DECONTAMINATION SERVICES
The appointment of the AP(D) should ensure that such situations are controlled. The AP(D) should review job-sheets/ logbooks presented by any internal/ external engineering providers, and no ‘short-cuts’ should be allowed.
No local knowledge of activity Our experience shows that upon audit, job-sheets are often supplied electronically by service-providers, and go to the paymaster (procurement leads), rather than the user or the AP(D). Often, upon request, nobody is aware of any such information, which in turn means that there is no local knowledge of activity. Engineers (Competent Persons) should not work on any equipment unless they are adequately trained in the discipline in question. Should we accept manufacturers or third-party providers as the experts? No, they must present the same robust documentation as any internal staff members. Many manufacturers/third- party providers have a high turnover of staff, which can lead to inconsistent service delivery. Such documentation should include evidence of training appropriate to the equipment and tasks, but does this mean that a quarterly validation course is suitable for maintenance activity? No, there needs to be dedicated training dedicated to service and validation, since the tasks are totally different. Back in the day, the two-week steriliser course, offered at the Falfield Engineering Centre (now Eastwood Park), covered both. That is not the case today, and maintenance and equipment understanding is an area where training needs to be enhanced.
Need for accredited courses There is a significant gap for training for maintenance, and I feel there should be
A washer-disinfector being validated at Singleton Hospital, Swansea.
accredited courses for maintenance and service principles. Additionally, there is equipment we link with, which is not covered by training – for example laboratory sterilisers and controlled environment storage systems for endoscopes. Manufacturers and third- party providers must also ensure appropriate training, to include appropriate certification in mechanical/ electrical and software disciplines. Health and safety requirements dictate the need for appropriate training. Would you work on medical gas systems without the necessary training?
Does this mean that attending a porous load steriliser course is appropriate for an individual set to work on benchtop sterilisers or multi-cycle laboratory
sterilisation equipment? Well, there are certain similarities, and you would expect competent engineers to overlap, but can we be sure? Is this an area that the AP(D)/AE(D) can assess to determine the knowledge of each CP(D)?
NHS Wales plans for a national CP(D) register This is where the systems managed by the AP(D) come in; NHS Wales is looking to instigate a national CP(D) register for internal and external engineers working under its umbrella, to be managed/ populated by the AP(D), and scrutinised by the AE(D) during periodic visits. Such a register should indicate if the engineer is working on equipment at routine intervals to maintain competencies. This includes the level of involvement, which may mean weekly testing only, or, alternatively, more in-depth quarterly/annual procedures. What should we do if we deem a person not competent? Well, it could be that they are in need of refresher training. Often managers send staff on courses, but do not correlate the fact that guidance, equipment, and technology, change. Service-providers are often guilty of not investing in staff training, I know of an engineer who worked as a service engineer for 20 years, but never received additional training after the initial appointment.
An example of a Permit to Work.
Should we as a decontamination industry make it a requirement for a periodic refresher course – look how decontamination equipment has evolved over the past 10 years? At the very least I would expect the CP(D) to present evidence of regular work activity on such equipment. Such activity should be logged, reviewed, and managed, by the AP(D).
October 2020 Health Estate Journal 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108
