Remote video auditing in the endoscopy unit for evaluation of duodenoscope reprocessing in a tertiary care center

Kara L. Raphael; Ellen McNoble; Jessica Goldbeck; Megan Stiles; Larry S. Miller; Arvind J. Trindade

doi:10.1055/a-1157-8861

Endoscopy, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Endoscopy 2020; 52(10): 864-870
DOI: 10.1055/a-1157-8861

Original article

Remote video auditing in the endoscopy unit for evaluation of duodenoscope reprocessing in a tertiary care center

Kara L. Raphael

¹Division of Gastroenterology, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Northwell Health System, New Hyde Park, New York, United States

,

Ellen McNoble

²Perioperative Patient Care Services, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Northwell Health System, New Hyde Park, New York, United States

,

Jessica Goldbeck

³Hospital Administration, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Northwell Health System, New Hyde Park, New York, United States

,

Megan Stiles

³Hospital Administration, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Northwell Health System, New Hyde Park, New York, United States

,

Larry S. Miller

¹Division of Gastroenterology, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Northwell Health System, New Hyde Park, New York, United States

,

Arvind J. Trindade

¹Division of Gastroenterology, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Northwell Health System, New Hyde Park, New York, United States

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Background A significant proportion of duodenoscope-transmitted infections have resulted from errors related to reprocessing. Remote video auditing (RVA) is a tool that can monitor reprocessing compliance but it has not been previously evaluated in a tertiary care setting. The aims of this study were to evaluate: 1) RVA feasibility in a tertiary care setting (defined as the ability to audit every step of duodenoscope reprocessing without delaying the next procedure due to unavailability of duodenoscopes); and 2) the use of RVA as a compliance monitoring tool.

Methods This was a prospective study at a tertiary care center. A video camera with offsite monitoring was installed in March 2018. Auditors delivered a compliance score after each procedure. The duodenoscope was not used until it passed the audit. Feasibility and compliance data were collected from April 2018 to August 2019 after a 1-month run-in phase. Both per-step compliance and overall 100 % compliance rates were measured.

Results Of 743 duodenoscope reprocessing procedures, 32 666 individual steps were audited and 99.9 % of the steps were fully viewable. The mean time per audit was 38.3 minutes, the mean duodenoscope turnover time was 76.1 minutes, and there were no delays to the next procedure due to unavailability of duodenoscopes. The per-step compliance rate was 99.5 % but the overall 100 % compliance rate was 90.3 %.

Conclusions The use of RVA in duodenoscope reprocessing was feasible and promoted sustained high-level compliance in a tertiary care center.

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Epstein L, Hunter JC, Arwady MA. et al. New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes. JAMA 2014; 312: 1447-1455
2 Gastmeier P, Vonberg RP. Klebsiella spp. in endoscopy-associated infections: we may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg. Infection 2014; 42: 15-21
3 Kola A, Piening B, Pape UF. et al. An outbreak of carbapenem-resistant OXA-48-producing Klebsiella pneumonia associated to duodenoscopy. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2015; 4: 8
4 Verfaillie CJ, Bruno MJ, Voor in ’t Holt AF. et al. Withdrawal of a novel-design duodenoscope ends outbreak of a VIM-2-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 493-502
5 Rahman MR, Perisetti A, Coman R. et al. Duodenoscope-associated infections: update on an emerging problem. Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64: 1409-1418
6 Rubin ZA, Kim S, Thaker AM. et al. Safely reprocessing duodenoscopes: current evidence and future directions. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 3: 499-508
7 Kim S, Russell D, Mohamadnejad M. et al. Risk factors associated with the transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae via contaminated duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 1121-1129
8 Schaefer MK, Jhung M, Dahl M. et al. Infection control assessment of ambulatory surgical centers. JAMA 2010; 303: 2273-2279
9 Dirlam Langlay AM, Ofstead CL, Mueller NJ. et al. Reported gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing lapses: the tip of the iceberg. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41: 1188-1194
10 Petersen BT, Chennat J, Cohen J. et al. Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2011. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32: 527-537
11 Petersen BT, Cohen J. Reprocessing Guideline Task Force. et al. Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2016 update. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 282-294 e1
12 Department of Health and Human Services. Brief summary of the Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel meeting. 26.02.2016 Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): fda.gov/media/96201/download
13 Beilenhoff U, Biering H, Blum R. et al. Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic accessories used in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Position Statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) – update 2018. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1205-1234
14 522 Postmarket Surveillance Studies: Human Factors Study. PS150003/PSS001. 04.10.2018 Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm?t_id=354&c_id=3692
15 Lupo L. Remote video auditing: a big wrench in the quality and safety tool box. 06.04.2011 Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): https://www.qualityassurancemag.com/article/qa-0311-video-auditing-safety/
16 Murphy SE. Tyson Foods adopts video audits to monitor animal welfare. 28.06.2017 Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): https://www.greenbiz.com/article/tyson-foods-adopts-video-audits-monitor-animal-welfare
17 Sims B. Advancements in auditing. 07.07.2018 Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/19824-advancements-in-auditing
18 Pellegrini M. Video auditing has become a powerful tool for slaughter operations across the industry. Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): http://digital.bnpmedia.com/publication/?i=92385&article_id=915341&view=articleBrowser
19 Tomson B. Meat firms use video to curb contamination. 04.11.2011 Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204621904577018262490665468
20 Pedersen A, Getty Ritter E, Beaton M. et al. Remote video auditing in the surgical setting. AORN J 2017; 105: 159-169
21 Overdyk FJ, Dowling O, Newman S. et al. Remote video auditing with real-time feedback in an academic surgical suite improves safety and efficiency metrics: a cluster randomised study. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 25: 947-953
22 Raphael K, Cerrone S, Sceppa E. et al. Improving patient safety in the endoscopy unit: utilization of remote video auditing to improve time-out compliance. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 424-429
23 Armellino D, Cifu K, Wallace M. et al. Implementation of remote video auditing with feedback and compliance for manual-cleaning protocols of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography endoscopes. Am J Infect Control 2018; 46: 594-596
24 Lan G, Tsistrakis S, Bernstein BB. 268 Remote video auditing with feedback in an ambulatory endoscopy suite: impact on compliance with endoscope cleaning protocols. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: AB66-AB67
25 Olympus America, Inc. TJF-Q180V cleaning and disinfection checklist. 03/2015 Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): https://medical.olympusamerica.com/sites/default/files/pdf/TJF-Q180V_ReprocessingEvaluationChecklist1.2.pdf
26 Kovaleva J, Peters FTM, Van Der Mei HC. et al. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013; 26: 231-254
27 McCafferty CE, Aghajani MJ, Abi-Hanna D. et al. An update on gastrointestinal endoscopy-associated infections and their contributing factors. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2018; 17: 36
28 Bisset L, Cossart YE, Selby W. et al. A prospective study of the efficacy of routine decontamination for gastrointestinal endoscopes and the risk factors for failure. Am J Infect Control 2006; 34: 274-280
29 Moses FM, Lee J. Surveillance cultures to monitor quality of gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 3-5
30 Tunuguntla A, Sullivan MJ. Monitoring quality of flexible endoscope disinfection by microbiologic surveillance cultures. Tenn Med 2004; 97: 453-456
31 Beilenhoff U, Neumann CS, Rey JF. et al. ESGE-ESGENA guideline for quality assurance in reprocessing: microbiological surveillance testing in endoscopy. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 175-181
32 Fraser TG, Reiner S, Malczynski M. et al. Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa cholangitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: failure of routine endoscope cultures to prevent an outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25: 856-859
33 Berzin TM, Feuerstein JD. Duodenoscope-related and echoendoscope-related infections: is “never” possible?. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 314-315
34 Sethi S, Huang RJ, Barakat MT. et al. Adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence for bacteriologic surveillance and reprocessing strategies for minimizing risk of infection transmission by duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1180-1187 e1
35 Olafsdottir LB, Whelan J, Snyder GM. A systematic review of adenosine triphosphate as a surrogate for bacterial contamination of duodenoscopes used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Am J Infect Control 2019; 46: 697-705
36 Bartles RL, Leggett JE, Hove S. et al. A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 306-313.e.2
37 Muscarella LF. Use of ethylene-oxide gas sterilisation to terminate multidrug-resistant bacterial outbreaks linked to duodenoscopes. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2019; 6: e000282
38 Ross AS. Enhanced methods for duodenoscope reprocessing: answers or just more questions. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 263-265
39 Butcher A. Endoscopy presentation for the investment community at DDW. 2018 Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): http://investors.bostonscientific.com/~/media/Files/B/Boston-Scientific-IR/documents/events/endoscopy-investor-webcast-june-2018.pdf
40 Muthusamy VR, Bruno MJ, Kozarek RA. et al. Clinical evaluation of a single-use duodenoscope for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;
41 Ross AS, Bruno MJ, Kozarek RA. et al. Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP: a randomized bench-model comparison. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 396-403
42 US Food and Drug Administration. The FDA is recommending transition to duodenoscopes with innovative designs to enhance safety: FDA Safety Communication. 2020 Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/fda-recommending-transition-duodenoscopes-innovative-designs-enhance-safety-fda-safety-communication
43 ESGE and ESGENA comment: Duodenoscope design. Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): https://endopromag.com/esge-and-esgena-comment-duodenoscope-design/
44 GI societies advise FDA on duodenoscope reprocessing. 2020 Available from (Accessed 30 January 2020): https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/214911/society-news/gi-societies-advise-fda-duodenoscope-reprocessing