Department of Radiology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, 1514 Jefferson Hwy, New Orleans, LA 70121 USA.,
J Ultrasound Med. 2013 Oct;32(10):1799-804. doi: 10.7863/ultra.32.10.1799.
Because of the complex process and the risk of errors associated with the glutaraldehyde-based solutions previously used at our institution for disinfection, our department has implemented a new method for high-level disinfection of vaginal ultrasound probes: the hydrogen peroxide-based Trophon system (Nanosonics, Alexandria, New South Wales, Australia). The aim of this study was to compare the time difference, safety, and sonographers' satisfaction between the glutaraldehyde-based Cidex (CIVCO Medical Solutions, Kalona, IA) and the hydrogen peroxide-based Trophon disinfection systems.
The Institutional Review Board approved a 14-question survey administered to the 13 sonographers in our department. Survey questions addressed a variety of aspects of the disinfection processes with graded responses over a standardized 5-point scale. A process diagram was developed for each disinfection method with segmental timing analysis, and a cost analysis was performed.
Nonvariegated analysis of the survey data with the Wilcoxon signed rank test showed a statistical difference in survey responses in favor of the hydrogen peroxide-based system over the glutaraldehyde-based system regarding efficiency (P = .0013), ease of use (P = .0013), ability to maintain work flow (P = .026), safety (P = .0026), fixing problems (P = .0158), time (P = .0011), and overall satisfaction (P = .0018). The glutaraldehyde-based system took 32 minutes versus 14 minutes for the hydrogen peroxide-based system; the hydrogen peroxide-based system saved on average 7.5 hours per week. The cost of the hydrogen peroxide-based system and weekly maintenance pays for itself if 1.5 more ultrasound examinations are performed each week.
The hydrogen peroxide-based disinfection system was proven to be more efficient and viewed to be easier and safer to use than the glutaraldehyde-based system. The adoption of the hydrogen peroxide-based system led to higher satisfaction among sonographers.
由于我院先前用于消毒的戊二醛基溶液过程复杂且存在出错风险,我们部门采用了一种新的阴道超声探头高水平消毒方法:基于过氧化氢的 Trophon 系统(澳大利亚新南威尔士州亚历山德里亚的 Nanosonics)。本研究旨在比较戊二醛基 Cidex(CIVCO Medical Solutions,爱荷华州卡罗纳)和基于过氧化氢的 Trophon 消毒系统之间的时间差异、安全性和超声医师满意度。
机构审查委员会批准了对我们部门的 13 名超声医师进行的 14 个问题调查。调查问题涉及消毒过程的各个方面,使用标准化的 5 分制进行分级回答。为每种消毒方法制作了流程图表,并进行了成本分析。
对调查数据进行非方差分析,使用 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验,结果显示,基于过氧化氢的系统在效率(P =.0013)、易用性(P =.0013)、保持工作流程能力(P =.026)、安全性(P =.0026)、解决问题能力(P =.0158)、时间(P =.0011)和总体满意度(P =.0018)方面的调查结果更有利于基于过氧化氢的系统,与基于戊二醛的系统相比具有统计学差异。基于过氧化氢的系统需要 14 分钟,而基于戊二醛的系统需要 32 分钟;基于过氧化氢的系统每周平均节省 7.5 小时。如果每周多进行 1.5 次超声检查,则基于过氧化氢的系统的成本和每周维护费用即可自行支付。
基于过氧化氢的消毒系统被证明比基于戊二醛的系统更高效,并且被认为使用起来更容易、更安全。采用基于过氧化氢的系统后,超声医师的满意度更高。