American journal of infection control · 2018
Evaluation of adenosine triphosphate test for cleaning assessment of gastroscopes and the effect on workload in a busy endoscopy center.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schmitt Cristiane, Pires Maciel Amanda Luiz, Boszczowski Icaro, da Silva Thaís Pereira, Neves Eliane Aparecida Job, Rossini Giulio Fabio, Rizek Camila, Costa Silvia Figueiredo, Lourenço Rogério Ferreira, Alfa Michelle J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Using adenosine triphosphate (ATP) tests to assess manual cleaning of gastroscopes and to determine the associated workload in a busy endoscopy unit.
METHODS: Patient-used gastroscopes were sampled before and after cleaning to assess ATP levels, bioburden, and protein. Samples were collected by flushing 20 mL of sterile water through the biopsy port to the distal end. Time spent for reprocessing and performing the ATP test was recorded.
RESULTS: Twenty-four samples were collected from 10 gastroscopes. After manual cleaning, 14/24 (58.3%) samples had no microbial growth (mean, 21 colony-forming units/cm2), and in 22/24 (91.7%) samples the protein was undetectable (mean, 0.04 µg/cm2). ATP test was above the cutoff (200 relative light units [RLU]) in 17/24 (70.8%) samples (mean, 498 RLU). After the second cleaning, 11/17 (64.7%) gastroscopes still failed the ATP test (mean, 321.2 RLU). The mean time spent to perform manual cleaning and ATP tests was 16 and 8 minutes, respectively. Hence, each test increased the length of time for cleaning plus testing cleanliness by 50%.
CONCLUSION: Further studies regarding the optimal cutoff for ATP tests are needed. ATP tests for cleaning monitoring are easy to perform and provide immediate feedback to the team. However, the increased workload needs to be considered.
METHODS: Patient-used gastroscopes were sampled before and after cleaning to assess ATP levels, bioburden, and protein. Samples were collected by flushing 20 mL of sterile water through the biopsy port to the distal end. Time spent for reprocessing and performing the ATP test was recorded.
RESULTS: Twenty-four samples were collected from 10 gastroscopes. After manual cleaning, 14/24 (58.3%) samples had no microbial growth (mean, 21 colony-forming units/cm2), and in 22/24 (91.7%) samples the protein was undetectable (mean, 0.04 µg/cm2). ATP test was above the cutoff (200 relative light units [RLU]) in 17/24 (70.8%) samples (mean, 498 RLU). After the second cleaning, 11/17 (64.7%) gastroscopes still failed the ATP test (mean, 321.2 RLU). The mean time spent to perform manual cleaning and ATP tests was 16 and 8 minutes, respectively. Hence, each test increased the length of time for cleaning plus testing cleanliness by 50%.
CONCLUSION: Further studies regarding the optimal cutoff for ATP tests are needed. ATP tests for cleaning monitoring are easy to perform and provide immediate feedback to the team. However, the increased workload needs to be considered.