Background: Flexible laryngoscopes (nasopharyngeal endoscopes) are important tools in the everyday practice of Ear-Nose-Throat (ENT) departments. However, reprocessing procedures for endoscopes, especially those without suction or instrument channels (i.e., observation-only scopes), have not yet been standardized in Japan. This study comprised two parts: 1. A questionnaire survey was performed to elucidate the current status of reprocessing procedures for endoscopes in ENT departments in Japan. 2. An ATP bioluminescence test was applied for hygiene monitoring of observation-only scopes to develop an effective reprocessing protocol.
Materials and Methods: The questionnaire asked about the inventory of flexible laryngoscopes, both with and without suction channels, the frequency of laryngoscopy per half day, and the use of scope-washing machines. Regarding the reprocessing protocol for observation-only scopes, questions covered the kind of detergent used for washing, disinfectant, soaking time, and the total time for reprocessing. Each of 30 laryngoscopes was cleaned using 4 different protocols in 3 facilities. Hospitals A and B: A reprocessing protocol in accordance with the UK guideline, which recommends using an enzymatic detergent for washing (Hospital A used a scope-washing machine; Hospital B performed manual washing), followed by soaking in glutaraldehyde. Clinic C “Conventional protocol”: Soak insertion parts in running water for a few seconds, and then in glutaraldehyde. Clinic C “Improved protocol”: Instead of soaking in water, wiping the insertion parts gently with a gauze soaked with a neutral detergent. After soaking in a disinfectant and rinsing, the ATP test was performed using a 3MTM Clean-TraceTM Luminometer. The measured ATP was expressed in relative light units (RLU). The RLU results with these washing protocols were compared.
Results: The questionnaire was completed and returned by 25 ENT departments. All 25 departments have scopes without a suction channel. Twenty-three departments have less than 3 scopes. Only 4 departments (16%) have scopes with a suction channel. As for the frequency of laryngoscopy examinations per half day, 18 departments (72%) are under 4 times, while 3 departments (12%) are over 20 times. The extent of washing is only the insertion part at 16 departments (64%) and the entire scope at 8 departments (32%). As for the disinfecting agent, 20 departments use a high level disinfectant, whereas 2 departments use chlorhexidine, and 1 department uses an enzymatic detergent. The total time for the reprocessing procedures is 10–15 min in 7 departments (30.4%) and 15–20 min in 4 departments (17.4%), while one department takes under 5 min. For endoscopes reprocessed in accordance with the UK guideline at Hospital A and Hospital B, the mean RLU was 13.1 and 16.0, whereas it was 76.0 at Clinic C, where the endoscopes were just soaked in running water. After gentle wiping with neutral detergent-soaked gauze, the RLU was improved to 26.6.
Conclusion: ATP hygiene monitoring is a useful tool for assessing cleaning protocols for laryngoscopes.
View full abstract