Fluid retention in endoscopes: A real-world study on drying effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Outbreaks linked to inadequate endoscope drying have infected numerous patients, and current standards and guidelines recommend at least 10 minutes of forced air for drying channels. This study evaluated a new forced-air drying system (FADS) for endoscopes. METHODS: Drying was assessed using droplet detection cards; visual inspection of air/water connectors, suction connectors, and distal ends; and borescope examinations of endoscope interiors. Assessments were performed after automated endoscope reprocessor (AER) alcohol flush and air purge cycles and after 10-minute FADS cycles. RESULTS: Researchers evaluated drying during encounters with 22 gastroscopes and 20 colonoscopes. After default AER alcohol and air purge cycles, 100% (42/42) of endoscopes were still wet. Substantial fluid emerged from distal ends during the first 15 seconds of the FADS cycle, and droplets also emerged from air/water and suction connectors. Following FADS cycle completion, 100% (42/42) were dry, with no retained fluid detected by any of the assessment methods. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple endoscope ports and channels remained wet after AER cycles intended to aid in drying but were dry after the FADS cycle. This study reinforced the need to evaluate the effectiveness of current drying practices and illustrated the use of practical tools in a real-world setting.

Healthcare design to improve safe doffing of personal protective equipment for care of patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Understand how the built environment can affect safety and efficiency outcomes during doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient care. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted (1) field observations and surveys administered to healthcare workers (HCWs) performing PPE doffing, (2) focus groups with HCWs and infection prevention experts, and (3) a with healthcare design experts. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in 4 inpatient units treating patients with COVID-19, in 3 hospitals of a single healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 24 nurses, 2 physicians, 1 respiratory therapist, and 2 infection preventionists. RESULTS: The doffing task sequence and the layout of doffing spaces varied considerably across sites, with field observations showing most doffing tasks occurring around the patient room door and PPE support stations. Behaviors perceived as most risky included touching contaminated items and inadequate hand hygiene. Doffing space layout and types of PPE storage and work surfaces were often associated with inadequate cleaning and improper storage of PPE. Focus groups and the design charrette provided insights on how design affording standardization, accessibility, and flexibility can support PPE doffing safety and efficiency in this context. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to define, organize and standardize PPE doffing spaces in healthcare settings and to understand the environmental implications of COVID-19-specific issues related to supply shortage and staff workload. Low-effort and low-cost design adaptations of the layout and design of PPE doffing spaces may improve HCW safety and efficiency in existing healthcare facilities.