Zentralsterilisation - Ausgabe 2/02
Die folgende Information ist im Augenblick leider nicht in Deutsch verfügbar. Wir bitten um Ihr Verständnis.
What's New in Standardisation: Sterile Supply, Air Pockets and Dataloggers
In memoriam: Jack van Asten
Prions: Challenges in Disinfection and Sterilisation
Forum 2002: Medical Device Processing - Verification of Performance Parameters
Hospital Cleaning and Surface Disinfection. 4th Kassel Symposium on Hospital Hygiene
M.C. Gaspar, B. Peláez, C. Fernández, J. Fereres:
Microbiological Efficacy of Sterrad 100S and LTSF Sterilisation Systems Compared to Ethylene Oxide
(Zentr Steril 2002; 10 (2): 91-99)
Objective: To compare the efficacy of the Sterrad 100S (S100S) and low temperature steam formaldehyde sterilisation, 50 and 60 °C cycles (LTSF50 and LTSF60), to the efficacy of the ethylene oxide system (EtO).
Material and methods: Smooth and rough surfaced carriers were inoculated with approximately 107 gram-positive or gram-negative vegetative organisms, mycobacteria, B. subtilis spores or C. albicans, under clean or dirty (10 % blood or 0,9 % NaCl) conditions. These carriers were then subjected to different sterilisation methods. The residual bacterial load after sterilisation was determined. Counts of unprocessed positive controls were determined and log10 reductions were calculated. Interactions between sterilisation methods and type of suspension in comparison with EtO under clean conditions were assessed using a multivariate regression lineal model (GLM).
Results: Both LTSF cycles were more effective than EtO. This is due to the fact that LTSF efficacy was unaffected by the presence of salt. The coefficients and 95 % CI obtained in the GLM were: LTSF50 : 2.22 (95 % CI 0.41; 4.03), LTSF60 : 2.25 (95 % CI 0.44; 4.06) and S100S: -1.16 (95 % CI -2.97; 0.64). Under clean conditions and in presence of 10 % blood, all methods achieved a mean reduction higher than 6 log10, and there was no difference between methods. Under salty conditions there was a statistical difference between methods (p < 0.001). B. subtilis spores and gram-positive bacteria were the most resistant microorganisms to all sterilisation methods (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: LTSF (both cycles) was the most efficacious method, and was the only method unaffected by the presence of salt. In the absence of salt all methods showed similar efficacy.
Working Group Instrument Preparation:
Sterilisability of Reusable Surgical Instruments
Part 2: Study Results - Implications for Working Practices in the CSSD
(Zentr Steril 2002; 10 (2): 100-109)
Quality assurance is being ascribed increasingly more importance in the hospital setting. In the circuit traversed by medical devices undergoing sterilisation, quality assurance is intended as a means of guaranteeing the user in the hospital that impeccable devices are being used, while at the same time giving the patient the feeling of high-quality care. The sterilisation study presented here furnishes proof that surgical instruments can be sterilised with steam and thus meet the essential requirements set out in Annex 1 of the Medical Devices Directive 93/42 EEC. Part l of this publication described how to design process challenge devices for steam sterilisation. This second part of the publication presents the results of the study and elaborates on their implications for routine working practices in the CSSD.
Disease Caused by Lice (Pediculosis)
RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE QUALITY TASK GROUP (AK »QUALITÄT«)
Why Computerised Documentation? - Reflections from the Field