“…It unequivocally demonstrates that consistent monitoring leads to an improvement in service quality. 9,10 A total of 101 adverse incidents were documented, with the primary reason identified as insufficient cleaning quality (34, 33.66%), followed by mistakes in instrument assembly (25, 24.75%), and issues related to marking (7, 6.93%). Variables such as the role of the accountable individual, educational attainment, years of experience, structural aspects of the device, quantity of instruments in the set, and set dimensions were discovered to potentially impact the occurrence of adverse incidents (P < 0.05).…”