerations must address patient-to-staff, staff-to-patient, environmental, and device-related transmission of infection. In addition to the typical environmental and interpersonal infection risks present in all medical environments, the major concern within the endoscopy suite relates to contamination and potential transmission via reusable devices and endoscopes. Our understanding of this ever-present issue has evolved over time and has become a major focus of scrutiny in the past 5 years. This significant problem has stimulated guidance and ingenuity by regulators, investigators, and industry. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 to 21 has also added significant burdens to our infection control efforts in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Sans Standardization: Effective Endoscope Reprocessing

Bronchoscopy is a commonly performed procedure within thoracic and critical care medicine. Modern bronchoscopes are technologically advanced tools made of fragile electronic components. Their design is catered to allow maximum maneuverability within the semi-rigid tracheobronchial tree. Effective cleaning and reprocessing of these tools can be a challenge. Although highly functional, the design poses several challenges when it comes to reprocessing. It is a very important step, and lapses in the procedure have been tied to nosocomial infections. The process lacks universal standardization; several organizations have developed their own recommendations. Data have shown that key stakeholders are not fully versed in the essentials of endoscope reprocessing. A significant knowledge gap exists between those performing bronchoscopy and those who are stewards of effective endoscope reprocessing. To service as a resource for bronchoscopists, this study summarizes the steps of effective reprocessing, details the important elements within a health-care facility that houses this process, and reviews some of the current data regarding the use of disposable endoscopes.

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.

Compliance of primary and secondary care public hospitals with standard practices for reprocessing and steam sterilization of reusable medical devices in Nepal: findings from nation-wide multicenter clustered audits

BACKGROUND

Reusable medical devices in healthcare facilities are decontaminated and reprocessed following standard practices before each clinical procedure. Reprocessing of critical medical devices (those used for invasive clinical procedures) comprises several processes including sterilization, which provides the highest level of decontamination. Steam sterilization is the most used sterilization procedure across the globe. Noncompliance with standards addressing reprocessing of medical devices may lead to inadequate sterilization and thus increase the risk of person-to-person or environmental transmission of pathogens in healthcare facilities. We conducted nationwide multicenter clustered audits to understand the compliance of primary- and secondary-care public hospitals in Nepal with the standard practices for medical device reprocessing, including steam sterilization.

METHODS

We developed an audit tool to assess compliance of hospitals with the standard practices for medical device reprocessing including steam sterilization. Altogether, 189 medical device reprocessing cycles which included steam sterilization were assessed in 13 primary and secondary care public hospitals in Nepal using the audit tool. Percentage compliance was calculated for each standard practice. Mean percentage compliances were obtained for overall primary and secondary care hospitals and for each hospital type, specific hospital and process involved.

RESULTS

For all primary and secondary care hospitals in Nepal, the mean percentage compliance with the standard practices for medical device reprocessing including steam sterilization was 25.9% (95% CI 21.0-30.8%). The lower the level of care provided by the hospitals, the lower was the mean percentage compliance, and the difference in the means across the hospital types was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The mean percentage compliance of individual hospitals ranged from 14.7 to 46.0%. The hospitals had better compliance with the practices for cleaning of used devices and transport and storage of sterilized devices compared with the practices for other processes of the medical device reprocessing cycle.

CONCLUSION

The primary and secondary care hospitals in Nepal had poor compliance with the standard practices for steam sterilization and reprocessing of medical devices. Interventions to improve compliance of the hospitals are immediately required to minimize the risks of person-to-person or environmental transmission of pathogens through inadequately reprocessed medical devices.

Novel Algorithms for Reprocessing, Drying and Storing Endoscopes

After outbreaks of duodenoscope-transmitted infection with multidrug-resistant organisms, it has become clear that institutions must optimize their endoscope reprocessing programs. Standard endoscope reprocessing practices may not represent the ideal approach for preventing transmission of infection related to endoscopy. We discuss multiple approaches to enhance and optimize reprocessing, drying, and storage of standard duodenoscopes. The optimal enhanced duodenoscope reprocessing modality remains to be determined. Acknowledging the challenges and limitations in effectively reprocessing duodenoscopes, the FDA issued a safety communiqué recommending transitioning to either single use disposable duodenoscopes or duodenoscopes with innovative designs that allow more effective reprocessing.

Methods for Endoscope Reprocessing

Over the past 2 decades, in hospital centers worldwide, there have been numerous outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms that have since been attributed to endoscopic transmission of the infections between patients, primarily from duodenoscopes. These outbreaks have focused the attention of endoscope manufacturers, professional societies, and regulatory agencies on improving the reprocessing of these devices. The key steps in this process are point-of-use precleaning, leak testing, manual cleaning, high-level disinfection, and finally drying and storage. The promise of these initial efforts suggest that the aim of minimizing and ultimately eliminating events of endoscope-/duodenoscope-associated transmission of infectious organisms between patients can be achieved.

Quality Systems Approach for Endoscope Reprocessing: You Don't Know What You Don't Know!

Several factors affect the efficacy of endoscope reprocessing, including human factors, inadequate cleaning, simethicone residuals, moisture in channels during storage, and biofilm or buildup biofilm formation. These factors all contribute to contamination of patient-ready endoscopes that may contribute to transmission of microorganisms resulting in infection and/or colonization. This article reviews monitoring as part of a quality management system that includes manual cleaning, dry storage, and culture to detect endoscope contamination. The published data for rapid tests that detect organic residuals and adenosine triphosphate to monitor manual cleaning are reviewed.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidance on Flexible Gastrointestinal Endoscopes: Lessons Learned from Outbreaks, Infection Control

Flexible endoscopes require cleaning, high-level disinfection, and sterilization between each patient use to reduce risk of transmitting pathogens. Public health investigations have identified concerns, including endoscope damage, mishandling, and reprocessing deficiencies, placing patients at risk for transmission of bacterial, viral, and other pathogens. Findings from outbreak investigations and other studies have led to innovations in endoscope design, use, and reprocessing, yet infection risks related to contaminated or damaged endoscopes remain. Strict adherence to infection control guidelines and manufacturer instructions for use, utilization of supplemental guidance, and training and oversight of reprocessing personnel, reduce risk of pathogen transmission by flexible endoscopes.

Nationwide risk analysis of duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope contamination

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Contaminated duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes (DLEs) pose a risk for infectious outbreaks. To identify DLEs and reprocessing risk factors, we combined the data from the previously published nationwide cross-sectional PROCESS 1 study (Prevalence of contamination of complex endoscopes in the Netherlands) with the follow-up PROCESS 2 study.

METHODS

We invited all 74 Dutch DLE centers to sample ≥2 duodenoscopes during PROCESS 1, and all duodenoscopes as well as linear echoendoscopes during PROCESS 2. The studies took place 1 year after another. Local staff sampled each DLE at ≤6 sites according to uniform methods explained by online videos. We used 2 contamination definitions: (1) any microorganism with ≥20 colony-forming units (CFU)/20 mL (AM20) and (2) presence of microorganisms with GI or oral origin, independent of CFU count (MGOs). We assessed the factors of age and usage by performing an analysis of pooled data of both PROCESS studies; additional factors including reprocessing characteristics were only recorded in PROCESS 2.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven percent of all Dutch centers (72 of 74; PROCESS 1, 66; PROCESS 2, 61) participated in one of the studies, sampling 309 duodenoscopes and 64 linear echoendoscopes. In total, 54 (17%) duodenoscopes and 8 (13%) linear echoendoscopes were contaminated according to the AM20 definition. MGOs were detected on 47 (15%) duodenoscopes and 9 (14%) linear echoendoscopes. Contamination was not age or usage dependent (all P values ≥.27) and was not shown to differ between the reprocessing characteristics (all P values ≥.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In these nationwide studies, we found that DLE contamination was independent of age and usage. These results suggest that old and heavily used DLEs, if maintained correctly, have a similar risk for contamination as new DLEs. The prevalence of MGO contamination of ∼15% was similarly high for duodenoscopes as for linear echoendoscopes, rendering patients undergoing ERCP and EUS at risk for transmission of microorganisms.

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.

Independent root-cause analysis of contributing factors, including dismantling of 2 duodenoscopes, to investigate an outbreak of multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Worldwide, an increasing number of duodenoscope-associated outbreaks are reported. The high prevalence rate of contaminated duodenoscopes puts patients undergoing ERCP at risk of exogenous transmission of microorganisms. The contributing factors of the duodenoscope design to contamination are not well understood. This article reports on the investigation after the outbreak of a multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (MRKP) related to 2 Olympus TJF-Q180V duodenoscopes.

METHODS

We conducted a contact patient screening and microbiologic laboratory database search. Reprocessing procedures were audited, and both duodenoscopes were fully dismantled to evaluate all potential contamination factors. Outcomes were reviewed by an experienced independent expert.

RESULTS

In total, 102 patients who had undergone an ERCP procedure from January to August 2015 were invited for screening. Cultures were available of 81 patients, yielding 27 MRKP-infected or -colonized patients. Ten patients developed an MRKP-related active infection. The 2 duodenoscopes had attack rates (the number of infected or colonized cases/number of exposed persons) of 35% (17/49) and 29% (7/24), respectively. Identical MRKP isolates were cultured from channel flushes of both duodenoscopes. The review revealed 4 major abnormalities: miscommunication about reprocessing, undetected damaged parts, inadequate repair of duodenoscope damage, and duodenoscope design abnormalities, including the forceps elevator, elevator lever, and instrumentation port sealing.

CONCLUSIONS

Outbreaks are associated with a combination of factors, including duodenoscope design issues, repair issues, improper cleaning, and systemic monitoring of contamination. To eliminate future duodenoscope-associated infections, a multipronged approach is required, including clear communication by all parties involved, a reliable servicing market, stringent surveillance measures, and eventually new duodenoscope designs and reprocessing procedures with a larger margin of safety.

What's new in reprocessing endoscopes: Are we going to ensure "the needs of the patient come first" by shifting from disinfection to sterilization?

Millions of gastrointestinal endoscopes are performed each year in the United States. Gastrointestinal endoscopes become highly contaminated during use (ie, internal channels contain 7-10-log₁₀ enteric microorganisms). Currently, endoscopes (eg, bronchoscopes and gastrointestinal endoscopes) are classified as semicritical items because they contact intact mucous membranes and most commonly undergo cleaning followed by high-level disinfection, which may result in as little as a 6-log₁₀ reduction of microorganisms. Therefore, and not surprisingly, in recent years there have been multiple reports that have documented that endoscopes, especially duodenoscopes, frequently remain contaminated with bacterial pathogens after proper cleaning and disinfection. Multiple outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms from contaminated duodenoscopes have resulted in substantial death and morbidity. Because duodenoscopes commonly contact nonintact mucous membranes and sterile tissue, such endoscopes should be considered critical items. We propose that to ensure patient safety, we follow the Spaulding scheme and move from high-level disinfection to sterilization of reusable endoscopes or use an alternative diagnostic/therapeutic method (eg, disposable sterile endoscopes).

Medical instrument reprocessing: current issues with cleaning and cleaning monitoring

The complexity of medical devices has increased over the past 10 years, and outbreaks of infections due to contaminated devices have focused attention on the need to adequately clean medical devices in order to ensure the adequacy of disinfection and sterilization. There has been a paradigm shift in reprocessing of medical devices, with increased emphasis on a quality management systems approach that requires validated cleaning instructions from manufacturers and ongoing monitoring by reprocessing personnel to ensure adequacy of cleaning. This article reviews the current issues related to medical device reprocessing and summarizes the approaches used for monitoring cleaning efficacy for surgical instruments and flexible endoscopes.

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.

Reprocessing semicritical items: Outbreaks and current issues

Semicritical medical devices are defined as items that come into contact with mucous membranes or nonintact skin (eg, gastrointestinal endoscopes, endocavitary probes). Such medical devices require minimally high-level disinfection. As many of these items are temperature sensitive, low-temperature chemical methods must be used rather than steam sterilization. Strict adherence to current guidelines is required as more outbreaks have been linked to inadequately cleaned or disinfected endoscopes and other semicritical items than any other reusable medical devices.

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.

On-site comparison of an enzymatic detergent and a non-enzymatic detergent-disinfectant for routine manual cleaning of flexible endoscopes

Background and study aims  Flexible endoscopes are potential vectors of pathogen transmission to patients that are subjected to cleaning and high-level disinfection after each procedure. Efficient manual cleaning is a prerequisite for effective high-level disinfection. The goal of this study was to demonstrate the impact of the cleaning chemistry in the outcome of the manual cleaning of endoscopes. Materials and methods  Twelve endoscopes were included in this study: four colonoscopes, four gastroscopes, two duodenoscopes and two bronchoscopes. This study was designed with two phases; in each of them, the manual cleaning procedure remained identical, but a different detergent was used: a non-enzymatic detergent-disinfectant (NEDD) and an enzymatic detergent (ED). Biopsy and suction channels of endoscopes were sampled using 10 mL of physiological saline at two points: before and after manual cleaning, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) was measured on each sample. In total, 208 procedures were analyzed for the NEDD phase and 253 for the ED phase. Results  For each endoscope type, cleaning endoscopes with ED resulted in larger median decrease in ATP than with NEDD: respectively 99.43 % and 95.95 % for bronchoscopes ( P  = 0.0007), 99.28 % and 96.93 % for colonoscopes ( P  < 0.0001) and 98.36 % and 95.36 % for gastroscopes ( P  < 0.0001). In addition, acceptability rates of endoscopes based on defined post-manual cleaning ATP thresholds (200, 150, 100 or 50 relative light units) for all endoscope types were significantly higher with ED compared to NEDD. Conclusions  With all other parameters of manual cleaning remaining unchanged, the enzymatic chemistry of ED provided more consistent and improved cleaning of endoscopes compared to NEDD. Therefore, choice of the detergent for endoscope cleaning has an impact on the outcome of this process.

Australian infection control in endoscopy consensus statements on carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae

Outbreaks of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae clinical infections related to endoscopic transmission are well documented. The high morbidity and mortality associated with these infections emphasizes the need to reassess endoscopic reprocessing protocols. The Gastroenterological Society of Australia established a multi-society committee to formulate evidence-based consensus statements on the prevention and management of endoscopic transmission of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. A literature search was undertaken utilizing the MEDLINE database. Further references were sourced from published paper bibliographies. Nine statements were formulated. Using the Delphi methodology, the statements were initially reviewed electronically by the committee members and subsequently at a face-to-face meeting in Melbourne, Australia. After further discussion, four additional sub-statements were added resulting in a total of 13 statements. Each statement was assessed for level of evidence, recommendation grade and the voting on recommendation was recorded. For a statement to be accepted, five out of six committee members had to "accept completely" or "accept with some reservation." All 13 statements achieved consensus agreement. Eleven statements achieved 100% "accepted completely." Two statements were 83% "accepted completely" and 17% "accepted with some reservation." Of particular significance, automated flexible endoscope reprocessors were mandated for high-level disinfection, and the use of forced-air drying cabinets was mandated for endoscope storage. These evidence-based statements encourage preventative strategies with the aim of ensuring the highest possible standards in flexible endoscope reprocessing thereby optimizing patient safety. They must be considered in addition to the broader published guidelines on infection control in endoscopy.

Comparison of automated and manual drying in the elimination of residual endoscope working channel fluid after reprocessing (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Residual fluid within endoscope working channels after reprocessing may promote growth of pathogens. Current reprocessing guidelines therefore recommend endoscope drying with administration of forced filtered air; however, the duration and modality of administered air are not specified. The new DriScope Aid device enables automated administration of filtered air at controlled pressure through all internal endoscope channels. We systematically compared, for the first time, the impact of manual drying and automated drying on retained working channel fluid and bioburden after reprocessing.

METHODS

We assessed for residual working channel fluid after reprocessing and/or drying by using the SteriCam borescope. Drying was performed either manually (forced filtered air) or was automated (DriScope Aid) for either 5 or 10 minutes. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence testing was performed on working channel rinsates after drying, to evaluate for residual bioburden.

RESULTS

Significantly more fluid droplets were evident after manual drying (4.55 ± 6.14) than with automated device-facilitated drying for either 5 minutes (0.83 ± 1.29; P = .007) or 10 minutes (0 ± 0; P = .001). ATP bioluminescence values were higher for manual drying compared with automated drying at 48 hours (P = .001) and 72 hours (P = .014) after reprocessing.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate significantly fewer water droplets and delayed ATP bioluminescence values within endoscope working channels after automated drying compared with manual drying. In particular, virtually no retained fluid was evident within endoscope working channels after automated drying for 10 minutes. These findings support recommendations for automation of as many reprocessing steps as possible. Automated drying may decrease the risk of transmission of infection related to endoscopy.

Worldwide practices on flexible endoscope reprocessing

Background

Endoscopy related infections represent an important threat for healthcare systems worldwide. Recent outbreaks of infections with multidrug resistant micro-organisms have highlighted the problems of contaminated endoscopes. Endoscopes at highest risk for contamination have intricate mechanisms, multiple internal channels and narrow lumens that are especially problematic to clean. In light of raised awareness about the necessity for meticulous reprocessing of all types of endoscopes, a call for international collaboration is needed. An overview is presented on current practices for endoscope reprocessing in facilities worldwide.

Method

An electronic survey was developed and disseminated by the International Society for Antimicrobials and Chemotherapy. The survey consisted of 50 questions aimed at assessing the reprocessing of flexible endoscopes internationally. It covered three core elements: stakeholder involvement, assessment of perceived risks, and reprocessing process.

Results

The survey received a total of 165 completed responses from 39 countries. It is evident that most facilities, 82% (n = 136), have a standard operating procedure. There is, however a lot of variation within the flexible endoscope reprocessing practices observed. The need for regular training and education of reprocessing practitioners were identified by 50% (n = 83) of the respondents as main concerns that need to be addressed in order to increase patient safety in endoscope reprocessing procedures.

Conclusion

This international survey on current flexible endoscope reprocessing identified a large variation for reprocessing practices among different health care facilities/countries. A standardised education and training programme with a competency assessment is essential to prevent reprocessing lapses and improve patient safety.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-018-0446-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of adenosine triphosphate to audit reprocessing of flexible endoscopes with an elevator mechanism

BACKGROUND

There have been reported outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections linked to endoscopes with elevator mechanisms. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) testing has been used as a marker for bioburden and monitoring manual cleaning for flexible endoscopes with and without an elevator mechanism. The objective of this study was to determine whether routine ATP testing could identify areas of improvement in cleaning of endoscopes with an elevator mechanism.

METHODS

ATP testing after manual cleaning of TJF-Q180V duodenoscopes and GF-UCT180 linear echoendoscopes (Olympus America Inc, Center Valley, PA) was implemented. Samples were tested from the distal end, the elevator mechanism, and water flushed through the lumen of the biopsy channel. Data were recorded and compared by time point, test point, and reprocessing technician.

RESULTS

Overall failure rate was 6.99% (295 out of 4,219). The highest percentage of failed ATP tests (17.05%) was reported in the first quarter of routine testing, with an overall decrease in rates over time. The elevator mechanism and working channel lumen had higher failure rates than the distal end. Quality of manual cleaning between reprocessing technicians showed variation.

CONCLUSION

ATP testing is effective in identifying residual organic material and improving quality of manual cleaning of endoscopes with an elevator mechanism. Cleaning efficacy is influenced by reprocessing technicians and location tested on the endoscope. Close attention to the working channel and elevator mechanism during manual cleaning is warranted.