News


Site Logo

Protecting Disinfected Laryngoscope Blades in Storage

January 11th 2016

Q: Recently our facility was cited for disinfected laryngoscope blades that were found unprotected from re-contamination in storage. What is the recommended practice for these items?A: This question has many implications. CDC’s Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) says laryngoscope blades are “semicritical” items, which are defined as, “Items that directly or indirectly contact mucous membranes of the respiratory tract. They should be sterilized or subjected to high-level disinfection before reuse.”  After they are cleaned according to the manufacturer’s IFU, there are several options for processing laryngoscope handles and blades. Many laryngoscope blades can be high-level-disinfected. If high-level disinfection is used (check the manufacturer’s IFU for compatible chemicals), the blade must be protected from recontamination after processing. One way of accomplishing this is to place the blade in a zip-lock bag and then apply a “Clean Not Sterile” label to the top of the bag. (Make sure that you clean your hands first.)  If anyone opens the bag, the label will be damaged indicating the blade could be contaminated. At some facilities, laryngoscope blades are sterilized, which is acceptable but not necessary (CDC, 2003). Packaging blades requires the package to be opened if nursing must test the laryngoscope bulb on the blade. This results in a blade being replaced inside an open paper-plastic pouch.  The opened pouch does not protect the blade from contaminates.


Healthcare Personnel Compliance With Infection Prevention Imperatives

Healthcare Personnel Compliance With Infection Prevention Imperatives

January 8th 2016

So much of the infection preventionist’s time has traditionally been spent in the pursuit of healthcare personnel education and training on infection control-related principles and practices, with varying degrees of success measured through compliance metrics. Be it hand hygiene compliance percentages, terminal cleaning effectiveness rates, or various infection prevention bundles, compliance can be suboptimal in many healthcare institutions - and healthcare workers freely admit it. For example, Yassi, et al. (2007) assessed the determinants of healthcare worker self-reported compliance with infection control procedures via a survey of personnel in 16 healthcare facilities. A strong correlation was found between both environmental and organizational factors and self-reported compliance; no relationship was found with individual factors. The researchers found that only 5 percent of survey respondents rated their training in infection control as excellent, and 30 percent felt they were not offered the necessary training. The investigators concluded that compliance with infection control procedures is tied to environmental factors and organizational characteristics, suggesting that efforts to improve availability of equipment and promote a safety culture are key. They added that training should be offered to high-risk personnel, demonstrating an organizational commitment to their safety.   We spoke with Sue Barnes, RN, CIC, the national leader of infection prevention and control in the Program Office for Kaiser Permanente in California, for her perspective on issues relating to boosting compliance with infection prevention and control imperatives, and what clinical issues are driving interventions.