The carbon footprint of the operating room related to infection prevention measures: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Infection prevention measures are widely used in operating rooms (ORs). However, the extent to which they are at odds with ambitions to reduce the health sector's carbon footprint remains unclear.

AIM

To synthesize the evidence base for the carbon footprint of commonly used infection prevention measures in the OR, namely medical devices and instruments, surgical attire and air treatment systems.

METHODS

A scoping review of the international scientific literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The search was performed in PubMed and Google Scholar. Articles published between 2010 and June 2021 on infection prevention measures, their impact on the health sector's carbon footprint, and risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) were included.

FINDINGS

Although hospitals strive to reduce their carbon footprint, many infection prevention measures result in increased emissions. Evidence suggests that the use of disposable items instead of reusable items generally increases the carbon footprint, depending on sources of electricity. Controversy exists regarding the correlation between air treatment systems, contamination and the incidence of SSIs. The literature indicates that new air treatment systems consume more energy and do not necessarily reduce SSIs compared with conventional systems.

CONCLUSION

Infection prevention measures in ORs can be at odds with sustainability. The use of new air treatment systems and disposable items generally leads to significant greenhouse gas emissions, and does not necessarily reduce the incidence of SSIs. Alternative infection prevention measures with less environmental impact are available. Implementation could be facilitated by embracing environmental impact as an additional dimension of quality of care, which should change current risk-based approaches for the prevention of SSIs.

[Limited Reuse and Extended Use of Filtering Facepiece Respirators]

Objetivo

Los equipos de protección individual (EPI), y dentro de ellos las mascarillas, son fundamentales en una pandemia como la del COVID-19, que ha requerido, en muchas ocasiones, de reutilización de material debido a su escasez. El objetivo de esta revisión es sintetizar la evidencia disponible sobre la reutilización y uso extendido de las mascarillas de media y alta filtración.

Método

Revisión exploratoria. Búsqueda a través de lenguaje natural en PubMed y Centros, Agencias y Organizaciones para el Control de Enfermedades. Se limitó a artículos publicados entre 2010-2020 en inglés y en español.

Resultados

Se localizaron 83 artículos, seleccionándose 14, más cinco recomendaciones. Los temas abordados se clasifican en siete apartados: Caducidad, uso extendido y reutilización de mascarillas, técnica de manipulación, sellado, efectos físicos psicológicos y cumplimentación, contaminación y descontaminación de mascarillas.

Conclusiones

La reutilización de las mascarillas no está recomendada por los organismos oficiales ni los fabricantes, sólo se acepta en casos extraordinarios, como las pandemias. Los estudios se caracterizan por contar con muestras pequeñas, usan diferentes modelos de mascarillas ajustando su recomendación al modelo.

Mask decontamination methods (model N95) for respiratory protection: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

N95 respiratory protection masks are used by healthcare professionals to prevent contamination from infectious microorganisms transmitted by droplets or aerosols.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of the literature analyzing the effectiveness of decontamination methods for mask reuse. The database searches were carried out up to September 2020. The systematic review was conducted in a way which simplified the stages of a complete systematic review, due to the worldwide necessity for reliable fast evidences on this matter.

RESULTS

A total of 563 articles were retrieved of which 48 laboratory-based studies were selected. Fifteen decontamination methods were included in the studies. A total of 19 laboratory studies used hydrogen peroxide, 21 studies used ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, 4 studies used ethylene oxide, 11 studies used dry heat, 9 studies used moist heat, 5 studies used ethanol, two studies used isopropanol solution, 11 studies used microwave oven, 10 studies used sodium hypochlorite, 7 studies used autoclave, 3 studies used an electric rice cooker, 1 study used cleaning wipes, 1 study used bar soap, 1 study used water, 1 study used multi-purpose high-level disinfection cabinet, and another 1 study used chlorine dioxide. Five methods that are promising are as follows: hydrogen peroxide vapor, ultraviolet irradiation, dry heat, wet heat/pasteurization, and microwave ovens.

CONCLUSIONS

We have presented the best available evidence on mask decontamination; nevertheless, its applicability is limited due to few studies on the topic and the lack of studies on real environments.

Safety in the practice of decontaminating filtering facepiece respirators: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Considering the new SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the potential scarcity of material resources, the reuse of personal protective equipment such as filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) for N95 filtering or higher is being discussed, mainly regarding the effectiveness and safety of cleaning, disinfection and sterilization processes.

AIM

To analyze the available evidence in the literature on the safety in processing FFRs.

METHODS

A systematic review conducted by searching for studies in the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included in this review. The disinfectant/sterilizing agents most frequently tested at different concentrations and exposure periods were ultraviolet irradiation, vaporized hydrogen peroxide and steam sterilization. Microbial reduction was assessed in 21 (52.5%) studies. The only disinfectants/sterilizers that did not caused degradation of the material-integrity were alcohol, electric cooker, ethylene oxide, and peracetic acid fogging. Exposure to ultraviolet irradiation or microwave generated-steam resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in filter performance.

CONCLUSION

There is a complex relationship between the FFR raw materials and the cycle conditions of the decontamination methods, evidencing the need for validating FFRs by models and manufacturers, as well as the process. Some methods may require additional tests to demonstrate the safety of FFRs for use due to toxicity.

Decontamination and reuse of N95 filtering facemask respirators: A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

As has happened in other emerging respiratory pandemics, demand for N95 filtering facemask respirators (FFRs) has far exceeded their manufacturing production and availability in the context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. One of the proposed strategies for mitigating the massive demand for N95 FFRs is their reuse after a process of decontamination that allows the inactivation of any potentially infectious material on their surfaces. This article aims to summarize all of the available evidence on the different decontamination methods that might allow disposable N95 FFRs to be reused, with emphasis on decontamination from SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature in order to identify studies reporting outcomes of at least 1 decontamination method for inactivating or removing any potentially infectious material from the surface of N95 FFRs, specifically addressing issues related to reduction of the microbial threat (including SARS-CoV-2 when available), maintaining the function of N95 FFRs and a lack of residual toxicity.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 15 studies reporting on the different decontamination methods that might allow disposable N95 FFRs to be reused, including small-scale energetic methods and disinfecting solutions/spray/wipes. Among these decontamination methods, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation and vaporized hydrogen peroxide seem to be the most promising decontamination methods for N95 FFRs, based on their biocidal efficacy, filtration performance, fitting characteristics, and residual chemical toxicity, as well as other practical aspects such as the equipment required for their implementation and the maximum number of decontamination cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all the methods for the decontamination and reuse of N95 FFRs have advantages and disadvantages, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation and vaporized hydrogen peroxide seem to be the most promising methods.

Bundles for the central sterile supply department

BACKGROUND

Traditional resources, such as bundles, can help experts define essential steps of health product processing to prevent infections. The present study developed bundle content construction and validation criteria for central sterile supply departments (CSSDs).

METHODS

The present study employed a Delphi technique modified for content evaluation. Eleven professionals with at least 4 years of experience in sterilization were enlisted. Participants discussed main stages of the process virtually and compiled a list of items based on scientific references justified by law and/or logical reasoning. Agreement, disagreement, and/or suggestions on each step resulted in bundles for a CSSD. Items were then reassessed by experts using a Likert scale with a 90% approval criterion.

RESULTS

Six bundles were developed: cleaning, inspection, preparation and packaging, sterilization, and storage resulting from 384 responses and 373 agreements (Interassessor coefficient = 97%).

DISCUSSIONS

Items obtained from the criteria assessment received majority agreement from the first document.

CONCLUSIONS

Agreement among varying professionals was achieved, and bundles were successfully developed to evaluate the processing of goods in CSSDs.

Beyond equipment distribution in Needle and Syringe Programmes: an exploratory analysis of blood-borne virus risk and other measures of client need

Background

Despite high levels of equipment distribution through Needle and Syringe Programmes (NSPs) in Australia, the levels of reuse of equipment among people who inject drugs remain concerning. This paper used an exploratory analysis to examine the needs of NSP client that could be addressed by NSPs to enhance service impact and blood-borne virus risk practices.

Methods

People who inject drugs were recruited from six NSP sites in Sydney, Australia, to undertake a self-completed survey.

Results

Using the responses of 236 NSP client participants, three factors were identified in an exploratory factor analysis: recent risky injection (Eigenvalue 3.63, 20.2 % of variance); disadvantage and disability (Eigenvalue 2.26, 12.5 % of variance); and drug use milieu (Eigenvalue 1.50, 8.4 % of variance). To understand the distribution of these factors, the standardised factor scores were dichotomised to explore those participants with ‘above average’ vulnerability on each factor. A small group of NSP clients reported a cluster of vulnerability measures. Most participants (55.5 %) reported vulnerability on none or only one factor, indicating that 45.5 % could be considered as having double (35.6 %) or triple (8.9 %) vulnerability.

Conclusions

These results challenge NSPs to understand the heterogeneity among their client group and develop programmes that respond to their clients’ range of needs beyond those immediately associated with blood-borne virus (BBV) risk. This paper contributes to the growing evidence base regarding the need for BBV prevention efforts to examine strategies beyond equipment distribution.

Safety of the reuse of needles for subcutaneous insulin injection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Many people with diabetes often reuse disposable needles for subcutaneous insulin injection. We aimed to identify, critically appraise and summarize the available evidence about the safety of this practice.

DESIGN

Systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINALH (via EBSCO), SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Open Grey were searched from their inception to December 2015, with no language restrictions.

REVIEW METHODS

Epidemiologic and experimental studies assessing adverse effects of reusing needles in people of any age or sex, with or without diabetes, were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies using a multi-design tool.

RESULTS

In total, 25 studies were included. All studies had a high risk of bias and data from only nine studies could be pooled. Five studies showed no association between infection at site of injection and reuse of needles (risk difference=-0.00; 95% confidence interval=-0.12-0.11; P=0.99); heterogeneity between these studies was substantial (I(2)=66%; P=0.02). Five cross-sectional studies showed an association between lipohypertrophy and needle reuse (risk difference=0.16, 95% confidence interval=0.05-0.28, P=0.006); there was strong evidence of heterogeneity between these studies (I(2)=87%; P<0.001). Pooled data of two studies with no evidence of heterogeneity between them showed more perceived pain among reusers (risk difference=0.24; 95% confidence interval=0.06-0.43; P=0.006). Reusing a pen needle or disposable syringe-needle was not associated with worse glycaemic control.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no clear scientific evidence to suggest for or against the reuse of needles for subcutaneous insulin injection. This practice is very common among people with diabetes; consequently, further research is necessary to establish its safety.