Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:30:42.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Disinfectant Dilemma Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Sue Crow
Affiliation:
Infection Control Section, Infectious Disease Division, Winthrop-University Hospital, Mineola, New York
Inge Gurevich
Affiliation:
Infection Control Section, Infectious Disease Division, Winthrop-University Hospital, Mineola, New York
Barbara Yannelli
Affiliation:
Infection Control Section, Infectious Disease Division, Winthrop-University Hospital, Mineola, New York
Burke A. Cunha
Affiliation:
Infection Control Section, Infectious Disease Division, Winthrop-University Hospital, Mineola, New York

Extract

Medical instruments that come in contact with patients' blood and body fluids during invasive procedures should be sterilized after use. Some instruments, however, are too delicate to tolerate auto-clave temperatures, even the lower temperature required by ethylene oxide sterilization. Chemical sterilants are an acceptable alternative but present a different problem because they require prolonged soaking time from six and three-quarters to ten hours. This long exposure to liquids may adversely affect the components of some instruments. Therefore, the manufacturer should always be consulted when prolonged soaking is contemplated.

Another disadvantage to prolonged sterilization cycles is the increased number of instruments that may be required to compensate for the lag in availability. As an acceptable alternative, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and others have divided instruments into three categories: instruments that enter normally sterile tissue and the vascular system (these must be sterilized); instruments that contact nonintact skin and mucous membranes (these should receive high-level disinfection); and items that contact only intact skin such as blood pressure cuffs (these require a lower level of disinfection and will not be discussed here). Importantly, it should be noted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which registers chemical disinfectants/sterilants, does not recognize these categorizations. They register solutions for sterilization or disinfection.

Type
Special Sections
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Garner, JS, Favero, MS. Guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control-1985. Am J Infect Control. 1986;14:110126.10.1016/0196-6553(86)90019-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Favero, MS. Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materials. In: Block, SS, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization and Preservation, 3rd ed. Lea & Febiger: Philadelphia; 1983:469492.Google Scholar
3. Rutala, WA. Draft guidelines for selection and use of disinfectants. Am J Infect Control. 1989;17:24A38A.10.1016/S0196-6553(89)80005-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gurevich, I. The disinfectant dilemma. Infect Control. 1985;6:459460.10.1017/S0195941700064821CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Letter to Health Care Professionals. Surgikos: Arlington, Texas; 1984.Google Scholar
6. Rutala, WA, Cole, CC. Ineffectiveness of hospital disinfectants against bacteria: a collaborative study. Infect Control. 1987;8:501506.10.1017/S0195941700067564CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Declining Federal Health and Safety Standards: Hospital disinfectants and antiseptics. Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States. US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC; August 7, September 25, 1986.Google Scholar
8. Rutz, S. Special report: choosing hospital disinfectants, antiseptics. Hosp Infect Control. 1986;March:3233.Google Scholar
9. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of responses to tuberculocidal effectiveness data. US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC; June, 1986.Google Scholar
10. Katner, HP, Buckley, RL, Smith, MV, Henderson, AM. Endoscopic cleaning and disinfection procedures for preventing iatrogenic spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus. J Fam Prac. 1988;27:271276.Google ScholarPubMed