| Literature DB >> 32951490 |
Yingxia Luo1, Qixuan Yang1, Bingkun Li1, Yao Yao2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In recent years, the Emergency Care Research Institute has advised that endoscope cleaning is of considerable importance. In the present study, a quality control circle (QCC) was used to reduce the formation of biofilms in flexible endoscopes within one hospital in Guangdong Province, China.Entities:
Keywords: China; Quality control circle; biofilm; cleaning; flexible endoscope; qualified rate; urology
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32951490 PMCID: PMC7509727 DOI: 10.1177/0300060520952983
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Int Med Res ISSN: 0300-0605 Impact factor: 1.671
Demographics of the quality control circle team.
| Number | Gender | Experience (years) | Area of specialty | Position in the circle | Responsibilities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Female | 15 | Quality control senior diagnostician | Instructor | Project executive |
| 2 | Female | 7 | Nursing management | Group Leader | Planning, organization, training, supervision |
| 3 | Female | 8 | Urology specialist nurse | Member | Training and statistics |
| 4 | Female | 29 | Nursing management | Member | Guidance, supervision, and evaluation |
| 5 | Female | 25 | Nursing management | Member | Guidance, supervision, and evaluation |
| 6 | Male | 5 | Urology physician | Member | Laboratory analysis |
| 7 | Male | 5 | Urology physician | Member | Research regarding instruments and reagents |
| 8 | Female | 15 | Infection management specialist nurse | Member | Guidance, supervision, evaluation, and specimen collection |
| 9 | Female | 3 | Urology endoscopy nurse | Member | Implementation |
| 10 | Female | 3 | Urology endoscopy nurse | Member | Implementation |
| 11 | Female | 3 | Urology endoscopy nurse | Member | Implementation |
| 12 | Female | 3 | Urology endoscopy nurse | Member | Implementation |
| 13 | Male | 15 | Equipment engineer | Member | Market research |
Figure 1.Pareto analysis before and after improvement. a: before improvement; b: after improvement.
Figure 2.Fishbone diagram. a: Why was the qualified rate of monitoring low?; b: Why was the pass rate of leak detection low?; c: Why was the qualification rate of pretreatment low?; d: Why was the qualified rate of cleaning low?
ATP, adenosine triphosphate.
Terminal cause analysis.
| Five aspects | Terminal factor | Score |
|---|---|---|
| People | Lack of predictability | 33 |
| Insufficient and outdated knowledge | 39 | |
| Weak sense of responsibility | 29 | |
| Lack of experience | 25 | |
| Lack of professional training | 63 | |
| Lack of knowledge | 47 | |
| Inconsistent cleaning personnel | 53 | |
| Understaffing | 35 | |
| High number of junior nurses | 41 | |
| Materials | Lack of bacterial colony count culture plates | 49 |
| Lack of filtration membranes | 36 | |
| Inadequate water filtration | 34 | |
| Lack of traceability system | 57 | |
| Missing traceable record of endoscope leak detection | 49 | |
| Lack of pretreatment wipes in the hospital | 63 | |
| Lack of cleaning brushes | 34 | |
| Lack of tools for measurement of water temperature | 43 | |
| Limited types of cleaning brushes available | 36 | |
| Methods | Lack of biofilm removal monitoring process | 56 |
| Lack of monitoring process for water filtration | 35 | |
| Lack of monitoring program for cleaning | 33 | |
| Lack of leak detection process | 53 | |
| Lack of pretreatment process | 37 | |
| Lack of detailed cleaning instructions | 53 | |
| Environment | Inconvenience regarding preparation of detergent-containing gauze in operation room | 35 |
| Crowded operation room | 31 | |
| Presence of interruptions | 33 | |
| Machines | Lack of ATP monitoring | 35 |
| Lack of instrument for measurement of protein residue | 21 | |
| Old equipment | 31 | |
| Limited access to cleaning equipment | 34 | |
| Insufficient supply of flexible endoscopes | 31 |
Root cause analysis.
| Causes | Inspection method | Inspection tools | Inspection standard | Number of samples | Number of defects | Defect rate | Judgment results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inconsistent cleaning personnel | Case-by-case traceability | Custom “Flexible endoscope cleaning personnel checklist” | Cleaning is completed independently | 36 | 29 | 80.56% | Root cause |
| Lack of professional training | Questionnaire investigation | “Questionnaire regarding flexible endoscope cleaning knowledge” based on published guidelines | Questionnaire score >80 | 26 | 23 | 11.54% | Root cause |
| Lack of traceability system | Case-by-case traceability | Custom “Endoscope leak detection traceability checklist”; “Endoscope cleaning and disinfection/sterilization registration” | Cleaning personnel, cleaning time, leakage detection personnel, and leakage detection results can be traced | 50 | 49 | 98.00% | Root cause |
| Lack of filtration membrane | Case-by-case traceability | Custom clinical checklist for implementation of pretreatment to remove biofilm from flexible endoscopes | Use of enzyme-containing gauze for pretreatment | 36 | 30 | 83.33% | Root cause |
| Lack of leak detection process | Case-by-case traceability | Custom “Biofilm clearance from flexible endoscopes leak detection checklist” | Flexible endoscope leakage detection process consistent with published guidelines | 36 | 32 | 88.89% | Root cause |
| Lack of detailed cleaning instructions | Case-by-case traceability | Custom “Flexible endoscope cleaning implementation process checklist” | Flexible endoscope cleaning process consistent with published guidelines | 36 | 32 | 88.89% | Root cause |
| Lack of biofilm removal monitoring process | Case-by-case traceability | Custom “Flexible endoscope cleaning monitoring process checklist” | Implementation of biofilm removal monitoring | 36 | 33 | 91.67% | Root cause |
Factors associated with biofilm removal: relationships with qualified rates of flexible endoscopes before and after establishment of the quality control circle.
| Assessed factors | Before establishment of QCC | After establishment of QCC | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unqualified frequency | Percentage | Cumulative percentage | Unqualified frequency | Percentage | Cumulative percentage | |
| Monitoring | 235 | 100.00% | 24.71% | 4 | 1.70% | 91.03% |
| Pretreatment | 222 | 94.47% | 48.05% | 4 | 1.70% | 96.15% |
| Cleaning | 179 | 76.17% | 66.88% | 4 | 1.70% | 85.90% |
| Leak detection | 136 | 57.87% | 81.18% | 3 | 1.28% | 100% |
| Recording | 66 | 28.09% | 88.12% | 10 | 4.26% | 80.77% |
| Rinse | 52 | 22.13% | 93.59% | 16 | 6.81% | 20.51% |
| Transport | 42 | 17.87% | 98.00% | 15 | 6.38% | 39.74% |
| Counts | 14 | 5.96% | 99.47% | 12 | 5.11% | 55.13% |
| Classification | 5 | 2.13% | 100.00% | 10 | 4.26% | 67.95% |
QCC, quality control circle.
Figure 3.Reprocessing flowcharts of urology flexible endoscopy before and after establishment of the QCC. a: Cleaning comprised six steps before establishment of the QCC; b: Cleaning comprised 14 steps after establishment of the QCC.
QCC, quality control circle; EtO, ethanol.
Figure 4.Flexible endoscope manual cleaning process.
ID, identification.
Figure 5.Leak detection implementation process.
Figure 6.Diagram of manual cleaning process for flexible endoscopes in the urology surgical suite.