Concern has been raised regarding the use of simethicone, a de-foaming agent, during endoscopic procedures. Following reports of simethicone residue in endoscope channels despite high level disinfection, an endoscope manufacturer recommended that it not be used due to concerns of biofilm formation and a possible increased risk of microorganism transmission. However, a detailed mucosal assessment is essential in performing high-standard endoscopic procedures. This is impaired by bubbles within the gastrointestinal lumen. The Gastroenterological Society of Australia's Infection Control in Endoscopy Guidelines (ICEG) Committee conducted a literature search utilizing the MEDLINE database. Further references were sourced from published paper bibliographies. Following a review of the available evidence, and drawing on extensive clinical experience, the multidisciplinary ICEG committee considered the risks and benefits of simethicone use in formulating four recommendations. Published reports have documented residual liquid or crystalline simethicone in endoscope channels after high level disinfection. There are no data confirming that simethicone can be cleared from channels by brushing. Multiple series report benefits of simethicone use during gastroscopy and colonoscopy in improving mucosal assessment, adenoma detection rate, and reducing procedure time. There are no published reports of adverse events related specifically to the use of simethicone, delivered either orally or via any endoscope channel. An assessment of the risks and benefits supports the continued use of simethicone during endoscopic procedures. Strict adherence to instrument reprocessing protocols is essential. MethodsComputerized medical literature searches were undertaken using MEDLINE, utilizing search terms "endoscopy," "gastrointestinal endoscopy," "gastroscopy," "colonoscopy," "adenoma detection rate," and "simethicone" up until September 2018. Cross

Outbreaks of carbapenemase‐producing Enterobacteriaceae clinical infections related to endoscopic transmission are well documented. The high morbidity and mortality associated with these infections emphasizes the need to reassess endoscopic reprocessing protocols. The Gastroenterological Society of Australia established a multi‐society committee to formulate evidence‐based consensus statements on the prevention and management of endoscopic transmission of carbapenemase‐producing Enterobacteriaceae. A literature search was undertaken utilizing the MEDLINE database. Further references were sourced from published paper bibliographies. Nine statements were formulated. Using the Delphi methodology, the statements were initially reviewed electronically by the committee members and subsequently at a face‐to‐face meeting in Melbourne, Australia. After further discussion, four additional sub‐statements were added resulting in a total of 13 statements. Each statement was assessed for level of evidence, recommendation grade and the voting on recommendation was recorded. For a statement to be accepted, five out of six committee members had to “accept completely” or “accept with some reservation.” All 13 statements achieved consensus agreement. Eleven statements achieved 100% “accepted completely.” Two statements were 83% “accepted completely” and 17% “accepted with some reservation.” Of particular significance, automated flexible endoscope reprocessors were mandated for high‐level disinfection, and the use of forced‐air drying cabinets was mandated for endoscope storage. These evidence‐based statements encourage preventative strategies with the aim of ensuring the highest possible standards in flexible endoscope reprocessing thereby optimizing patient safety. They must be considered in addition to the broader published guidelines on infection control in endoscopy.