INFECTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL


Revolutionising reusable bedpan cleaning


Jon Sharp, UK Specification manager for the Care sector at warewashing system manufacturer, Meiko, considers some of the potential infection risks when clinical and nursing staff are handling bedpans, and focuses particularly on the advantages of using advanced washer-disinfectors to thoroughly clean and disinfect bedpans compared with using reusable pulp bedpans, which are typically disposed of post-use by a macerator, in hospitals and other healthcare settings.


Effective bedpan management in hospitals and other healthcare facilities is crucial in preventing the spread of healthcare-associated infections. In such environments, one of the priorities should be to minimise manual handling of bedpans to reduce the risk of infection to as low as possible. Using covered or lidded bedpans further reduces the spread of infection via aerosols. Equally, the dangers of manually disposing of


human waste, with the associated risk of spreading microorganisms directly to the environment or indirectly via personnel, is an issue that has perhaps not always been afforded the priority it should be in healthcare settings. Manual emptying of bedpans and urine bottles into a slop sink or toilet is still carried out routinely in the UK, and has been an issue for some time. Manual cleaning – including via the use of sprays and wands – is not recommended, due to the associated risks of infection to both staff and patients. It is fact that there is a lack of recent, reliable data on the performance of bedpan washer- disinfectors. Often quoted in the UK, for example, are reports on disinfection rates in Canada published in the American Journal of Infection Control (report by Bryce et al).1 However, this report dates back to 2011, did not include


European-made machines, and noted significant ‘human error’. Technology has moved on apace since then, and everything inside a washer-disinfector has changed since 2011.


Machine design flaws and human error It must be noted that the aforementioned article by Elizabeth Bryce and her colleagues found the failures in the bedpan cleaning process were due to a combination of machine design flaws and human error – such as incorrect machine loading or failing to check levels of detergent. The faulty machines featured in the Vancouver Coastal study used by Bryce were soon replaced with German-made Meiko machines. The replacement cost, and the fact that the old machines were relatively new, caused an uproar in the local media. Meiko’s view is that categorising bedpans as low-to- medium risk devices is underestimating the risk. We also believe the Spaulding Classification (which dates back to a 1939 paper on disinfecting surgical instruments in a chemical solution by Earle Spaulding of Temple University in Philadelphia, in the US, which proposed ‘a strategy for sterilisation or disinfection of inanimate objects and surfaces based on the degree of risk involved in their


September 2025 Health Estate Journal 59


use’), made a mistake by downplaying the importance of bedpan management in infection control. On the subject of the Spaulding Classification, in a paper published in Science of the Total Environment on 20 June 2023,2


the authors argued that the Spaulding


Classification remains in use ‘as it is logical, easily applied and understood by users (microbiologists, epidemiologists, manufacturers, industry) and by


Left: Warewashing manufacturer, Meiko – a major supplier to hospitals and care homes worldwide – launched washer-disinfectors onto the European market in the 1970s.


Below: Hands-free closing of a washer- disinfector – for maximum convenience.


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