DECONTAMINATION & STERILISATION
n Do you have the infrastructure to allow the integration of a central dosing system, or would you need to have a localised compact system?
n Would a dosing system help you attain your financial and sustainability targets?
n Would your department’s wellbeing and occupational health benefit from a dosing system?
Trend analysis can highlight areas for improvement, while digital documentation supports audits and compliance checks.
Alan Abbatt
Alan Abbatt has over 24 years’ experience in the cleaning and decontamination industry, and established Dr Weigert UK Ltd over 16 years ago. He has responsibility for the commercialisation of Dr Weigert’s decontamination products (surgical devices, surface, and hands), and the co-ordination and implementation of UK sales strategies.
on delicate instruments, have been replaced by hybrid alkaline alternatives that prevent corrosion on stainless steel and surgical-grade plastics. The additional inclusion of corrosion inhibitors helps protect instruments from long-term damage, ensuring material compatibility, and extending the lifespan of expensive medical devices. As many decontamination processes require cleaning at lower temperatures to preserve sensitive medical devices and robotic surgical instruments, innovations in cleaning chemistry have prioritised maintaining efficacy without compromising material integrity. Low-temperature enzymatic solutions perform effectively, while non-foaming surfactants minimise potential cavitation within the program cycles. Accelerated drying agents further enhance the process – by reducing cycle times and improving turnaround speeds for reprocessed instruments. Pre-treating surgical instruments with specialised solutions has played an increasingly important role in recent years in many healthcare settings, preventing the drying of organic residues, and ensuring effective subsequent cleaning. This pre-cleaning step is particularly important when immediate reprocessing is not possible, as blood, proteins, and other biological materials, can adhere to instruments, making removal more difficult. Chemical pretreatments are designed to keep these contaminants moist, reducing the risk of biofilm formation, and improving the overall efficacy of enzymatic and chemical detergents used later in the cleaning cycle. Formulations are designed to be gentle on materials, ensuring compatibility with stainless steel, surgical-grade plastics, and delicate instrument surfaces. By integrating a reliable pre-treatment solution into the decontamination workflow, healthcare facilities can enhance cleaning efficiency, prolong instrument lifespan, and reduce the risk of inadequate sterilisation. These innovations collectively enhance the efficiency,
safety, and sustainability of decontamination processes in modern medical settings.
Key considerations for department managers There are some key questions Sterile Service Managers should ask when looking to implement changes to their decontamination processes: n Would the department’s efficiency be enhanced by implementing a dosing system?
36 Health Estate Journal September 2025
Following an update or change, regular training sessions and competency assessments help employees develop the necessary skills for handling a new dosing system. Establishing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) further reduces the risk of dosing-related errors, and ensures uniform cleaning standards across departments. The increasing availability of data from dosing systems allows managers to optimise processes through continuous monitoring and analysis. Smart technologies and connected devices provide real-time insights into dosing performance, enabling the detection of inefficiencies or incorrect dosing patterns. Trend analysis can highlight areas for improvement, while digital documentation supports audits and compliance checks, ensuring accountability and regulatory adherence. Investment in future-proof technologies is crucial for long-term efficiency and adaptability. Dosing technology data contributes to hospital management information, allowing for centralised oversight and improved coordination. Additionally, customisable dosing software ensures flexibility, enabling healthcare facilities to adapt to evolving cleaning protocols and regulatory requirements. These considerations collectively enhance the effectiveness, safety, and sustainability of decontamination processes.
Conclusion Modern dosing technology is transforming decontamination processes across healthcare settings by ensuring precise, efficient, and sustainable cleaning. The evolution from traditional manual methods to advanced central and local dosing systems has not only improved cleaning efficacy and instrument longevity, but also bolstered staff safety through reduced chemical exposure and automated monitoring. The integration of cutting-edge technologies – such as RFID, AI, and IoT – enables real- time data-driven adjustments that optimise chemical usage, minimise waste, and support rigorous compliance with hygiene and safety regulations. Furthermore, the advancements in cleaning chemistry and automated dosing systems underscore the critical balance between effective decontamination and the preservation of delicate medical instruments. As healthcare facilities continue to face challenges such as rising operational costs and the need for sustainability, investing in future-proof dosing solutions and staff training will be paramount. By leveraging dosing data for compliance tracking and resource optimisation, NHS Trusts can better align with Net Zero targets while maintaining high standards of infection prevention. Ultimately, embracing these innovative practices
promises not only to enhance patient safety, but also to set new benchmarks in operational excellence within the evolving landscape of medical decontamination.
Acknowledgement n This article, titled ‘Dosing and decontamination in the
21st Century’, first appeared in a Decontamination & Sterilisation supplement within the April 2025 issue of HEJ’s sister publication, The Clinical Services Journal. HEJ thanks the magazine’s editor, Louise Frampton, and the author, for allowing its re-publication in slightly edited form here.
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 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132
