To determine the disinfection practices employed by North Carolina hospitals for endoscopes and other semicritical patient care items and to discuss minimally acceptable disinfection procedures for these items.

A survey questionnaire was mailed to all North Carolina hospitals to identity their disinfection practices, and a literature review was conducted to ascertain studies that evaluated disinfection techniques for certain semicritical items.

Questionnaires were returned by 107 of 167 (64%) North Carolina acute-care hospitals.

Most hospitals (91%) used a glutaraldehyde-based disinfectant (59%, 2% glutaraldehyde; 29%, 0.13% glutaraldehyde-0.44% phenol-0.08% phenate; 3%, either); half (51%) of the hospitals immersed the endoscope into disinfectant for >20 minutes, but 44% immersed for <10 minutes; nearly all hospitals (97%) disinfected endoscopes at room temperature. Hospitals rinsed the endoscope with sterile water (16%), tap water (54%), tap water followed by alcohol rinse (27%), or other (2%); 58% of the hospitals treated endoscopes from patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), or Mycobacterium tuberculosis differently (81%, ethylene oxide [ETO] sterilization; 10%, increased exposure time; 10%, other). Twenty percent of the hospitals used an automated washer for processing endoscopic instruments. Rigid endoscopes (e.g., arthroscopes, laparoscopes) were primarily high-level disinfected (57%), ET0 sterilized (17%), or either (13%). The disinfection strategies for other semicritical items (e.g., applanation tonometers, cryosurgical instruments, and diaphragm fitting rings) were highly variable for the responding hospitals.

This survey indicated the presence of a wide variety of practices for handling semicritical patient care items, many of which are inconsistent with current recommendations. To help establish minimally acceptable disinfection procedures for some patient care instruments (e.g., arthroscopes, laparoscopes, tonometers), the scientific literature was reviewed and recommendations were made.

To ascertain current infection control practices, endoscope cleaning procedures, perceived risks of infection, and implementation of universal precautions in gastrointestinal endoscopy units in the United States.

National mailed survey of gastroenterology nurses and associates conducted anonymously in March 1988.

Completed surveys were received from all 50 states and Puerto Rico and from all practice settings. The most common practice setting was private/community hospitals (66%).

Of the 4,952 survey forms mailed to all members and to interested non-members of the Society of Gastrointestinal Nurses and Associates, 2,158 (44%) were returned and 2,030 (41%) were completed and evaluable. Of the respondents, 1,487 (73%) were registered nurses.

Sixty-seven percent (n = 1,358) of the respondents routinely used an enzymatic cleaner as a step in the instrument decontamination process; 93% (n = 1,879) chemically disinfected instruments after each case; and 88% (n = 1,779) disinfected endoscopes with an aqueous glutaraldehyde product. Respondents reported that they and a significantly smaller proportion of physicians (p<.001) employed barrier precautions for all endoscopic cases involving possible contact with blood/body fluids of patients known (66% versus 57%, respectively) and not known (12% versus 8%, respectively) to have a bloodborne infection. Endoscopy-related infections, usually bacterial, were reported to have occurred at their institutions by 6% (n = 116) of respondents.

We conclude that cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization procedures for gastrointestinal endoscopic instruments vary, that appropriate protective apparel is not always worn, and that some practices may lead to preventable endoscopy-related infection in patients.

Laboratory investigations were initiated with a povidone-iodine antiseptic solution that was intrinsically contaminated with Pseudomonas cepacia. These investigations were helpful in understanding the microbicidal and chemical properties of iodophor solutions and the mechanism by which P cepacia can survive in iodine-containing antiseptics.

Included in these studies were: prolonged survival of P cepacia; available and free iodine determinations; microbial challenge studies; and scanning electron microscopic examination of contaminated antiseptic.

P cepacia survived in this iodophor antiseptic up to 68 weeks from the date of manufacture. A uniform concentration of 1% available iodine was found in all lots of povidone-iodine tested as specified on the product label, but free iodine (I,) values varied greatly. Low free iodine levels of 0.23 to 0.46 ppm were associated with the contaminated lot of povidone-iodine. Solutions of povidone-iodine with varying levels of free iodine were rapidly microbicidal when challenged with cells of P cepacia derived from culture broth and washed or adapted to growth in water. P cepacia cells taken directly from contaminated povidone-iodine survived for significantly longer periods of time. Large numbers of P cepacia were found embedded in extracellular material and among strands of glycocalyx between cells as shown by scanning electron microscopy.

The physical thickness of cellular and extracellular material that forms on surfaces could protect embedded organisms from the microbicidal action of disinfectants and antiseptics and subsequently allow for extended microbial survival times. Manufacturers should be aware that distribution piping surfaces colonized with bacteria may be a source of product contamination and resistant organisms.

To investigate compliance with isolation precautions.

A prospective observational study carried out during ten weeks of 1989. Participants were unaware of the study.

The isolation bay of a 24-bed surgical intensive care unit in a 900-bed university tertiary care facility.

Study participants included any healthcare worker or visitor entering the patient room during designated 15-minute intervals.

We observed 467 subjects entering patient rooms. Compliance with strict isolation (65%) was better than with wound/skin (40%) or excretion/secretion (36%) isolation (p<.01). Visitors were more compliant than healthcare workers (88% versus 41%; p<.01). Spending more time in the room was associated with improved compliance (p<.01). Compliance was higher for subjects entering with a group compared with those entering alone (51% versus 41%; p<.05). The compliance rate for nurses improved as the nurse/patient ratio improved (p= .14). Compliance was independent of severity of illness. Multivariate analysis revealed that the amount of time spent in the room, being a visitor, and use of strict isolation were independent predictors of compliance.

Noncompliance was wide-spread. When increased demands are placed on the time of physicians and nurses in the name of cost containment, unperceived consequences, such as those resulting from decreased compliance, must be considered.