STERILE PROCESSING


SPD endoscope reprocessing quality performance hinges on practice, procedure – not product


When it comes to Sterile Processing & Dis- tribution (SPD) striving for and ensuring high-quality reprocessing performance improvement the strategies and tactics needed to deliver those outcomes remain rather consistent. Practices and procedures matter much


more than product types, which means switching to disposable/single-use devices for all or selected procedures or switching to hybrid devices that contain disposable/ single-use components likely won’t trump four other overarching concerns, two of which remain consistently at the top as most important for five consecutive years running. Hence, practice and procedure continue


to outweigh product by widening margins. Even though media coverage of health-


care-associated infections likely linked to substandard reprocessing may be blamed on technique and/or technology, industry experts point to improving technique as a more effective countermeasure than rede- signing technology to compensate. As mini- mally invasive and standard medical/surgical devices become more complex with nooks, lumens and components that can be hard to clean, which then makes them hard to disinfect and sterilize, some may believe that disposing rather than reprocessing those devices make more sense for patient safety even at the expense of the budget. But not everyone thinks the same way.


Instead, others point to education, training and performance tracking as more effective, efficient and relatable options. For the fifth consecutive year, Healthcare


Purchasing News surveyed a small group of sterile processing subject matter experts on seven potential – but likely scenarios – that may direct and redirect how SPD navigates the 2020s from a quality standpoint. HPN asked the executives from device manufac- turers and reprocessing product companies to rank the seven strategies (1 being the most important or influential; 7 being the least important or influential). To show the trends year over year, HPN


publishes the aggregate respondent data from 2021 through 2018, with rather con- sistent results. In fact, the top two strategies this year echo the top two last year, which had represented a transposition of the top two the year before that. Essentially, the top two strategies – fundamental in their own right – have remained consistent for five consecutive years. Curiously, the third and


fourth choices also remain consistent, albeit transposed from last year but widening the gulf between the top four and bottom 3, all of which are technology-related. 1. Thoroughly educating, training, vetting and certifying SPD staffers on proper and effective cleaning techniques 2022 average score: 1.5 2021 average score: 1.7 2020 average score: 2.43 2019 average score: 2.5 2018 average score: 1.5


2. Demanding, receiving and following vali- dated instructions for use (IFUs) 2022 average score: 1.8 2021 average score: 2.6 2020 average score: 2.64 2019 average score: 1.9 2018 average score: 2.5


4. Comprehensively monitoring and track- ing all steps in the process with sensors and video technology 2022 average score: 3.2 2021 average score: 4.5 2020 average score: 4.85 2019 average score: 4.7 2018 average score: 3.4


3. Holding staffers accountable/respon- sible for endoscope cleaning “violations” 2022 average score: 3.7 2021 average score: 4.0 2020 average score: 4.23 2019 average score: 4.8 2018 average score: 2.8


5. Switching to disposable/single-use-only endoscopic devices for selected endoscopic procedures only (e.g., bronchoscopy, etc.) 2022 average score: 5.2 2021 average score: 5.3 2020 average score: 4.46 2019 average score: 4.3 2018 average score: n/a


6. Switching to endoscopes that con- tain disposable/single-use-only compo- nents that can be discarded or swapped out after use 2022 average score: 5.4 2021 average score: 4.8 2020 average score: 3.62 2019 average score: 4.1 2018 average score: n/a


7. Switching to disposable/single-use- only endoscopic devices for all endo- scopic procedures 2022 average score: 7.0 2021 average score: 6.6 2020 average score: 4.77


2019 average score: 6.1 2018 average score: 4.8 HPN invited respondents to explain their perspectives and even offer alternatives. Here’s what they shared. Melinda Benedict, Director, Infection Pre-


vention and Control, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, reiterated that, “Single use for certain patients and procedures is recom- mended by the FDA, whose guidance is of utmost importance.” Meanwhile, Gregg Agoston, Vice President, Business Development, SPD Transformation Services, SpecialtyCare, emphasizes staff education, training and even specialization as paramount for mastering this process and not redesigning the products. “There are many complex instruments


in hospitals that the SPD/GI units must be able to properly clean and sterilize/[high- level disinfect],” he noted. “Unless there is a clear advantage, e.g., cost, impact on environment or technology advancement, I do not believe that disposable endoscopes are the correct answer. We only have to look at the increase in medical waste to see the impact of single-use devices. I believe that the key to success is to allow for special- ization within the hospital for endoscope reprocessing. “There should be dedicated staff, who


are highly trained and paid commensurate with the skills needed to perform the work, which in the case of GI flexible endoscopes is very high,” Agoston continued. “There are over 100 pages of instructions in the IFU on the proper procedures to reprocess a flex- ible GI endoscope. Each step in the process must be performed correctly to render the endoscopes safe to use on a patient. The staff must be trained, certified with annual or more frequent competency evaluations. Pay must be commensurate with the work and expectation that all IFU processes will be performed on every endoscope. “The SPD typically rotate staff through


each processing area. Given the current challenges in finding qualified SPD staff, the rotation practice results in every technician processing complex instruments,” he said. “This results in significant variability due to skill sets and the fact that the technicians do not process the devices on a frequent enough basis to become expert. No manu- facturer puts inexperienced technicians on their most technical jobs. Hospitals should not do this either.”


hpnonline.com • HEALTHCARE PURCHASING NEWS • November 2022 33


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