search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Endoscope reprocessing


Call for standardisation in endoscope decontamination


Daniel Collins warns that a lack of standardisation in the decontamination of endoscopes has led to varying standards at hospitals across the UK. He calls for a change of approach to reduce variation in standards and to ensure effective endoscope reprocessing.


The different ways endoscopes are decontaminated by clinical staff across the country - using different techniques, chemicals, strengths, water types and locations to do so - could lead to inconsistent decontamination or damage to endoscopes, which in turn causes delays to treatment and costing more time and money than it should. The standardisation of endoscope decontamination processes is long overdue and, if rolled out, could improve staff efficiency and patient experience as well as bring commercial benefits to the clinical industry. Serchem is encouraging departments to standardise their approach to bedside cleaning with the use of a purpose made pre-cleaning kit. As clinical staff and patients depend on a


clean and safe environment, this should be a priority and a non-enzymatic detergent which has complete compatibility with all makes of scopes can ensure these needs are met. Product development has seen innovations


to create flushing devices that can standardise the process and reduce the chances of human error. While high tech instrumentation and devices have been manufactured, the decontamination of these state-of-the-art products needs to involve developed processes that align with this innovation. A standardised programme can be implemented


through an automated flush that improves the overall performance of decontamination. An


Endoscopy Decontamination Unit (EDU) can use technology to mechanically test for leaks and flush out the endoscopes - which meets the needs of HTM 01-06 and BSG guidelines. To meet the current requirement for all endoscopes to be pre-treated, hospital staff currently start the process at the bedside. A fully manual process also sees a final flush completed with a syringe, but the challenge is that members of staff will syringe with different pressures. Every human will do it differently -


A standardised process would see a non- enzymatic detergent remove any organic traces such as blood, protein, fat and saliva, found on and in flexible endoscopes. The chemistry should be compatible with all makes and manufacturers of flexible endoscopes and in line with their instructions for use, maximising their life.


therefore, a fully manual process can leave a lot of room for human error and variation. It is important to standardise this process


to give the same pressure and flow rate and therefore the same standard of cleaning guaranteed, as well as reducing the chances of decontamination error. Ensuring decontamination is the same


standard in each department in all hospitals can happen, but it is about having the correct equipment available to do this. Adhering to a standardised protocol will reduce the rate of leakages and breakages and therefore improve departmental efficiency and patient safety. The hospitals and treatment rooms that have


adopted modernised automated flushing during the manual clean (thanks to technological advancements) have seen an improved level of efficiency, ensuring there are less blockages inside the endoscopes, which will lead to less failures in the automated wash. One size does not fit all and the right


chemistry and balance is needed to ensure April 2024 I www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 85





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