Moses Frank M, Lee Jennifer S
Gastroenterology Service, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC 20307-5001, USA.
Dig Dis Sci. 2004 Nov-Dec;49(11-12):1791-7. doi: 10.1007/s10620-004-9572-5.
High-level disinfection (HLD) of GI endoscopes is readily achieved when published guidelines are observed. Contamination is linked to breakdowns in accepted procedure. However, there is no recognized method of verifying adequacy of endoscope reprocessing in routine practice and no data regarding current quality assurance (QA) practice. Prior reports have demonstrated a wide variation in routine clinical practice of GI endoscopy HLD. The goal of this study was to determine current practice at regional endoscopy centers with regard to endoscope cleaning and HLD, maintenance, and QA practice. An anonymous multiple-choice questionnaire was mailed to 367 SGNA members in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia and completed by 230 (63%). The majority of responders were hospital-based and 59% of the units performed over 3000 procedures per year. After use the endoscope was hand-carried or transported in a dry container (97%) to a separate cleaning room (85%) for HLD by technicians (40%). Wide variations existed in manual step procedures including use of disposable (50%) brushes and number of times channel brushed: once (21%), twice (35%), or three to five times (37%). Soaking duration in disinfectant (70% gluteraldehyde) was for <10 min (8%), 10-20 min (35%), 20-30 min (38%), 30-40 min (7%), and >40 min (3%). Sixty-seven percent had an active unit infection control (IC) service and 98% had a QA program. Monitoring of cleaning effectiveness was by visual inspection (50%) and culturing endoscopes (17%). Culture was done weekly (1%) and <biannually (6.5%) and performed by swabing the endoscope end (5%) or rinsing the biopsy channel (8%). If culture positive, most would remove the instrument from clinical use and reevaluate the protocol and personnel for technique lapses. Two respondents were aware of a procedure-related infection. Wide practice variations were noted in manual cleaning and in soaking time during automated HLD in this community. Fewer variations were noted in cleaning personnel and training, location and methods of cleaning, and presence of IC services and QA programs. Endoscope culturing was infrequently done and positive cultures were rare. While most units claim to have ongoing QA programs, few use objective criteria to monitor effective disinfection or lapses in technique. Iatrogenic infection is uncommonly recognized following GI endoscope procedures.
遵循已发布的指南时,可轻松实现胃肠内镜的高水平消毒(HLD)。污染与公认程序的失误有关。然而,在常规实践中,尚无公认的方法来验证内镜再处理的充分性,也没有关于当前质量保证(QA)实践的数据。先前的报告表明,胃肠内镜HLD的常规临床实践存在很大差异。本研究的目的是确定区域内镜中心在胃镜清洗、HLD、维护和QA实践方面的当前做法。向宾夕法尼亚州、特拉华州、弗吉尼亚州、马里兰州和哥伦比亚特区的367名SGNA成员邮寄了一份匿名多项选择题问卷,230人(63%)完成了问卷。大多数受访者来自医院,59%的单位每年进行超过3000例手术。使用后,内镜由人工携带或放在干燥容器中(97%)运至单独的清洗室(85%),由技术人员进行HLD(40%)。手动步骤程序存在很大差异,包括使用一次性刷子(50%)以及对通道刷洗的次数:一次(21%)、两次(35%)或三至五次(37%)。浸泡在消毒剂(70%戊二醛)中的时间为<10分钟(8%)、10 - 20分钟(35%)、20 - 30分钟(38%)、30 - 40分钟(7%)和>40分钟(3%)。67%的单位有活跃的单位感染控制(IC)服务,98%的单位有QA计划。通过目视检查(50%)和对内镜进行培养(17%)来监测清洗效果。培养每周进行一次(1%),半年内少于两次(6.5%),通过擦拭内镜末端(5%)或冲洗活检通道(8%)进行。如果培养呈阳性,大多数单位会将该器械从临床使用中移除,并重新评估方案和人员的技术失误情况。两名受访者知晓与操作相关的感染。在这个群体中,可以注意到手动清洗和自动HLD浸泡时间存在很大差异。在清洗人员和培训、清洗地点和方法以及IC服务和QA计划的存在方面差异较小。内镜培养很少进行,阳性培养结果也很少见。虽然大多数单位声称有持续的QA计划,但很少使用客观标准来监测有效消毒或技术失误情况。胃肠内镜手术后医源性感染很少被识别。