Strengthening Infection Prevention Through Sterile Processing Oversight

Practical Strategies for Infection Prevention Leaders

Infection prevention is only as strong as its weakest link, and one of the most overlooked links is found behind the doors of the sterile processing department (SPD).

While infection preventionists (IPs) are experts in hand hygiene, disinfection, and surveillance, many have limited insight into the processes that ensure surgical instruments are truly sterile and safe for use. Strengthening this oversight can give meaningful influence over sterile processing, even for IP leaders without an SPD background.

To better understand why SPD oversight is critical to infection prevention, we’ll explore how deeper visibility into sterile processing helps IP professionals uncover more about their hospital’s practices, while also providing clear pathways to act on those insights.

The Hidden Link Between SPD and Infection Prevention

Every instrument that leaves the SPD represents a potential infection risk if sterilization, assembly, or tracking steps are missed. In fact, studies show that errors in the SPD can contribute directly to surgical delays, cancellations,¹ and health care–associated infections (HAIs).^1-3 If sterile processing operates out of sight to IP leaders, its risks can go unrecognized until problems surface in patient care.

“IPs may be intimidated, and they don’t have the time to become a subject matter expert in sterile processing,” said Jill Holdsworth, MS, CIC, FAPIC, NREMT, CRCST, CHL, an IP from Atlanta, Georgia. “That is a threat to consider moving forward. The next 5 to 10 years, if you don’t have a strong infection prevention partnership or an IP who is a subject matter expert, that’s a threat.”

Recent research underscores the connection. Inadequate sterilization practices can result in contaminated instruments, malfunctioning medical devices, and HAIs—all of which jeopardize accreditation, patient safety, and hospital reputation.^4-6

Barriers That Keep IPs Out of SPD — and Why That Is Risky

Despite shared goals, collaboration between infection prevention and sterile processing is often limited. SPDs are frequently under-resourced, understaffed, or physically outdated. Many were built decades ago and are now expected to handle larger instrument inventories and more complex surgical trays without proportional investments in space or staffing.

Staffing shortages can lead to skipped steps or rushed cycles. Inadequate space forces dirty and clean workflows into proximity, increasing the chance of cross-contamination. And inefficient layouts, lacking unidirectional flow or adequate separation, challenge even the most diligent teams.

Because IPs may not be routinely rounded in SPD, these issues can go unnoticed until an audit or an infection event draws attention. As Jennifer Geisen, Principal of Strategic Solutions at Aesculap, Inc., explained: “IPC experts need the right tools to monitor and audit sterile processing. Too often, these experts are stretched thin across many departments, and SPD requires detailed oversight. There are numerous guidelines from governing bodies that must be followed to ensure items are processed correctly, remain sterile, and are safe for patient use.”

How Infection Prevention Leaders Can Extend Oversight Without SPD Expertise

IPs do not need deep SPD technical training to make a meaningful impact. By applying infection control principles and structured observation, IPs can help sterile processing teams identify risk, standardize processes, and improve outcomes.

1. Conduct regular rounding in SPD
Even brief monthly walk-throughs allow IPs to observe workflows, ask questions, and spot potential issues such as crossflow of dirty and clean items, PPE misuse, or improper storage conditions.

2. Use checklists to guide observations
Structured audit tools can help non-SPD staff monitor compliance without having to guess. As Holdsworth notes, “You need something like a checklist to make sure you’re covering all the areas that you need to look at. However, you should run it by your partner in sterile processing. That also gives you a chance to say, “I’m going to be coming by once a month, so that it's not that kind of gotcha. That's what I hear a lot from sterile processing leaders: IPs come in, do their little checklist, and then leave —never to be heard from again —or they send it back. But if you treat it as a partnership from the very beginning, then it goes off much better from the start.”

3. Participate in policy and process reviews
Infection prevention and SPD policies should be aligned with CDC, AAMI, and Joint Commission standards. IP involvement ensures consistency across the facility.

4. Reinforce the “why”
Sterile processing is more than a technical checklist. It is a direct safeguard for patients. Connecting reprocessing details to infection prevention outcomes can help build engagement and accountability among SPD staff. For instance, show how a missed cleaning step can lead to biofilm formation, or how improper storage can compromise sterility. Use real-world examples, visual demonstrations, and patient stories to make the risks tangible. When SPD teams see the link between their daily tasks and preventing infections, compliance becomes a matter of pride as well as protocol.

Third-Party Assessments: Objective Tools for Safer, Stronger Compliance

External assessments have become a cornerstone for hospitals seeking to strengthen their reprocessing programs, offering IP leaders a way to extend oversight and assess performance without needing deep sterile process expertise. Independent audits such as Aesculap’s QuickScan Analysis and Process Ready Analysis help organizations identify compliance gaps, prioritize corrective actions, and prepare for accreditation.

• Uncover hidden risks
  External reviewers bring a fresh perspective and can spot underlying issues that may be invisible to internal teams, from improper storage and incomplete documentation to outdated SOPs.
• Support accreditation readiness
  Accrediting bodies such as The Joint Commission expect clear, auditable proof that facilities meet sterilization and disinfection standards. Third-party assessments provide objective validation and help facilities remain inspection-ready year-round.
• Create actionable roadmaps
  Comprehensive reports translate findings into step-by-step improvement plans — from workflow redesign to capital investment priorities — giving hospital leaders clarity and confidence to drive sustainable performance.

These assessments can sometimes be perceived as punitive, but their true purpose is empowerment. They provide unbiased insight into what’s working and what’s not so that leadership can make informed decisions. It’s about proactive improvement, not reactive correction.

Technology and Standardization: Enablers of Sustainable Infection Prevention

SPD oversight doesn’t stop with policy and people. By integrating technology and process standardization, hospitals can translate oversight into measurable, long-term safety gains. For example, automated washers, digital tracking systems, and workflow-design tools now make it possible to monitor every step of the sterilization process in real time.

Instrument tracking systems are one of the most powerful tools in this shift. Solutions such as SQ.track™ provide 24/7 visibility into the life cycle of surgical instruments —from decontamination to the operating room. As Geisen explains, this technology can also serve as a production management platform, providing real-time confirmation when tasks are complete.

“During audits or surveys, instrument tracking systems make documentation instantly accessible, eliminating the scramble to pull paper records,” Greisen said. “They streamline compliance by showing exactly when and how each instrument was processed. Beyond audits, newer platforms aggregate data across departments and even across hospitals, enabling benchmarking of turnaround times, identifying bottlenecks, and sharing instrument histories nationwide. It’s similar to automating bank reconciliations where you gain real‑time confirmation that every step is complete and verifiable.”

This type of digital traceability reduces reliance on manual logs that can be misplaced or misread, ensuring every instrument is processed and documented correctly. Automated alerts, standardized cycle data, and integration with OR scheduling systems close the loop between SPD and surgical services.

To sustain these gains, hospitals must also evolve processes. Standardization strategies such as surgical reprocessing centralization and “standard work” documentation reduce variability that can lead to infection risk³. Centralized SPDs improve accountability, eliminate redundant workflows, and give IP leaders a single point of oversight for quality and compliance.

Finally, continuous improvement programs such as Aesculap’s Process Evolution embed Lean and Six Sigma principles into daily routines. This ensures compliance gains are not one‑time achievements but part of a culture of ongoing safety optimization.

Conclusion: Integrating SPD Oversight Into the Core of Infection Prevention

The SPD should be seen as more than just a background function. It is a true frontline defense in the fight against infection. For infection prevention leaders, engaging with your SPD is one of the most direct and high-impact ways to protect patients.

Even without technical reprocessing expertise, IPs can extend their reach through structured collaboration, regular rounding, and data-driven audits. Third-party assessments and modern digital tools make this oversight more manageable and measurable than ever before.

By viewing SPD as a strategic partner supported by standardized processes, innovative technologies, and continuous improvement frameworks, hospitals can transform sterile processing from a compliance requirement into a central pillar of infection prevention.

The result is fewer hidden risks, improved efficiencies, and safer outcomes for every patient.

References

1. Nichol PF, Saari MJ, Navas N, Aguilar D, Bliesner RK, Brunner PJ, Caceres JC, Chen M, VanDommelen AR, Fischer M, Garcha S, Ghawas EA, Hackinson GR, Hitzeman A, Jabbour M, Jentsch AM, Kurth MM, Leyden M, Luo Q, McGrain AC, Nytes G, O'Brien OR, Philavong JK, Villegas N, Walsh SR, Wisdorf SS. Observed rates of surgical instrument errors point to visualization tasks as being a critically vulnerable point in sterile processing and a significant cause of lost chargeable OR minutes. BMC Surg. 2024 Apr 15;24(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s12893-024-02407-1. PMID: 38622597; PMCID: PMC11017563.
2. Kovaleva J. Infectious complications in gastrointestinal endoscopy and their prevention. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016 Oct;30(5):689-704. doi:10.1016/j.bpg.2016.09.008. Epub 2016 Sep 14. PMID: 27931630.
3. Blázquez-Garrido RM, Cuchí-Burgos E, Martín-Salas C, Ruiz-Garbajosa P. Microbiological monitoring of medical devices after cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin (Engl Ed). 2018 Dec;36(10):657-661. English, Spanish. doi: 10.1016/j.eimc.2017.09.012. Epub 2017 Nov 14. PMID: 29146038.
4. Brooks JV, Beasley D, Hull S, et al. The work of sterile processing departments: An exploratory study using qualitative interviews and a quantitative process database. Am J Infect Control. 2019;47(7):816-821. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2018.12.020
5. Shuai J, Liu M, Hou J, et al. Central sterile supply department management on hospitalassociated infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2025;67:e16. Published 2025 Mar 3. doi:10.1590/S1678-9946202567016
6. Salmen AM, Fordeck J, Heishman C, et al. Error reduction in sterile processing through standardization of operations and training. Am J Infect Control. 2022;50(7 Suppl):S16-S17. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2022.04.034