Search

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., (Copyright © 2019 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are no guidelines or quality benchmarks specific to ureteroscope reprocessing, and patient injuries and infections have been linked to ureteroscopes. This prospective study evaluated ureteroscope reprocessing effectiveness., Methods: Reprocessing practices at 2 institutions were assessed. Microbial cultures, biochemical tests, and visual inspections were conducted on sterilized ureteroscopes., Results: Researchers examined 16 ureteroscopes after manual cleaning and sterilization using hydrogen peroxide gas. Every ureteroscope had visible irregularities, such as discoloration, residual fluid, foamy white residue, scratches, or debris in channels. Tests detected contamination on 100% of ureteroscopes (microbial growth 13%, adenosine triphosphate 44%, hemoglobin 63%, and protein 100%). Contamination levels exceeded benchmarks for clean gastrointestinal endoscopes for hemoglobin (6%), adenosine triphosphate (6%), and protein (100%). A new, unused ureteroscope had hemoglobin and high protein levels after initial reprocessing, although no contamination was found before reprocessing., Conclusions: Flexible ureteroscope reprocessing methods were insufficient and may have introduced contamination. The clinical implications of residual contamination and viable microbes found on sterilized ureteroscopes are unknown. Additional research is needed to evaluate the prevalence of suboptimal ureteroscope reprocessing, identify sources of contamination, and determine clinical implications of urinary tract exposure to reprocessing chemicals, organic residue, and bioburden. These findings reinforce the need for frequent audits of reprocessing practices and the routine use of cleaning verification tests and visual inspection as recommended in reprocessing guidelines., (Copyright © 2017 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Flexible endoscopes are currently reused following cleaning and high-level disinfection. Contamination has been found on endoscopes, and infections have been linked to gastrointestinal, respiratory, and urologic endoscopes., Methods: This longitudinal study involved visual inspections with a borescope, microbial cultures, and biochemical tests for protein and adenosine triphosphate to identify endoscopes in need of further cleaning or maintenance. Three assessments were conducted over a 7-month period. Control group endoscopes reprocessed using customary practices were compared with intervention group endoscopes subjected to more rigorous reprocessing., Results: At final assessment, all endoscopes (N = 20) had visible irregularities. Researchers observed fluid (95%), discoloration, and debris in channels. Of 12 (60%) endoscopes with microbial growth, 4 had no growth until after 48 hours. There were no significant differences in culture results by study group, assessment period, or endoscope type. Similar proportions of control and intervention endoscopes (~20%) exceeded postcleaning biochemical test benchmarks. Adenosine triphosphate levels were higher for gastroscopes than colonoscopes (P = .014). Eighty-five percent of endoscopes required repair due to findings., Conclusions: More rigorous reprocessing was not consistently effective. Seven-day incubation allowed identification of slow-growing microbes. These findings bolster the need for routine visual inspection and cleaning verification tests recommended in new reprocessing guidelines., (Copyright © 2017 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Researchers evaluated flexible endoscope damage and contamination levels at baseline and 2 months later. Postcleaning test results exceeded benchmarks for all gastroscopes and no colonoscopes. Microbial growth was found in samples from 47% of fully reprocessed endoscopes at baseline and 60% at follow-up. Borescope examinations identified scratches, discoloration, debris, and fluid inside endoscopes. Irregularities changed over time. Study evaluations allowed damaged and contaminated endoscopes to be identified and re-reprocessed or sent for repairs., (Copyright © 2016 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)