R J Hillier1, N Kumar. 1. Ophthalmology Department, Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Walton Hospital, Liverpool, UK. roxanehillier@doctors.org.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess current tonometer disinfection practice in the UK, and compare with published recommendations. METHODS: Every ophthalmology unit with training recognition in the UK was contacted (n=155). A senior nurse at each institution completed a telephone questionnaire regarding local tonometer disinfection practice. RESULTS: The response rate was 100%. Thirty-five units (23%) reported exclusive use of disposable tonometer heads and were excluded from further analysis. One hundred and twenty units (77%) used either reusable or a combination of reusable and disposable tonometer heads. Where reusable heads were used, 80 units (67%) immersed them in a chlorine-based solution such as sodium hypochlorite or sodium dichloroisocyanurate. Others used isopropyl alcohol (18 units), hydrogen peroxide (12 units), chloramine (5 units), chlorhexidine (4 units) and peracetic acid (1 unit). Where a chlorine-based agent was used, the concentration of available chlorine ranged from 125 to 30 000 p.p.m., with 50 units (63%) using a concentration of less than 5 000 p.p.m. (i.e., inadequate based on published recommendations). Where the tonometer head was immersed in disinfectant between patients (n=101), 29 units (29%) provided just one tonometer head per practitioner, making adequate soak time between patients unlikely. Every unit replenished the disinfectant at least daily, deemed sufficient for most agents. However, hydrogen peroxide solutions should be replenished twice daily, which did not take place in nine units. CONCLUSION: This survey reveals disparity between current tonometer disinfection practice and published international recommendations, with some institutions using practices that may render patients susceptible to transmissible infection.
PURPOSE: To assess current tonometer disinfection practice in the UK, and compare with published recommendations. METHODS: Every ophthalmology unit with training recognition in the UK was contacted (n=155). A senior nurse at each institution completed a telephone questionnaire regarding local tonometer disinfection practice. RESULTS: The response rate was 100%. Thirty-five units (23%) reported exclusive use of disposable tonometer heads and were excluded from further analysis. One hundred and twenty units (77%) used either reusable or a combination of reusable and disposable tonometer heads. Where reusable heads were used, 80 units (67%) immersed them in a chlorine-based solution such as sodium hypochlorite or sodium dichloroisocyanurate. Others used isopropyl alcohol (18 units), hydrogen peroxide (12 units), chloramine (5 units), chlorhexidine (4 units) and peracetic acid (1 unit). Where a chlorine-based agent was used, the concentration of available chlorine ranged from 125 to 30 000 p.p.m., with 50 units (63%) using a concentration of less than 5 000 p.p.m. (i.e., inadequate based on published recommendations). Where the tonometer head was immersed in disinfectant between patients (n=101), 29 units (29%) provided just one tonometer head per practitioner, making adequate soak time between patients unlikely. Every unit replenished the disinfectant at least daily, deemed sufficient for most agents. However, hydrogen peroxide solutions should be replenished twice daily, which did not take place in nine units. CONCLUSION: This survey reveals disparity between current tonometer disinfection practice and published international recommendations, with some institutions using practices that may render patients susceptible to transmissible infection.
Authors: Birgit Fritz; Edita Paschko; Wayne Young; Daniel Böhringer; Siegfried Wahl; Focke Ziemssen; Markus Egert Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 5.293