The Journal of hospital infection · 2025
Evaluation of disinfection methods for autonomous mobile robots used in hospital logistics in emergency departments.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kardas P, Bielec F, Brauncajs M, Lewek P, Timler D, Łojewska E, Chiurazzi M, Dei N N, Ciuti G, Ros R J, Estevan V S, Maccaro A, Pecchia L, Merino B, Medrano A, Penzel T, Fico G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) have been increasingly used in hospital logistics, particularly in high-risk areas, such as emergency departments (EDs), to streamline operations, reduce staff fatigue, and minimize infection risks. However, their effective disinfection remains a critical concern, especially when it comes to solutions aimed at preventing spread of multi-drug-resistant organisms.
AIM: This study evaluated the microbiological cleanliness and effectiveness of various disinfection methods for AMRs in real-life hospital logistics settings, with a particular focus on their application in EDs.
METHODS: The HOSBOT, an AMR designed for hospital logistics, was deployed in a tertiary hospital for two weeks and validated for transport of biological samples. Microbiological contamination was assessed at multiple robot sites before and after disinfection, using two methods, i.e., manual wiping with a standard disinfectant and non-contact fumigation with low-temperature vaporized hydrogen peroxide. Contamination levels were evaluated using quantitative and qualitative microbiological techniques, and a threshold of <2.5 colony-forming units/cm2 for critical environments, recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was considered as proof of success.
FINDINGS: Bacterial contamination exceeded thresholds at all sites. Both disinfection methods significantly decreased contamination. Manual wiping reduced bacterial counts below thresholds and eradicated fungal growth, while fumigation was effective for bacterial but not fungal contamination. Fumigation also failed to meet CDC cleanliness standards in hard-to-reach areas.
CONCLUSIONS: Both manual wiping and fumigation effectively reduced bacterial contamination, however, wiping showed better results in fungal eradication. Improvements to fumigation methods are necessary, such as application of higher disinfectant concentrations or alternative chemicals. The aforementioned findings not only support the use of AMRs in clinical settings but also emphasize the importance of effective disinfection for safety and efficacy.
AIM: This study evaluated the microbiological cleanliness and effectiveness of various disinfection methods for AMRs in real-life hospital logistics settings, with a particular focus on their application in EDs.
METHODS: The HOSBOT, an AMR designed for hospital logistics, was deployed in a tertiary hospital for two weeks and validated for transport of biological samples. Microbiological contamination was assessed at multiple robot sites before and after disinfection, using two methods, i.e., manual wiping with a standard disinfectant and non-contact fumigation with low-temperature vaporized hydrogen peroxide. Contamination levels were evaluated using quantitative and qualitative microbiological techniques, and a threshold of <2.5 colony-forming units/cm2 for critical environments, recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was considered as proof of success.
FINDINGS: Bacterial contamination exceeded thresholds at all sites. Both disinfection methods significantly decreased contamination. Manual wiping reduced bacterial counts below thresholds and eradicated fungal growth, while fumigation was effective for bacterial but not fungal contamination. Fumigation also failed to meet CDC cleanliness standards in hard-to-reach areas.
CONCLUSIONS: Both manual wiping and fumigation effectively reduced bacterial contamination, however, wiping showed better results in fungal eradication. Improvements to fumigation methods are necessary, such as application of higher disinfectant concentrations or alternative chemicals. The aforementioned findings not only support the use of AMRs in clinical settings but also emphasize the importance of effective disinfection for safety and efficacy.