The importance of sampling technique and rinse water for assessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: A 3-year study covering 59 centers
[Display omitted] Various guidelines recommend several sampling techniques to verify endoscope reprocessing, but a comparative study of the efficiency for recovering microorganisms was rare. Our goal was to compare different sampling techniques for the postreprocessing endoscope to assess residual b...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of infection control 2020-01, Vol.48 (1), p.19-25 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 25 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 19 |
container_title | American journal of infection control |
container_volume | 48 |
creator | Ji, Xue-Yue Ning, Pei-Yong Fei, Chun-Nan Liu, Jun Liu, He Song, Jia |
description | [Display omitted]
Various guidelines recommend several sampling techniques to verify endoscope reprocessing, but a comparative study of the efficiency for recovering microorganisms was rare. Our goal was to compare different sampling techniques for the postreprocessing endoscope to assess residual bacterial contamination and analysis of the critical factors affecting the endoscope reprocessing failure.
From 2016 to 2018, 3 techniques, the conventional flushing sampling method, flush-brush-flush sampling method (FBFSM), and pump-assisted sampling method (PASM), were compared covering all 59 endoscope units in Tianjin, China.
A total of 237 (84.64%) flushing channel samples and 110 (61.11%) final rinse water samples met the Chinese national standard. The univariate analysis showed that the qualified rates of endoscope reprocessing sampled by PASM (65.52%) and FBFSM (75%) were significantly lower than those of the conventional flushing sampling method (91.38%). Five other factors, including the final rinse water, dry, and hospital level, were potential factors besides sample technique. The multivariate logistic analysis indicated only 2 factors (sampling technique and final rinse water) remained in the model. FBFSM, PASM, and the purified water were significantly associated with the odds of endoscope reprocessing failure, with the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of which were 4.206 (1.757-10.067), 5.326 (2.463-11.645), and 0.309 (0.137-0.695), respectively.
The problem of residual microorganisms of the postreprocessing endoscope was severe. Sampling technique and final rinse water were critical for endoscope reprocessing verification. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.07.008 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2272221025</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0196655319306881</els_id><sourcerecordid>2272221025</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-6d9fb26b22f6d1aa286bfd364f77aca4580bfc45339c658d032f7f59a5244a353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1TAQRi1ERS9tX4AF8pJNgmPHToLYVBV_UqVuytpy7HHrqyQOHt_CfRJeF0e3sGQ1C5_v04wPIW8aVjesUe_3tdkHW3PWDDXrasb6F2TXSN5Vgg_qJdmVB1UpKcU5eY24Z4wNQslX5Fw0baH7dkd-3z8CDfMaUzaLBRo9RTOvU1geaAb7uIQfB6BmcTSFBYH-NBkS9TFRgwiIG-cn-BXGCeiDwZxiWDJgDouZKCwuoo0r0ARrivYU-ECvqaiOYBLFfHBHauMTpK1JDtRCiSe8JGfeTAhXz_OCfP_86f7ma3V79-XbzfVtZYVUuVJu8CNXI-deucYY3qvRO6Fa33XGmlb2bPS2lUIMVsneMcF95-VgJG9bI6S4IO9OvWW9cilmPQe0ME1mgXhAzXnHOW8Y31B-Qm2KiAm8XlOYTTrqhulNiN7rTYjehGjW6fLFJfT2uf8wzuD-Rf4aKMDHEwDlyqcASaMNUFS4kMBm7WL4X_8fH8Cfcw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2272221025</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The importance of sampling technique and rinse water for assessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: A 3-year study covering 59 centers</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Ji, Xue-Yue ; Ning, Pei-Yong ; Fei, Chun-Nan ; Liu, Jun ; Liu, He ; Song, Jia</creator><creatorcontrib>Ji, Xue-Yue ; Ning, Pei-Yong ; Fei, Chun-Nan ; Liu, Jun ; Liu, He ; Song, Jia</creatorcontrib><description>[Display omitted]
Various guidelines recommend several sampling techniques to verify endoscope reprocessing, but a comparative study of the efficiency for recovering microorganisms was rare. Our goal was to compare different sampling techniques for the postreprocessing endoscope to assess residual bacterial contamination and analysis of the critical factors affecting the endoscope reprocessing failure.
From 2016 to 2018, 3 techniques, the conventional flushing sampling method, flush-brush-flush sampling method (FBFSM), and pump-assisted sampling method (PASM), were compared covering all 59 endoscope units in Tianjin, China.
A total of 237 (84.64%) flushing channel samples and 110 (61.11%) final rinse water samples met the Chinese national standard. The univariate analysis showed that the qualified rates of endoscope reprocessing sampled by PASM (65.52%) and FBFSM (75%) were significantly lower than those of the conventional flushing sampling method (91.38%). Five other factors, including the final rinse water, dry, and hospital level, were potential factors besides sample technique. The multivariate logistic analysis indicated only 2 factors (sampling technique and final rinse water) remained in the model. FBFSM, PASM, and the purified water were significantly associated with the odds of endoscope reprocessing failure, with the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of which were 4.206 (1.757-10.067), 5.326 (2.463-11.645), and 0.309 (0.137-0.695), respectively.
The problem of residual microorganisms of the postreprocessing endoscope was severe. Sampling technique and final rinse water were critical for endoscope reprocessing verification.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0196-6553</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-3296</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.07.008</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31400884</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>China ; Contamination ; Cross Infection - prevention & control ; Disinfection - methods ; Disinfection - standards ; Endoscopes, Gastrointestinal - microbiology ; Equipment Contamination - prevention & control ; Equipment Reuse - standards ; Flush-brush-flush sampling ; Humans ; Infection Control - methods ; Infection Control - standards ; Logistic Models ; Pump-assisted sampling ; Water - standards ; Water Microbiology - standards</subject><ispartof>American journal of infection control, 2020-01, Vol.48 (1), p.19-25</ispartof><rights>2019 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-6d9fb26b22f6d1aa286bfd364f77aca4580bfc45339c658d032f7f59a5244a353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-6d9fb26b22f6d1aa286bfd364f77aca4580bfc45339c658d032f7f59a5244a353</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5439-4047</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.07.008$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31400884$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ji, Xue-Yue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ning, Pei-Yong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fei, Chun-Nan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, He</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Jia</creatorcontrib><title>The importance of sampling technique and rinse water for assessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: A 3-year study covering 59 centers</title><title>American journal of infection control</title><addtitle>Am J Infect Control</addtitle><description>[Display omitted]
Various guidelines recommend several sampling techniques to verify endoscope reprocessing, but a comparative study of the efficiency for recovering microorganisms was rare. Our goal was to compare different sampling techniques for the postreprocessing endoscope to assess residual bacterial contamination and analysis of the critical factors affecting the endoscope reprocessing failure.
From 2016 to 2018, 3 techniques, the conventional flushing sampling method, flush-brush-flush sampling method (FBFSM), and pump-assisted sampling method (PASM), were compared covering all 59 endoscope units in Tianjin, China.
A total of 237 (84.64%) flushing channel samples and 110 (61.11%) final rinse water samples met the Chinese national standard. The univariate analysis showed that the qualified rates of endoscope reprocessing sampled by PASM (65.52%) and FBFSM (75%) were significantly lower than those of the conventional flushing sampling method (91.38%). Five other factors, including the final rinse water, dry, and hospital level, were potential factors besides sample technique. The multivariate logistic analysis indicated only 2 factors (sampling technique and final rinse water) remained in the model. FBFSM, PASM, and the purified water were significantly associated with the odds of endoscope reprocessing failure, with the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of which were 4.206 (1.757-10.067), 5.326 (2.463-11.645), and 0.309 (0.137-0.695), respectively.
The problem of residual microorganisms of the postreprocessing endoscope was severe. Sampling technique and final rinse water were critical for endoscope reprocessing verification.</description><subject>China</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Cross Infection - prevention & control</subject><subject>Disinfection - methods</subject><subject>Disinfection - standards</subject><subject>Endoscopes, Gastrointestinal - microbiology</subject><subject>Equipment Contamination - prevention & control</subject><subject>Equipment Reuse - standards</subject><subject>Flush-brush-flush sampling</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infection Control - methods</subject><subject>Infection Control - standards</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Pump-assisted sampling</subject><subject>Water - standards</subject><subject>Water Microbiology - standards</subject><issn>0196-6553</issn><issn>1527-3296</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1TAQRi1ERS9tX4AF8pJNgmPHToLYVBV_UqVuytpy7HHrqyQOHt_CfRJeF0e3sGQ1C5_v04wPIW8aVjesUe_3tdkHW3PWDDXrasb6F2TXSN5Vgg_qJdmVB1UpKcU5eY24Z4wNQslX5Fw0baH7dkd-3z8CDfMaUzaLBRo9RTOvU1geaAb7uIQfB6BmcTSFBYH-NBkS9TFRgwiIG-cn-BXGCeiDwZxiWDJgDouZKCwuoo0r0ARrivYU-ECvqaiOYBLFfHBHauMTpK1JDtRCiSe8JGfeTAhXz_OCfP_86f7ma3V79-XbzfVtZYVUuVJu8CNXI-deucYY3qvRO6Fa33XGmlb2bPS2lUIMVsneMcF95-VgJG9bI6S4IO9OvWW9cilmPQe0ME1mgXhAzXnHOW8Y31B-Qm2KiAm8XlOYTTrqhulNiN7rTYjehGjW6fLFJfT2uf8wzuD-Rf4aKMDHEwDlyqcASaMNUFS4kMBm7WL4X_8fH8Cfcw</recordid><startdate>202001</startdate><enddate>202001</enddate><creator>Ji, Xue-Yue</creator><creator>Ning, Pei-Yong</creator><creator>Fei, Chun-Nan</creator><creator>Liu, Jun</creator><creator>Liu, He</creator><creator>Song, Jia</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</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>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5439-4047</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202001</creationdate><title>The importance of sampling technique and rinse water for assessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: A 3-year study covering 59 centers</title><author>Ji, Xue-Yue ; Ning, Pei-Yong ; Fei, Chun-Nan ; Liu, Jun ; Liu, He ; Song, Jia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-6d9fb26b22f6d1aa286bfd364f77aca4580bfc45339c658d032f7f59a5244a353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>China</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Cross Infection - prevention & control</topic><topic>Disinfection - methods</topic><topic>Disinfection - standards</topic><topic>Endoscopes, Gastrointestinal - microbiology</topic><topic>Equipment Contamination - prevention & control</topic><topic>Equipment Reuse - standards</topic><topic>Flush-brush-flush sampling</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infection Control - methods</topic><topic>Infection Control - standards</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Pump-assisted sampling</topic><topic>Water - standards</topic><topic>Water Microbiology - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ji, Xue-Yue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ning, Pei-Yong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fei, Chun-Nan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, He</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Jia</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of infection control</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ji, Xue-Yue</au><au>Ning, Pei-Yong</au><au>Fei, Chun-Nan</au><au>Liu, Jun</au><au>Liu, He</au><au>Song, Jia</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The importance of sampling technique and rinse water for assessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: A 3-year study covering 59 centers</atitle><jtitle>American journal of infection control</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Infect Control</addtitle><date>2020-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>19</spage><epage>25</epage><pages>19-25</pages><issn>0196-6553</issn><eissn>1527-3296</eissn><abstract>[Display omitted]
Various guidelines recommend several sampling techniques to verify endoscope reprocessing, but a comparative study of the efficiency for recovering microorganisms was rare. Our goal was to compare different sampling techniques for the postreprocessing endoscope to assess residual bacterial contamination and analysis of the critical factors affecting the endoscope reprocessing failure.
From 2016 to 2018, 3 techniques, the conventional flushing sampling method, flush-brush-flush sampling method (FBFSM), and pump-assisted sampling method (PASM), were compared covering all 59 endoscope units in Tianjin, China.
A total of 237 (84.64%) flushing channel samples and 110 (61.11%) final rinse water samples met the Chinese national standard. The univariate analysis showed that the qualified rates of endoscope reprocessing sampled by PASM (65.52%) and FBFSM (75%) were significantly lower than those of the conventional flushing sampling method (91.38%). Five other factors, including the final rinse water, dry, and hospital level, were potential factors besides sample technique. The multivariate logistic analysis indicated only 2 factors (sampling technique and final rinse water) remained in the model. FBFSM, PASM, and the purified water were significantly associated with the odds of endoscope reprocessing failure, with the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of which were 4.206 (1.757-10.067), 5.326 (2.463-11.645), and 0.309 (0.137-0.695), respectively.
The problem of residual microorganisms of the postreprocessing endoscope was severe. Sampling technique and final rinse water were critical for endoscope reprocessing verification.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>31400884</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajic.2019.07.008</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5439-4047</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0196-6553 |
ispartof | American journal of infection control, 2020-01, Vol.48 (1), p.19-25 |
issn | 0196-6553 1527-3296 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2272221025 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | China Contamination Cross Infection - prevention & control Disinfection - methods Disinfection - standards Endoscopes, Gastrointestinal - microbiology Equipment Contamination - prevention & control Equipment Reuse - standards Flush-brush-flush sampling Humans Infection Control - methods Infection Control - standards Logistic Models Pump-assisted sampling Water - standards Water Microbiology - standards |
title | The importance of sampling technique and rinse water for assessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: A 3-year study covering 59 centers |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T10%3A21%3A50IST&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=The%20importance%20of%20sampling%20technique%20and%20rinse%20water%20for%20assessing%20flexible%20gastrointestinal%20endoscope%20reprocessing:%20A%203-year%20study%20covering%2059%20centers&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20infection%20control&rft.au=Ji,%20Xue-Yue&rft.date=2020-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=19&rft.epage=25&rft.pages=19-25&rft.issn=0196-6553&rft.eissn=1527-3296&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.07.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2272221025%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=2272221025&rft_id=info:pmid/31400884&rft_els_id=S0196655319306881&rfr_iscdi=true |