The Infection Control Today® sterile processing page provides an inside look into the sterile processing (or central supply) department in the hospital where surgical instruments are cleaned, sterilized, and reprocessed in order to disinfect, remove bioburden, and prep for upcoming procedures. Sterile processing applies to not only the knives, scalpels, scissors, forceps, and clamps used in surgery, but also instruments such as endoscopes and duodenoscopes. ICT® reports on the latest technology but also on the means to disinfect that technology. Also, the trend toward making more disposable surgical equipment. What does that mean for the sterile processing team?
November 19th 2024
Learn how Germitec’s Chronos uses patented UV-C technology for high-level disinfection of ultrasound probes in 90 seconds, enhancing infection control, patient safety, and environmental sustainability.
Are Biofilms the Missing Link in MRSA Decolonization Failure?
March 29th 2017Device-associated infections due to biofilm-producing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) have been recently associated with the failure of antibiotic treatment and decolonization measures. The goal of the study by Günther, et al. (2017) was to evaluate the extent to which the formation of biofilms influenced the efficacy of topical decolonization agents or disinfectants such as mupirocin (MUP), octenidine (OCT), chlorhexidine (CHG), polyhexanide (POL), and chloroxylenol (CLO).Bacterial killing in biofilms by the disinfectants and MUP was determined as the reduction [%] in metabolic activity determined by a biofilm viability assay that uses kinetic analysis of metabolic activity. The test substances were diluted in water with standardized hardness (WSH) at 25 °C at the standard concentration as well as half the standard concentration to demonstrate the dilution effects in a practical setting. The tested concentrations were: CHG 1%, 2%; OCT 0.1%, 0.05%; PH 0.04%, 0.02%; and CLO 0.12%, 0.24%. A test organism suspension, 1 mL containing ~1 × 109 bacterial cells/mL, and 1 mL of sterile WSH were mixed and incubated for six different exposure times (15 s, 1, 3, 5, 10 and 20 min) after the test substance was added.Additionally, the bactericidal effects of all substances were tested on planktonic bacteria and measured as the log10 reduction.The disinfectants OCT and CHG showed good efficacy in inhibiting MRSA in biofilms with reduction rates of 94 ± 1% and 91 ± 1%, respectively. POL, on the other hand, had a maximum efficacy of only 81 ± 7%. Compared to the tested disinfectants, MUP showed a significantly lower efficacy with <20% inhibition (p < .05). Bactericidal effects were the greatest for CHG (log10 reduction of 9.0), followed by OCT (7.7), POL (5.1), and CLO (6.8). MUP, however, showed a very low bactericidal effect of only 2.1. Even when the exposure time was increased to 24 h, 2% MUP did not show sufficient bactericidal effect.The researchers say their data provide evidence that OCT and CHG are effective components for disinfection of MRSA-biofilms. On the other hand, exposure to MUP at the standard concentrations in topical preparations did not effectively inhibit MRSA-biofilms and also did not show adequate bactericidal effects. Combining an MUP-based decolonization regimen with a disinfectant such as OCT or CHG could decrease decolonization failure.Reference: Günther F, et al. MRSA decolonization failure-are biofilms the missing link? Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control. 2017;6:32
Compliance With the Manufacturer's Instructions for Use
March 28th 2017Q: Recently, I refused to process a device based on the following manufacturer’s instructions provided: “The xxx parts are made of durable aluminum and can be cleaned with ultrasound and any cleaning agents. Any standard sterilization technique is acceptable. There are no moving parts to maintain.” I contacted the company to alert them the instructions for use (IFUs) were insufficient. The company replied that “reprocessing is a different concept from cleaning and sterilizing a simple instrument for reuse.” They stated that the particular instrument in question “is a simple "instrument" like a retractor or a mallet. These instruments are reused; do not have critical "parts" that need to be retested between uses. They need to be cleaned and sterilized. It is a simple device with no moving parts or cavities or other complicating factors. How does one handle this?
IP Stakeholders Series: Biomedical and Healthcare Technology
March 3rd 2017Healthcare technology that is poorly designed or implemented can contribute to patient harm, experts say, and health information technology (IT)-related patient safety events can go undetected. As the adoption of healthcare IT becomes more widespread, clinicians must be on alert for increased risk of patient harm. One relationship that infection preventionists and other clinicians may not be cultivating as thoroughly as possible is with their healthcare institution's biomedical engineering and/or healthcare technology.
Seal Shield LLC Showcases Mobile Device Management System With UV Disinfection at HIMSS 2017
February 21st 2017Seal Shield LLC brings its health IT solution for mobile device management and disinfection, the ElectroClave™, to the exhibit floor for the 2017 HIMSS Conference and Exhibition in Orlando, Fla. Feb. 20-23, 2017 at Booth #4444.
Avoid Long Delays in Instrument Decontamination, Reprocessing
January 24th 2017Q: There has been a question from the staff here about leaving instruments overnight with an enzyme foam product on them. If we are here and a case comes in where the instruments were treated with the enzyme foam and we have time to wash them but will not be here long enough to run the load of instruments through the washer, is it best to leave them with the enzyme foam overnight or hand wash them and have ready to be put in the washer in the morning?