Time‐effectiveness and convenience of transvaginal ultrasound probe disinfection using ultraviolet vs chlorine dioxide multistep wipe system: prospective survey study

ABSTRACT Objectives To compare the efficiency, ease of use and user satisfaction of two methods of transvaginal ultrasound probe high‐level disinfection: ultraviolet‐C radiation (UV‐C) and a chlorine dioxide multistep wipe system. Methods This was a prospective survey study. UV‐C units were introduc...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology 2022-07, Vol.60 (1), p.132-138
Hauptverfasser: Kyriacou, C., Robinson, E., Barcroft, J., Parker, N., Tuomey, M., Stalder, C., Gould, D., Al‐Memar, M., Bourne, T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ABSTRACT Objectives To compare the efficiency, ease of use and user satisfaction of two methods of transvaginal ultrasound probe high‐level disinfection: ultraviolet‐C radiation (UV‐C) and a chlorine dioxide multistep wipe system. Methods This was a prospective survey study. UV‐C units were introduced into a busy early pregnancy assessment service and compared with a multiwipe system for disinfection. Before seeing each patient, healthcare professionals (HCPs) measured with a stopwatch the time taken to complete a cycle of disinfection using either UV‐C or chlorine dioxide multistep wipes and responded to a quick‐response (QR) code‐linked survey. Additional essential tasks that could be completed before seeing the next patient during probe disinfection were also documented. Using another QR code‐linked survey, data on ease of use, satisfaction with the system used and preferred system were collected. The ease of use and satisfaction with the system were rated on a 0 to 10 Likert scale (0 poor, 10 excellent). A free‐text section for comments was then completed. Results Disinfection using UV‐C (n = 331) was 60% faster than the chlorine dioxide multiwipe system (n = 332) (101 vs 250 s; P 
ISSN:0960-7692
1469-0705
DOI:10.1002/uog.24834