DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Hygiene Management of Ultrasound Probe

초음파 탐촉자의 위생관리에 관한 연구

  • 하명진 (한서대학교 보건의료학과) ;
  • 김정구 (한서대학교 보건의료학과)
  • Received : 2020.03.30
  • Accepted : 2020.04.26
  • Published : 2020.04.30

Abstract

This study examined the hygiene management of ultrasound probes by examining the cleaning tools for hygiene management of ultrasound probes, the presence or absence of wearing glove as a personal protective equipment, and the awareness of ultrasound probe hygiene. Parts 154 questionnaire about people working in the ultrasound room were surveyed and analyzed. The single gel removal tool of the ultrasound probe was most frequently used with a 48.7% cotton towel, and for double gel removal tools, the first gel removal tool was 42.4% cotton towel and the second gel removal tool was used with 57.6% wet tissue. Antimicrobial wipes were the most commonly used drug and instrument used in ultrasound hygiene management at 58.4%. According to the survey of the presence or absence of wearing glove during ultrasound examination, 46.8% were found to be unworn. When examining the intracavity ultrasound, 30.9% of those who do not wear glove and 61.0% of hygiene awareness of ultrasound probes are 'normal'. According to age, ultrasound probe gel removal tool was not significant difference(p>0.05). According to the working organization and the working department, it was significant difference to wearing gloves during ultrasound examination(p<0.05). Therefore, in order to properly sanitize the ultrasound probe, it is considered that a guideline for hygiene management of the ultrasound probe that fits the situation in Korea is necessary, and it is considered that thorough hygiene management training for inspector is necessary for efficient hygiene management of the ultrasound probe.

References

  1. Foxman B. Epidemiology of urinary tract infection: Incidence, morbidity, and ecomonic costs. The American Journal of Medicine. 2002;113(1):5-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01054-9
  2. Wagenlener FME, Naber KG. Antibiotics and resistance of uropathogens. EAU Update series. 2004;2(3):125-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euus.2004.06.003
  3. Carling PC, Bartley JM. Evaluating hygienic cleaning in health care settings: What you do not know can harm your patients. American Journal of Infection Control. 2010 June;38(5):s41-50.
  4. Huang SS, Datta R, Platt R. Risk of acquiring antibiotic-resistant bacteria from prior room occupants. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1945-51. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.18.1945
  5. Martinez JA, Ruthazer R, Hansjosten K, Lyle EA. Reduction in acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in patients treated in a edical in tensive care unit. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1905-12. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.163.16.1905
  6. Datta R, Platt R, Kleinman K, Huang SS. Impact of an environmental cleaning intervention on the risk of acquiring MRSA and VRE from prior room occupants. Abstrct 273. Annual Meeting of the society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. San Diego, CA. 2009 March.
  7. Eckstein BC, Adams DA, Eckstein EC, Rao A. Reduction of Clostridium difficile and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus contamination of environmental surfaces after an intervention to improve cleaning methods. BMC Infect Dis. 2007;7:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-7-61
  8. Guerrero D, carling PC, Jury L, Ponnads S. Beyond the Hawthorne effect: reduction of Clostridium difficile environmental contamination through active intervention to improve cleaning practices. Abstract 60. Infection control and Hospital Epidemiology. 2013 May;34(5):524-6.
  9. Hayden MK, Bonten MJ, Blom DW, Lyle EA. Reduction in acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus after enforcement of routine environmental cleaning measures. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:1552-60. https://doi.org/10.1086/503845
  10. Goodman ER, Platt R, et al. Impact of an Environmental Cleaning Intervention on the Presence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci on Surfaces in Intensive Care Unit Rooms. Infection control and Hospital Epidemiology. 2008 July;29(7):593-9.
  11. WHO. WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care: A summary. WHO; 2009, 2015.
  12. Deshpande A, Pasupuleti V, Pant C, Hall G, Jain A. Potential value of repeat stool testing for Clostridium difficile stool toxin using enzyme immunoassay? Current Medical Research & Opinion. 2010;26(11):2635-41.
  13. Soung MS. Clinical nurse's Awareness and Practice of Nosocomical Infection Management [master's thesis]. Graduate School Dankook University of Seoul; 2000.
  14. Manian FA, Meyer L, Jenne J. Clostridium difficile Contamination of Blood Pressure Cuffs: A Call for a Closer Look at Gloving Practices in the Era on Universal Precautions. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 1996;180-2.
  15. Muto CA, Jernigan JA, et al. SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomical transmision of multidrug-resistant strains of staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 2003 May;24(5):362-86.
  16. Hayashi S, Koibuchi H, Taniguchi N, Hirai Y. Evaluation of procedures for decontaminating ultrasound proves. Journal of Medical Utrasonics. 2012;30(1):11-4.
  17. Muradali D, Gold WL, Phillips A, Wilson S. Can ultrasound probes and coupling gel be a source of nosocomial infection in patients undergoing sonography? An in vivo and in vitro study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Jun;164(6):1521-4. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.164.6.7754907
  18. Yin J, Schweizer ML, Herwaldt LA, et al. Benefits of Universal Gloving on Hospital-Acquired Infections in Acute Care Pediatric Units. Pediatrics. 2013 May;131(5):e1515-20. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-3389