Time-effectiveness and convenience of transvaginal ultrasound probe disinfection using ultraviolet vs chlorine dioxide multistep wipe system: prospective survey study.
chlorine dioxide
gynecology
health and safety
ultrasonography
ultraviolet
Journal
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN: 1469-0705
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9108340
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
revised:
26
11
2021
received:
14
09
2021
accepted:
01
12
2021
pubmed:
18
12
2021
medline:
8
7
2022
entrez:
17
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the efficiency, ease of use and user satisfaction of two methods of transvaginal ultrasound probe high-level disinfection: ultraviolet-C radiation (UV-C) and a chlorine dioxide multistep wipe system. This was a prospective survey study. UV-C units were introduced into a busy early pregnancy assessment service and compared with a multiwipe system for disinfection. Before seeing each patient, healthcare professionals (HCPs) measured with a stopwatch the time taken to complete a cycle of disinfection using either UV-C or chlorine dioxide multistep wipes and responded to a quick-response (QR) code-linked survey. Additional essential tasks that could be completed before seeing the next patient during probe disinfection were also documented. Using another QR code-linked survey, data on ease of use, satisfaction with the system used and preferred system were collected. The ease of use and satisfaction with the system were rated on a 0 to 10 Likert scale (0 poor, 10 excellent). A free-text section for comments was then completed. Disinfection using UV-C (n = 331) was 60% faster than the chlorine dioxide multiwipe system (n = 332) (101 vs 250 s; P < 0.0001). A greater number of tasks were completed during probe disinfection when using UV-C, saving a further 74 s per patient (P < 0.0001). The HCPs using UV-C (n = 71) reported greater ease of use (median Likert score, 10 vs 3; P < 0.0001) and satisfaction (median Likert score, 10 vs 2; P < 0.0001) compared with those using the multiwipe system (n = 43). HCPs reported that the chlorine dioxide system was time-consuming and environmentally unfriendly, while the UV-C system was efficient and easy to use. Overall, 98% of the HCPs preferred using the UV-C system. UV-C technology is more time-efficient and allows more essential tasks to be completed during disinfection. For a 4-h ultrasound list of 15 patients, the use of UV-C would save 55 min 45 s. HCPs found UV-C preferable and easier to use. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34919771
doi: 10.1002/uog.24834
pmc: PMC9414347
doi:
Substances chimiques
Chlorine Compounds
0
Oxides
0
chlorine dioxide
8061YMS4RM
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
132-138Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : IS-BRC-1215-20013
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Références
Surgeon. 2006 Feb;4(1):11-3
pubmed: 16459494
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017 Feb;43(2):421-426
pubmed: 28341192
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;215(1):63-7
pubmed: 26994654
J Appl Microbiol. 1999 Jun;86(6):1039-46
pubmed: 10389251
Isr Med Assoc J. 2019 Jan;21(1):45-49
pubmed: 30685905
Emerg Med J. 2013 Jun;30(6):472-5
pubmed: 22761513
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2018 Dec;15(12):818-823
pubmed: 30215576
Ultraschall Med. 2016 Apr;37(2):137-9
pubmed: 27058433
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 May;47(5):646-51
pubmed: 26426683
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012 Apr;94(3):185-8
pubmed: 22507724
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;39(10):1250-1253
pubmed: 30160225
J Clin Ultrasound. 2015 Feb;43(2):81-8
pubmed: 25042449
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017 May;43(5):1076-1079
pubmed: 28190623
J Med Ultrason (2001). 2019 Oct;46(4):475-479
pubmed: 30941528
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003 Mar;51(3):575-84
pubmed: 12615857
Laryngoscope. 2018 Jan;128(1):64-71
pubmed: 28815686
Ultraschall Med. 2020 Dec;41(6):681-687
pubmed: 31238382
Am J Otolaryngol. 2020 May - Jun;41(3):102415
pubmed: 32059828
J Med Virol. 2020 Aug;92(8):1298-1302
pubmed: 31919857
J Ultrasound Med. 2013 Oct;32(10):1799-804
pubmed: 24065261
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;55(5):709-712
pubmed: 32207189
J Laryngol Otol. 2016 Nov;130(11):983-989
pubmed: 27669971
Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Apr;37(4):789-791
pubmed: 30201239
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Sep;223(3):B2-B6
pubmed: 32470457
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Nov 19;16(22):
pubmed: 31752418
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 31;12(10):e0187377
pubmed: 29088277
J Laryngol Otol. 2012 Aug;126(8):809-14
pubmed: 22804853
Radiol Bras. 2015 Sep-Oct;48(5):319-23
pubmed: 26543284
Indian J Anaesth. 2017 Jun;61(6):490-493
pubmed: 28655955
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 Feb;31(2):165-70
pubmed: 20025531
J Clin Med. 2019 Oct 24;8(11):
pubmed: 31653074
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Nov;54(5):688-695
pubmed: 30908769
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014 Jun;69(6):1546-50
pubmed: 24500190