Dosing technology
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.
COMMENT with ANDY DAVIES
UV-C Disinfection: why standards matter
UV-C Disinfection is becoming increasingly accepted as a key tool to improve patient safety, increase sustainable practices and reduce HCAIs. Andy Davies discusses how, after more than 100 years, standardisation is driving adoption Enter ‘ENT UK UVC’ into a Google search and the AI overview will show you the following
text: “ENT UK recommends using UV-C light to decontaminate flexible nasoendoscopes. This is a modern, cost-effective and environmentally sustainable method”. This is a perfect example of how UV-C disinfection is ‘having a moment’. During the first
quarter of this year, ENT UK have issued this guidance, and suddenly ENT outpatient clinics and head & neck wards across the country are being inundated with offers of trials of the latest equipment, backed by all sorts of ‘evidence’ on how a particular product is the best possible equipment for the job. While many of these products are certainly ‘modern’, as described in the AI text, the
CSJ
science is not. It has been in practical use since 1903, when Niels Finsen pioneered germicidal UV as a method of addressing tuberculosis spread. In the January issue of CSJ, I discussed how this old technology is being refreshed with new developments in solid-state LED sources, allowing safe, cost effective, practical and sustainable medical device reprocessing in areas where it was previously not possible. The new kid on the block is ‘Far UV’, a wavelength of UV light that offers the opportunity of increased exposure limits for humans, making some level of UV-C decontamination possible in occupied spaces. With all of this happening, how can a decision be made around choosing an effective UV-C decontamination solution for the job in hand? The answer has to lie in standardisation, and it is here where much important work continues to be done. Water treatment is the most mature area where germicidal UV has been used, and the ISO 20468 series of standards has recognised this, with the inclusion of a UV-specific section, in the latest publication, which provides performance evaluation guidelines. But it is in the area of surface disinfection where progress has been most rapid, with the publication of the BS 8628 standard in 2022. A lack of a standard has been a hinderance to the widespread adoption of UV-C disinfection. Manufacturers of disinfection equipment have taken two approaches: during the pandemic, it was to rely on 3rd party ‘evidence’, often on a bare lamp measured in ideal laboratory conditions, with very little relationship to the product being offered. More responsible manufacturers wanted to do the right thing, but without a standard to guide them, used chemical disinfection standards such as EN 14885 to show ‘equivalency’. This has drawn criticism from manufacturers of chemical disinfectant systems for using a standard where the practical method described relates specifically to a simulation of how chemical disinfectants operate. This criticism has merit, but in fairness to the UV-C manufacturers claiming this equivalence, what else were they to do? Thankfully, two years after its publication, BS8628:2022 is now driving better decisions
About the author
Alan 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.
84
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com I April 2025
around UV-C surface disinfection adoption. It is written specifically to factor in challenging organisms, for example Ent. Hirae, which is a known highly resistant bacteria to UV-C. The acceptance criteria also take into account the ‘two-stage reduction’ mechanism whereby it often takes more dose to achieve 4 to 5 log reduction than it does 1 to 4 log. Using this methodology, and selecting the right organisms to test against, ensures
doses are delivered that leave no stone unturned in the quest for wide spectrum high-level disinfection. BS8628 is not perfect (no 1st edition of any standard ever is) but the most important thing is that it exists, and it is incumbent upon all stakeholders – users, manufacturers, specifiers – to embrace this and drive adoption, in order to improve safety, while allowing widespread re-use and all the sustainability benefits that brings. *Andy Davies has a PhD in solid-state chemistry and is General Manager of Mackwell Health.
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
