CS CONNECTION Before a new surgical instrument enters UCSF advanced inspection station


tion. These are: Enough light, magnifying glasses - preferably lighted and at least 5x magnifi cation - and borescopes.


Making the case for investment From the purchase of a new visual inspec- tion tool to the complete transformation of inspection processes, CSSD lead- ers must present the case for change to their healthcare organizations C-suite. Improved uality, reduced costs, greater effi ciency and lower ris for infection are some ey benefi t areas that can help secure the necessary resources. The niversity of California San Fran-


cisco (CSF) Health is currently imple- menting an advanced visual inspection program for its CSSDs, which includes visualization using a dedicated worsta- tion, borescope and high resolution digital microscope. They are also woring with a software developer that will be com- mercializing an artifi cial intelligence (I)- based application that identifi es functional defects or potential soils, which integrates with the euipment in real time. s we have three campuses and reuire


a uniform standard of care, this initiative is somewhat costly. Our approach to secur- ing eecutive support involves monetizing the cost of uality, said ene icupito, CCST, CIS, CH, CF, , Sr. roject anager, Sterile rocessing, CSF Health. hen looing at defects, we can deter- mine the costs associated with rewor and O case delays. hen looing at uality events where


undetected soils are found at the point of use (O), organizations can uantify the costs associated with patient safety, such as breadown of the sterile field


Page 40 38 February 2021 • HEALTHCARE PURCHASING NEWS • hpnonline.com


and replacement of the potentially con- taminated instruments and supply items, as well as the costs of infection control review, eplains icupito. He adds that in a worst-case scenario, the costs of patient notifi cation or litigation are staggering.  single surgical site infection (SSI)


costs a hospital an estimated ,000 per infection (in 2020 adjusted dollars),1


while


legal defense for just a single lawsuit costs a hospital an estimated ,000 per claim with indemnity payments.2


Commenting


on these fi gures icupito stated  well-developed justifi cation, which


includes the economics of the factors stated above compared to the freuency of internal incidents, can easily create a picture where the investment in technol- ogy to prevent defects is easily recognized as cost-effective.


the doors of a facility, CSSD profession- als must have the opportunity to evaluate whether it can be effectively and safely processed with the departments current euipment, says en ichulo, BSN, N, CCST, C, CH, anager, Central Services, dventHealth in Orlando. If it cannot, then the facilitys leadership must be willing to provide the CSSD with what it needs. I recommend that facilities have SD representation on purchasing committees to assure that the items can be cleaned as validated and that the purchase of said items doesnt reuire additional up-front cost in SD processing euipment if reuired in the manufacturers instruc- tions for use (IF), said ichulo. Its not uncommon for an item to be approved for purchase, yet the facility does not possess the euipment necessary to process it in compliance to the IF. reene-olden urges CSSD leaders


to also involve infection preventionists when evaluating visual inspection tools and maing the case for these resource investments, stating The importance of visualizing while inspecting instruments has grown epo- nentially as technicians wor with delicate minimally invasive products. hat is done in the inspection of instruments is most important because our process as sterile processing technicians has a direct correlation with the end purpose to have no patient acuire a surgical site infection due to our ineffi ciency. ach processing department should wor with their infec-


AdventHealth performs direct visualization in decontamination


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