Display options
Cite
Thiede B, Kramer A. Evaluation of reprocessing medical devices in 14 German regional hospitals and at 27 medical practitioners' offices within the European context - consequences for European harmonization. GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2013;8(2):Doc20doi: 10.3205/dgkh000220.
Thiede, B., & Kramer, A. (2013). Evaluation of reprocessing medical devices in 14 German regional hospitals and at 27 medical practitioners' offices within the European context - consequences for European harmonization. GMS hygiene and infection control, 8(2), Doc20. https://doi.org/10.3205/dgkh000220
Thiede, Birgit, and Kramer, Axel. "Evaluation of reprocessing medical devices in 14 German regional hospitals and at 27 medical practitioners' offices within the European context - consequences for European harmonization." GMS hygiene and infection control vol. 8,2 (2013): Doc20. doi: https://doi.org/10.3205/dgkh000220
Thiede B, Kramer A. Evaluation of reprocessing medical devices in 14 German regional hospitals and at 27 medical practitioners' offices within the European context - consequences for European harmonization. GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2013 Nov 06;8(2):Doc20. doi: 10.3205/dgkh000220. eCollection 2013. PMID: 24327946; PMCID: PMC3857276.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2013 Nov 06;8(2):Doc20. doi: 10.3205/dgkh000220. eCollection 2013.

Evaluation of reprocessing medical devices in 14 German regional hospitals and at 27 medical practitioners' offices within the European context - consequences for European harmonization.

GMS hygiene and infection control

Birgit Thiede, Axel Kramer

Affiliations

  1. Regional Council, Darmstadt, Germany.

PMID: 24327946 PMCID: PMC3857276 DOI: 10.3205/dgkh000220

Abstract

Safe reprocessing of medical devices through cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization is essential for the prevention of health care associated infections (HAI) and to guarantee patient safety. Several studies detected residual contamination and even severe infections of patients, despite carrying out reprocessing. To develop appropriate solutions, the existing situation in Germany and selected European countries was analyzed. Additionally, in 27 medical practitioners' offices and 14 hospitals, the true practice of reprocessing was analyzed using a questionnaire, a checklist, and inspection on site. A structured analysis of potential alternatives to the internal reprocessing was conducted within the German and European context. The results indicate that the conditions for the execution of the reprocessing process in the analyzed health facilities in southern Hesse (Germany) do not satisfy legal requirements. The detected deficiencies were consistent with other reports from Germany and Europe. The analysis gave insight into several reasons for the detected deficiencies. The three main reasons were the high costs for proper implementation, the subjective value assigned to the reprocessing unit in health care facilities, and deficits in monitoring by the health authority. Throughout the European Union, a similar regulatory framework for the performance of the reprocessing process exists, while the environment, structures of the health systems and administrative supervision vary significantly. The German states as well as selected European countries are currently discussing the challenges of increased quality-assured execution of the reprocessing process. For instance, the same supervisory system for hospitals and medical practitioners should be established at an equal standard. Alternatives such as the use of single-use medical devices, outsourcing the decontamination processes, or the cooperation of health facilities may be considered. This paper also discusses economic and ecological aspects. Finally, different options are recommended to ensure the exclusive use of reliable medical devices for surgical procedures that guarantee an adequate standard of patient safety within economic constraints.

Keywords: analysis in hospitals; analysis in medical practitioners' offices; harmonization; legal basis in Europe; medical devices; patient safety; reprocessing

References

  1. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Apr;32(4):1123-6 - PubMed
  2. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2012 Oct;55(10):1244-310 - PubMed
  3. Can J Infect Control. 1993 Summer;8(2):35-6 - PubMed
  4. AORN J. 2012 Aug;96(2):152-62 - PubMed
  5. GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip. 2007 Sep 13;2(1):Doc09 - PubMed
  6. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2008 Jul;43(7-8):562-4 - PubMed
  7. Z Gastroenterol. 2008 Oct;46(10):1185-7 - PubMed
  8. GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip. 2007 Sep 13;2(1):Doc16 - PubMed
  9. N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):701-4 - PubMed
  10. Int J Artif Organs. 2005 Nov;28(11):1146-56 - PubMed
  11. HNO. 2003 May;51(5):405-13 - PubMed
  12. J Hosp Infect. 2006 Aug;63(4):432-8 - PubMed
  13. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2008 Feb;51(2):211-20 - PubMed
  14. J Perioper Pract. 2008 Jul;18(7):279-80 - PubMed
  15. Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol. 2006 Mar;47(1):18-26 - PubMed
  16. N Engl J Med. 2003 Jan 16;348(3):221-7 - PubMed
  17. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Dec 01;12:438 - PubMed
  18. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996 Jun;17(6):377-84 - PubMed
  19. J Hosp Infect. 1995 Jun;30 Suppl:537-42 - PubMed
  20. Chirurg. 1999 Apr;70(4):485-91; discussion 491-2 - PubMed
  21. Am J Infect Control. 2005 Jun;33(5 Suppl 2):S55-67 - PubMed

Publication Types