Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T18:54:36.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disinfection of flexible fibre-optic endoscopes out-of-hours: confidential telephone survey of ENT units in England – 20 years on

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2024

Jonathon Clymo Open the ORCID record for Jonathon Clymo [Opens in a new window] ,
Robert Bickerton ,
Sarah McBrinn  and
Matthew Rollin
Jonathon Clymo*
Affiliation:
Department of Ear Nose and Throat Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
Robert Bickerton
Affiliation:
Department of Ear Nose and Throat Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
Sarah McBrinn
Affiliation:
Department of Ear Nose and Throat Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
Matthew Rollin
Affiliation:
Department of Ear Nose and Throat Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
*
Corresponding author: Jonathon Clymo; Email: jonathonclymo@outlook.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Flexible upper aerodigestive endoscopy is often performed in the emergency setting. To prevent nosocomial infection on-call clinicians must have access to decontaminated endoscopes.

Methods

A telephone survey of 104 ENT units in England replicated previous cycles conducted 10 and 20 years ago. The on-call clinician was asked about decontamination practices, training and cross-cover.

Results

Seventy-one clinicians participated of which 68 had an endoscope available out-of-hours. Twenty-five (36.8 per cent) used single-use endoscopes. Twenty-three (51.1 per cent) of the 45 clinicians using re-usable endoscopes decontaminated them themselves, an increase from 43.3 per cent in 2013 and from 35.1 per cent in 2002. Overall 91.2 per cent had safe practices, up from 68.7 per cent in 2013 and 48 per cent in 2002. One hundred per cent had been trained in decontamination, compared to 37.3 per cent in 2013 and 12.1 per cent in 2002. On-call clinicians from the ENT department increased to 91.5 per cent, compared to 63 per cent in 2013.

Conclusion

There has been a dramatic increase in patient safety, underpinned by the introduction of single-use endoscopes, increased training and reduced cross-cover.

Keywords

Endoscopycommunicable (infectious) diseasessurveys and questionnaires (audit)teaching (training)technology
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , First View , pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Jonathon Clymo takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Muscarella, LF. Prevention of disease transmission during flexible laryngoscopy. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:536–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, KH, Chaput, MP, Clavet, CR, Varney, GW, To, TM, Lytle, CD. Evaluation of endoscope sheaths as viral barriers. Laryngoscope 1999;109:636–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walczak, R, Arnold, M, Grewal, J, Yuan, X, Suryadevara, A, Marzouk, H. Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: cost analysis and resident survey. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2021;6:88–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Decontamination of flexible endoscopes and rigid endoscopes 2017. In: https://www.entuk.org/_userfiles/pages/files/secure/endoscope_decontamination_2017.pdf [3 September 2023]Google Scholar
Kanagalingam, J, Zainal, A, Georgalas, C, Paun, S, Tolley, NS. The disinfection of flexible fibre-optic nasendoscopes out-of-hours: confidential telephone survey of ENT units in England. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116:817–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muscarella, LF. Reassessment of the risk of healthcare-acquired infection during rigid laryngoscopy. J Hosp Infect 2008;68:101–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guidelines for cleaning fibreoptic laryngoscopes. In: https://entuk.org/docs/prof/publications/full_guidelines_cleaning_fibreoptic_laryngosopes [1 June 2012]Google Scholar
Radford, PD, Unadkat, SN, Rollin, M, Tolley, NS. Disinfection of flexible fibre-optic endoscopes out-of-hours: confidential telephone survey of ENT units in England – 10 years on. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:489–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, SK, Greenberg, N, Wessely, S, Rubin, GJ. Factors affecting healthcare workers’ compliance with social and behavioural infection control measures during emerging infectious disease outbreaks: rapid evidence review. BMJ Open 2021;11:e049857CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ofstead, CL, Quick, MR, Eiland, JE, Adams, SJ. A glimpse at the true cost of reprocessing endoscopes. Communiqué 2017;Jan/Feb:63–78Google Scholar
Sørensen, BL, Grüttner, H. Comparative study on environmental impacts of reusable and single-use bronchoscopes. Am J Environ Prot 2018;7:55–62Google Scholar
Scaffidi, MA, Walsh, CM, Khan, R, Parker, CH, Al-Mazroui, A, Abunassar, M et al. Influence of video-based feedback on self-assessment accuracy of endoscopic skills: a randomized controlled trial. Endosc Int Open 2019;7:E678–84Google ScholarPubMed
Gardam, MA, Lemieux, C, Reason, P, van Dijk, M, Goel, V. Healthcare-associated infections as patient safety indicators. Healthc Pap 2009;9:8–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed