Disposable Bronchoscope Model for Simulating Endoscopic Reprocessing and Surveillance Cultures
BACKGROUND Endoscope-associated infections are reported despite following proper reprocessing methods. Microbiological testing can confirm the adequacy of endoscope reprocessing. Multiple controversies related to the method and interpretation of microbiological testing cultures have arisen that make...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Infection control and hospital epidemiology 2017-02, Vol.38 (2), p.136-142 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 142 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 136 |
container_title | Infection control and hospital epidemiology |
container_volume | 38 |
creator | Yassin, Mohamed H Hariri, Rahman Hamad, Yasir Ferrelli, Juliet McKibben, Leeanna Doi, Yohei |
description | BACKGROUND Endoscope-associated infections are reported despite following proper reprocessing methods. Microbiological testing can confirm the adequacy of endoscope reprocessing. Multiple controversies related to the method and interpretation of microbiological testing cultures have arisen that make their routine performance a complex target. OBJECTIVE We conducted a pilot study using disposable bronchoscopes (DBs) to simulate different reprocessing times and soaking times and to compare high-level disinfection versus ethylene oxide sterilization. We also reviewed the time to reprocessing and duration of the procedures. METHODS Bronchoscopes were chosen because an alternative disposable scope is commercially available and because bronchoscopes are more prone to delays in processing. Disposable bronchoscopes were contaminated using a liquid bacterial suspension and were then incubated for 1-4 hours. Standard processing and high-level disinfection were performed on 36 endoscopes. Ethylene oxide sterilization was performed on 21 endoscopes. Endoscope cultures were performed using the standard "brush, flush, brush" technique. RESULTS After brushing was performed, a final water-flush culture procedure was the most effective method of detecting bacterial persistence on the disposable scopes. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most commonly recovered organism after reprocessing. Ethylene oxide sterilization did not result in total elimination of viable bacteria. CONCLUSION Routine endoscopy cultures may be required to assess the adequacy of endoscopic processing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:136-142. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/ice.2016.264 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1842545476</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2844772370</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-8016a8fccffe6424c7218376b44f269ae93e0f1e6bb3e24e4a1d6618db6b454a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkM9LwzAUgIMobk5vnqXgxYOd-dUkPeqcP2AiOAVPhjR91Y6umckq-N-bOvXg6cF7H4-PD6FDgscEE3lWWxhTTMSYCr6FhiTL8lQoxrfREKs8TxVlzwO0F8ICYyzznOyiAZVKCK7UEL1c1mHlgikaSC68a-2bC9atILlzJTRJ5Xwyr5ddY9Z1-5pM2_L7XNvkAVbeWQih35u2TOad_4C6aUxrIZl0zbrzEPbRTmWaAAc_c4SerqaPk5t0dn99OzmfpZaRfJ2q6G9UZW1VgeCUW0mJYlIUnFdU5AZyBrgiIIqCAeXADSmFIKosIpJxw0boZPM3Sr13ENZ6WQcLvQ24LmiiOM0iKUVEj_-hC9f5NtppqjiXkjKJI3W6oax3IXio9MrXS-M_NcG6765jd91317F7xI9-nnbFEso_-Dc0-wKRnn7b</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2844772370</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Disposable Bronchoscope Model for Simulating Endoscopic Reprocessing and Surveillance Cultures</title><source>ProQuest Central Essentials</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals</source><source>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><creator>Yassin, Mohamed H ; Hariri, Rahman ; Hamad, Yasir ; Ferrelli, Juliet ; McKibben, Leeanna ; Doi, Yohei</creator><creatorcontrib>Yassin, Mohamed H ; Hariri, Rahman ; Hamad, Yasir ; Ferrelli, Juliet ; McKibben, Leeanna ; Doi, Yohei</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND Endoscope-associated infections are reported despite following proper reprocessing methods. Microbiological testing can confirm the adequacy of endoscope reprocessing. Multiple controversies related to the method and interpretation of microbiological testing cultures have arisen that make their routine performance a complex target. OBJECTIVE We conducted a pilot study using disposable bronchoscopes (DBs) to simulate different reprocessing times and soaking times and to compare high-level disinfection versus ethylene oxide sterilization. We also reviewed the time to reprocessing and duration of the procedures. METHODS Bronchoscopes were chosen because an alternative disposable scope is commercially available and because bronchoscopes are more prone to delays in processing. Disposable bronchoscopes were contaminated using a liquid bacterial suspension and were then incubated for 1-4 hours. Standard processing and high-level disinfection were performed on 36 endoscopes. Ethylene oxide sterilization was performed on 21 endoscopes. Endoscope cultures were performed using the standard "brush, flush, brush" technique. RESULTS After brushing was performed, a final water-flush culture procedure was the most effective method of detecting bacterial persistence on the disposable scopes. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most commonly recovered organism after reprocessing. Ethylene oxide sterilization did not result in total elimination of viable bacteria. CONCLUSION Routine endoscopy cultures may be required to assess the adequacy of endoscopic processing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:136-142.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0899-823X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-6834</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/ice.2016.264</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27866488</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Bacteria - classification ; Bacteria - isolation & purification ; Biofilms ; Bronchoscopes - microbiology ; Bronchoscopy ; Disinfection ; Disinfection - methods ; Disposable Equipment - microbiology ; E coli ; Endoscopy ; Equipment Contamination ; Ethylene Oxide - pharmacology ; Fiber optics ; Humans ; Medical instruments ; Medical screening ; Nursing ; Performance evaluation ; Pilot Projects ; Sterilization ; Thoracic surgery ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2017-02, Vol.38 (2), p.136-142</ispartof><rights>2016 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-8016a8fccffe6424c7218376b44f269ae93e0f1e6bb3e24e4a1d6618db6b454a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-8016a8fccffe6424c7218376b44f269ae93e0f1e6bb3e24e4a1d6618db6b454a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2844772370/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2844772370?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,21393,21394,23261,27929,27930,33535,33536,33708,33709,33749,33750,43664,43792,43810,64390,64392,64394,72474,74109,74288,74307</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27866488$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yassin, Mohamed H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hariri, Rahman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamad, Yasir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrelli, Juliet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKibben, Leeanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doi, Yohei</creatorcontrib><title>Disposable Bronchoscope Model for Simulating Endoscopic Reprocessing and Surveillance Cultures</title><title>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</title><addtitle>Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol</addtitle><description>BACKGROUND Endoscope-associated infections are reported despite following proper reprocessing methods. Microbiological testing can confirm the adequacy of endoscope reprocessing. Multiple controversies related to the method and interpretation of microbiological testing cultures have arisen that make their routine performance a complex target. OBJECTIVE We conducted a pilot study using disposable bronchoscopes (DBs) to simulate different reprocessing times and soaking times and to compare high-level disinfection versus ethylene oxide sterilization. We also reviewed the time to reprocessing and duration of the procedures. METHODS Bronchoscopes were chosen because an alternative disposable scope is commercially available and because bronchoscopes are more prone to delays in processing. Disposable bronchoscopes were contaminated using a liquid bacterial suspension and were then incubated for 1-4 hours. Standard processing and high-level disinfection were performed on 36 endoscopes. Ethylene oxide sterilization was performed on 21 endoscopes. Endoscope cultures were performed using the standard "brush, flush, brush" technique. RESULTS After brushing was performed, a final water-flush culture procedure was the most effective method of detecting bacterial persistence on the disposable scopes. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most commonly recovered organism after reprocessing. Ethylene oxide sterilization did not result in total elimination of viable bacteria. CONCLUSION Routine endoscopy cultures may be required to assess the adequacy of endoscopic processing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:136-142.</description><subject>Bacteria - classification</subject><subject>Bacteria - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Biofilms</subject><subject>Bronchoscopes - microbiology</subject><subject>Bronchoscopy</subject><subject>Disinfection</subject><subject>Disinfection - methods</subject><subject>Disposable Equipment - microbiology</subject><subject>E coli</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Equipment Contamination</subject><subject>Ethylene Oxide - pharmacology</subject><subject>Fiber optics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical instruments</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Sterilization</subject><subject>Thoracic surgery</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>0899-823X</issn><issn>1559-6834</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkM9LwzAUgIMobk5vnqXgxYOd-dUkPeqcP2AiOAVPhjR91Y6umckq-N-bOvXg6cF7H4-PD6FDgscEE3lWWxhTTMSYCr6FhiTL8lQoxrfREKs8TxVlzwO0F8ICYyzznOyiAZVKCK7UEL1c1mHlgikaSC68a-2bC9atILlzJTRJ5Xwyr5ddY9Z1-5pM2_L7XNvkAVbeWQih35u2TOad_4C6aUxrIZl0zbrzEPbRTmWaAAc_c4SerqaPk5t0dn99OzmfpZaRfJ2q6G9UZW1VgeCUW0mJYlIUnFdU5AZyBrgiIIqCAeXADSmFIKosIpJxw0boZPM3Sr13ENZ6WQcLvQ24LmiiOM0iKUVEj_-hC9f5NtppqjiXkjKJI3W6oax3IXio9MrXS-M_NcG6765jd91317F7xI9-nnbFEso_-Dc0-wKRnn7b</recordid><startdate>201702</startdate><enddate>201702</enddate><creator>Yassin, Mohamed H</creator><creator>Hariri, Rahman</creator><creator>Hamad, Yasir</creator><creator>Ferrelli, Juliet</creator><creator>McKibben, Leeanna</creator><creator>Doi, Yohei</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201702</creationdate><title>Disposable Bronchoscope Model for Simulating Endoscopic Reprocessing and Surveillance Cultures</title><author>Yassin, Mohamed H ; Hariri, Rahman ; Hamad, Yasir ; Ferrelli, Juliet ; McKibben, Leeanna ; Doi, Yohei</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-8016a8fccffe6424c7218376b44f269ae93e0f1e6bb3e24e4a1d6618db6b454a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Bacteria - classification</topic><topic>Bacteria - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Biofilms</topic><topic>Bronchoscopes - microbiology</topic><topic>Bronchoscopy</topic><topic>Disinfection</topic><topic>Disinfection - methods</topic><topic>Disposable Equipment - microbiology</topic><topic>E coli</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Equipment Contamination</topic><topic>Ethylene Oxide - pharmacology</topic><topic>Fiber optics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical instruments</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Sterilization</topic><topic>Thoracic surgery</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yassin, Mohamed H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hariri, Rahman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamad, Yasir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrelli, Juliet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKibben, Leeanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doi, Yohei</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yassin, Mohamed H</au><au>Hariri, Rahman</au><au>Hamad, Yasir</au><au>Ferrelli, Juliet</au><au>McKibben, Leeanna</au><au>Doi, Yohei</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Disposable Bronchoscope Model for Simulating Endoscopic Reprocessing and Surveillance Cultures</atitle><jtitle>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2017-02</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>136</spage><epage>142</epage><pages>136-142</pages><issn>0899-823X</issn><eissn>1559-6834</eissn><abstract>BACKGROUND Endoscope-associated infections are reported despite following proper reprocessing methods. Microbiological testing can confirm the adequacy of endoscope reprocessing. Multiple controversies related to the method and interpretation of microbiological testing cultures have arisen that make their routine performance a complex target. OBJECTIVE We conducted a pilot study using disposable bronchoscopes (DBs) to simulate different reprocessing times and soaking times and to compare high-level disinfection versus ethylene oxide sterilization. We also reviewed the time to reprocessing and duration of the procedures. METHODS Bronchoscopes were chosen because an alternative disposable scope is commercially available and because bronchoscopes are more prone to delays in processing. Disposable bronchoscopes were contaminated using a liquid bacterial suspension and were then incubated for 1-4 hours. Standard processing and high-level disinfection were performed on 36 endoscopes. Ethylene oxide sterilization was performed on 21 endoscopes. Endoscope cultures were performed using the standard "brush, flush, brush" technique. RESULTS After brushing was performed, a final water-flush culture procedure was the most effective method of detecting bacterial persistence on the disposable scopes. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most commonly recovered organism after reprocessing. Ethylene oxide sterilization did not result in total elimination of viable bacteria. CONCLUSION Routine endoscopy cultures may be required to assess the adequacy of endoscopic processing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:136-142.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>27866488</pmid><doi>10.1017/ice.2016.264</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0899-823X |
ispartof | Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2017-02, Vol.38 (2), p.136-142 |
issn | 0899-823X 1559-6834 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1842545476 |
source | ProQuest Central Essentials; MEDLINE; Cambridge University Press Journals; ProQuest Central (Alumni); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland; ProQuest Central |
subjects | Bacteria - classification Bacteria - isolation & purification Biofilms Bronchoscopes - microbiology Bronchoscopy Disinfection Disinfection - methods Disposable Equipment - microbiology E coli Endoscopy Equipment Contamination Ethylene Oxide - pharmacology Fiber optics Humans Medical instruments Medical screening Nursing Performance evaluation Pilot Projects Sterilization Thoracic surgery Time Factors |
title | Disposable Bronchoscope Model for Simulating Endoscopic Reprocessing and Surveillance Cultures |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T22%3A57%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Disposable%20Bronchoscope%20Model%20for%20Simulating%20Endoscopic%20Reprocessing%20and%20Surveillance%20Cultures&rft.jtitle=Infection%20control%20and%20hospital%20epidemiology&rft.au=Yassin,%20Mohamed%20H&rft.date=2017-02&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=136&rft.epage=142&rft.pages=136-142&rft.issn=0899-823X&rft.eissn=1559-6834&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/ice.2016.264&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2844772370%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2844772370&rft_id=info:pmid/27866488&rfr_iscdi=true |