An in-use evaluation of decontamination of polypropylene versus steel bedpans

Block, Colin; Baron, Orlando; Bogokowski, B; Amit, Pnina; Rubenstein, Ellen L.

doi:10.1016/0195-6701(90)90005-9

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…comparison with the results obtained when detergent was used in isolation. Authors stressed the need to identify the exact share of contribution of bedpans to infection transmission and make efforts to carry out effective and safe decontamination of these items (15) .…”

Section: Reuse Of Hospital Bedpansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reuse of hospital bedpans

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: to evaluate the results of two methods of hospital bedpan reprocessing. Methods: cross-sectional study. Hospital bedpans containing a biological material contamination simulator or organic matter were submitted to manual cleaning followed by disinfection with 70% alcohol solution or thermodisinfection. Permanence of simulated contamination was evaluated by using the fluorescence technique and presence of organic matter was verified by carrying out the protein detection test. Results: the contamination simulator was found in bedpans submitted to both processes. The seat was dirtier after manual cleaning (p=0.044) in comparison with the result obtained with thermodisinfection. Automatized decontamination led to worse results when compared to the manual procedure for the scoop and external bottom (p=0.000). The protein detection test was positive in two items after thermodisinfection. Conclusions: manual cleaning followed by rubbing with 70% alcohol solution proved more effective than automatized cleaning in the reprocessing of hospital bedpans. There are relevant issues regarding reuse of hospital bedpans.

show abstract

Section: Reuse Of Hospital Bedpansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reuse of hospital bedpans

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When specialist equipment is not returned to departments with trained staff fully equipped to undertake this work, adherence to decontamination standards falls short of the ideal (Ruddy and Kibbler, 2002). Even in the wards of acute hospitals, where the advice of the infection control team is readily available, health workers frequently fail to decontaminate equipment correctly (Greaves, 1985;Barnett et al, 1999;Vardhan et al, 2000;Avita-Aguero, 2004) or do not ensure that equipment used to decontaminate is functioning properly, thus contributing to infection risk (Block et al, 1990).…”

Section: Changes In Equipmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The fall and rise of cleanliness in British healthcare and the nursing contribution

Gould

2005

Journal of Research in Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the term 'cleanliness' and applies it to healthcare. Ways of achieving cleanliness in premises where healthcare is delivered are explored. It is concluded that although once a world-leader in infection control practice and research, the United Kingdom is now lagging behind other countries. Traditionally hands have been regarded as the main vectors of healthcare-associated infection. However, hands can never be rendered entirely free of micro-organisms, so it is inevitable that healthcare-associated infection will always be a challenge. Decontamination of the healthcare environment, its fixtures, fittings and clinical equipment are also of pivotal importance in maintaining cleanliness, controlling infection and regaining consumer confidence in healthcare. Nurses play a major role in ensuring that appropriate decontamination processes and procedures are in place to meet required standards. To do so they must receive the appropriate education and training.

show abstract

“…Well-documented environmental reservoirs of bacteria have included baths (Boycott, 1956), soap and nail brushes (Lowbury et al, 1970), washbowls (Greaves, 1985), bedpans (Block et al, 1990), hand lotion (Becks and Lorenzoni, 1999), endoscopes (Schelenz and French, 2000), respiratory equipment such as nebulisers (Vassal et al, 2000), contaminated cleaning solutions (Engelhart et al, 2002) and single-use items that have been recycled (Weems, 1993).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flowers in the clinical setting: Infection risk or workload issue?

Gould

Gammon

Salem³

et al. 2004

NT Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flowers in the clinical setting: Infection risk or workload issue?Healthcare-associated infection has become a topic of interest to the general public in the United Kingdom, kindled by media accounts of poor hygiene and the risks of cross-infection. In the spring of 2003, one of the broadsheet newspapers published an article debating the hygiene and infection risks associated with cut flowers brought into clinical areas. There were reports that in many wards this practice is no longer allowed because flowers are considered dirty, trigger allergies and the water is regarded as harbouring bacteria, leading to infection.Discussion with infection control experts revealed that questions concerning the risks associated with flowers are among those most frequently asked. A literature search was undertaken to establish the evidence base, and a questionnaire study was performed with a purposive sample of 39 nurses to document how they manage flowers in the clinical setting. Empirical research studies were difficult to obtain. Early work had been undertaken to explore the added workload associated with maintaining fresh flowers and ways of reducing it. Later studies revealed that the water in flower vases and cut plants both harbour large numbers of Gram-negative pathogens. Cross-infection and cases of clinical infection have never been documented, thus flowers have not been considered a risk, except to severely immunocompromised patients. However, scrutiny of the more general literature relating to Gram-negative sepsis indicated that cross-infection has been documented from a wide range of environmental sources and it ispossible that it may take place from flowers via the hands of staff if they are not properly decontaminated. Nevertheless, these risks can be reduced by scrupulous attention to hand hygiene and commonsense measures.Over half the nurses (n = 26, 66.6%) thought that flowers constituted an infection risk and a number of other disadvantages were cited. Most nurses (n = 31, 80%) were not in favour of flowers in the clinical setting and there was some evidence that this attitude was related to the amount of work generated, with infection and other risks used to justify it. Interest in the topic was considerable and the results can be used to stimulate discussion and emphasise the importance of controlling health-related infection.

show abstract

An in-use evaluation of decontamination of polypropylene versus steel bedpans

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Reuse of hospital bedpans

Reuse of hospital bedpans

The fall and rise of cleanliness in British healthcare and the nursing contribution

Flowers in the clinical setting: Infection risk or workload issue?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About