Thomas Sartoretti1,2, Elisabeth Sartoretti1,2, Candid Bucher3, Aleksis Doert2, Christoph Binkert2, Klaus Hergan4, Matthias Meissnitzer4, Johannes Froehlich5, Orpheus Kolokythas2,6, Simon Matoori5, Christina Orasch7, Sebastian Kos5, Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer2, Andreas Gutzeit8,9,10. 1. Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zurich, Vladimir-Prelog-Weg 1-5/10, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Institute of Radiology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Brauerstrasse 15, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland. 3. Bioexam AG, Labor für Lebensmittel, Heilmittel und Hygiene, Maihofstrasse 95a, P.O. Box 6858, 6000, Lucerne 6, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. 5. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland. 6. Department of Radiology, University Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St., Seattle, WA, 98190, USA. 7. Department of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland. 8. Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zurich, Vladimir-Prelog-Weg 1-5/10, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland. andreas.gutzeit@hirslanden.ch. 9. Department of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. andreas.gutzeit@hirslanden.ch. 10. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland. andreas.gutzeit@hirslanden.ch.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Aim was to investigate hygienic conditions of ultrasound probes before and after hygiene training in radiology institutions in comparison to bacterial contamination in public places. METHODS: In three radiology departments, bacterial contamination was evaluated using baseline agar plates for cultures taken from 36 ultrasound probes. Afterwards teams were trained by a hygiene service centre and 36 ultrasound probes were routinely disinfected with regular disinfecting wipes and then evaluated. In comparison, bacterial contamination in public places (bus poles, n = 11; toilet seats, n = 10) were analysed. Plates were routinely incubated and the number of colony forming units (CFU) analysed. RESULTS: Cultures taken from the probes showed a median of 53 CFU before and 0 CFU after training (p < 0.001). Cultures taken from public places showed a median of 4 CFU from toilets and 28 from bus poles and had lower bacterial load in comparison to ultrasound probes before training (p = 0.055, toilets; p = 0.772, bus poles), without statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes prior to hygiene training proved to be high and showed higher bacterial load than toilets seats or bus poles. Radiologists should be aware that the lack of hygiene in the field of ultrasound diagnostics puts patients at risk of healthcare-associated infections. KEY POINTS: • Hospital-associated infections are a problem for patient care. • Hygiene training of staff prevents bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes. • Disinfection of ultrasound probes is an easy method to protect patients.
OBJECTIVES: Aim was to investigate hygienic conditions of ultrasound probes before and after hygiene training in radiology institutions in comparison to bacterial contamination in public places. METHODS: In three radiology departments, bacterial contamination was evaluated using baseline agar plates for cultures taken from 36 ultrasound probes. Afterwards teams were trained by a hygiene service centre and 36 ultrasound probes were routinely disinfected with regular disinfecting wipes and then evaluated. In comparison, bacterial contamination in public places (bus poles, n = 11; toilet seats, n = 10) were analysed. Plates were routinely incubated and the number of colony forming units (CFU) analysed. RESULTS: Cultures taken from the probes showed a median of 53 CFU before and 0 CFU after training (p < 0.001). Cultures taken from public places showed a median of 4 CFU from toilets and 28 from bus poles and had lower bacterial load in comparison to ultrasound probes before training (p = 0.055, toilets; p = 0.772, bus poles), without statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes prior to hygiene training proved to be high and showed higher bacterial load than toilets seats or bus poles. Radiologists should be aware that the lack of hygiene in the field of ultrasound diagnostics puts patients at risk of healthcare-associated infections. KEY POINTS: • Hospital-associated infections are a problem for patient care. • Hygiene training of staff prevents bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes. • Disinfection of ultrasound probes is an easy method to protect patients.
Authors: Matthew W Lawrence; James Blanks; Ruben Ayala; Douglas Talk; Diana Macian; Jessie Glasser; Joel M Schofer Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: R Monina Klevens; Jonathan R Edwards; Chesley L Richards; Teresa C Horan; Robert P Gaynes; Daniel A Pollock; Denise M Cardo Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Andreas Gutzeit; Frank Steffen; Juri Gutzeit; Junus Gutzeit; Sebastian Kos; Stephan Pfister; Livia Berlinger; Matthias Anderegg; Carolin Reischauer; Ilona Funke; Johannes M Froehlich; Dow-Mu Koh; Christina Orasch Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christiane M Nyhsen; Hilary Humphreys; Roland J Koerner; Nicolas Grenier; Adrian Brady; Paul Sidhu; Carlos Nicolau; Gerhard Mostbeck; Mirko D'Onofrio; Afshin Gangi; Michel Claudon Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2017-11-27
Authors: Simon Matoori; Bharti Khurana; Marta Chadwick Balcom; Johannes M Froehlich; Sonja Janssen; Rosemarie Forstner; Ann D King; Dow-Mu Koh; Andreas Gutzeit Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 7.034