dgkh000319
10.3205/dgkh000319
urn:nbn:de:0183-dgkh0003194
Research Article
Microbiological contamination of ear, nose and throat (ENT) units
Mikrobiologische Kontamination von Hals-Nasen-Ohren (HNO)-Einheiten
Krull
Krull
Marco
M
Dr. med.
Universitätsklinikum Essen, Krankenhaushygiene, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147 Essen, GermanyUniversitätsmedizin Essen, Krankenhaushygiene, Essen, Germany
marco.krull@uk-essen.de
author
Steinmann
Steinmann
Joerg
J
Universitätsmedizin Essen, Institut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Essen, Germany
Institut für Klinikhygiene, Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Klinische Infektiologie, Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität, Klinikum Nürnberg, Germany
author
Heintschel von Heinegg
Heintschel von Heinegg
Evelyn
E
Universitätsmedizin Essen, Institut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Essen, Germany
author
Buer
Buer
Jan
J
Universitätsmedizin Essen, Institut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Essen, Germany
author
Sucharski
Sucharski
Anke
A
Universitätsmedizin Essen, Klinik für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Essen, Germany
author
Mattheis
Mattheis
Stefan
S
Universitätsmedizin Essen, Klinik für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Essen, Germany
author
Lang
Lang
Stephan
S
Universitätsmedizin Essen, Klinik für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Essen, Germany
author
Ross
Ross
Birgit
B
Universitätsmedizin Essen, Krankenhaushygiene, Essen, Germany
author
German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
Düsseldorf
610
hospital hygiene
ENT treatment units
microbial contamination
Hygiene
HNO-Behandlungseinheit
Kontamination
20190201
engl
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung).
2196-5226
14
GMS Hygiene and Infection Control
GMS Hyg Infect Control
03
Ziel: Die HNO-Behandlungseinheit ist der zentrale Arbeitsplatz des HNO-Arztes. Auf dieser werden die benötigten Untersuchungsinstrumente in der Regel offen gelagert. Diese Untersuchung soll der Frage nachgehen, ob es im Laufe eines Arbeitstags zu einer relevanten mikrobiellen Kontamination des HNO-Instrumentariums kommt. Methoden: In einer HNO-Ambulanz wurden vor Beginn und nach Ende der Sprechstunde Abstrichuntersuchungen der Instrumente und Kontaktkulturuntersuchungen der Instrumentenablageflächen vorgenommen. Die mikrobiologische Untersuchung erfolgte auf potenziell pathogene Mikroorganismen (z.B. Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa), Vertreter der Haut- und Rachenflora sowie auf die Gesamtkoloniezahl. Es wurden an insgesamt 5 verschiedenen Arbeitstagen an jeweils 3 unterschiedlichen HNO-Einheiten Umgebungsuntersuchungen durchgeführt. Ergebnisse: Vor Arbeitsbeginn wurden geringe Gesamtkoloniezahlen und keine potenziell pathogenen Bakterien gefunden; insgesamt waren 5% der Instrumente mit Vertretern der Hautflora kontaminiert. Am Ende des Ambulanzarbeitstags stieg diese Rate auf 17,5% an (p<0,01). Zu Beginn des Arbeitstags lag die durchschnittliche Kontaminationsrate der Instrumentenablagen bei 4 KBE/25 cm², was auf 34 KBE/25 cm² zum Ende des Arbeitstages anstieg. Auf einigen der am Ende des Tages entnommenen Kontaktproben zeigte sich bakterielles Rasenwachstum. In zwei Fällen gelang der Nachweis von Pathogenen (Ralstonia picketii, Enterobacter cloacae), in einem weiteren Fall der Nachweis von Bacillus spp. Im Laufe eines Arbeitstages nahm sowohl die Kontamination der HNO-Instrumente als auch der HNO-Einheit stark zu. Schlussfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse verdeutlichen, dass die derzeitigen Aufbereitungsvorschriften für HNO-Einheiten nicht den Vorgaben der Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention entsprechen. Es müssen neue Konzepte entwickelt werden.
Aim: In ENT (Ear, Nose and Throat) treatment units, medical devices for examination are commonly stored on open trays. The aim of this study is to investigate whether open storage is a relevant cause for microbiological contamination of ENT instruments during a working day. Methods: Qualitative and quantitative tests, such as imprints and swabs, were performed on the instruments and the surfaces of the treatment units in an ENT outpatient clinic at the beginning and at the end of consultation hours. The microbiological analysis of the samples focused on potential pathogens, e.g., Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa, bacteria of skin and oral microbiota, as well as the number of colony forming units (CFU). The samples were collected at three distinct ENT treatment units over five working days.Results: The samples taken at the beginning of consultation hours showed a low number of CFU and no pathogens. Overall, 5% of the instruments were contaminated with bacteria of skin microbiota. At the end of a working day, this rate increased significantly to 17.5% (p<0.01). At the beginning of the working day, the mean number on the instrument trays was 4 CFU/25 cm², which increased to 34 CFU/25 cm² at the end of the working day. In some cases of the imprints taken at the end of the working day showed that a bacterial lawn had formed. In two cases, the pathogens Ralstonia picketii and Enterobacter cloacae were detected; in another case Bacillus spp. was identified. The contamination of ENT instruments and the ENT treatment unit increased significantly (p<0.01) over the duration of consultation hours. Conclusion: The results show that the current hygiene requirements for storage und reprocessing are not sufficient to conform to the mandatory guidelines of the German Commission on Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention. Although we could not find a pressing risk for the patients, we also cannot exclude it in the long term. Thus, new concepts are needed.
IntroductionThe central place of work for an ENT (Ear, Nose and Throat) physician is the ENT unit. This unit contains various examination instruments and medical devices for flushing and aspirating. In contrast to dental units, all clean instruments are stored uncovered in the ENT unit. Once used on a patient, instruments are placed in a separate box; they are reprocessed after usage or at the end of the day (Guideline of the German Society of Hospital Hygiene , re<![CDATA[commen</PlainText></TextGroup>dation of local health authority Frankfurt, Germany <TextLink reference="2"></TextLink>) or after one week (recommendation of Atmos<Superscript>©</Superscript>, manufacturer of ENT units). </Pgraph><Pgraph>During an ENT examination process, usually four to six different instruments are necessary. This means that the physician has to take out each clean instrument individually during the workflow. This practice may lead to contamination of clean instruments that will be used on a different patient.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Many of the medical devices used by an ENT physician during an examination are classified as either semi-critical A or semi-critical B <TextLink reference="3"></TextLink>. Medical devices are categorized as “semi-critical” if they come in contact with non-intact skin or mucosa. Category A devices can be effectively cleaned and safely reprocessed; category B devices have lumens or rough surfaces, reprocessing may affect functional use, or have a limited number of uses. Thus, category B devices have more stringent requirements for reprocessing. According to KRINKO (Commission on Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention at the Robert Koch Institute, Germany), this requires, among other things, mechanical reprocessing.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Reprocessed “semi-critical” devices have to be stored in a manner that excludes recontamination <TextLink reference="3"></TextLink>. However, this is not the case in current ENT units that use uncovered storage. Patients may cough or vomit during an examination; this is a potential risk of contamination for instruments and surfaces of the unit. This is a particular concern for patients with tracheostomy, due to an increased rate of colonization with pathogens, including multiresistant organisms <TextLink reference="4"></TextLink>. The contamination risk may also be increased due to the fact that patients with re<TextGroup><PlainText>spira</PlainText></TextGroup>tory infections are often treated by an ENT phys<TextGroup><PlainText>ician</PlainText></TextGroup>. Thus, precipitation of bacteria in aerosols from the airway is not unlikely.</Pgraph><Pgraph>To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies which analyzed the microbiological contamination of ENT medical devices; the only available data are from dental units <TextLink reference="5"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="6"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="7"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="8"></TextLink>. These and similar data contributed to changes in the workflow management for dentists: there are either standardized sets with instruments or the instruments are taken from the storage area when they are needed <TextLink reference="9"></TextLink>. This practice definitely leads to higher patient safety; however, its disadvantages are higher costs and consumption of resources.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Our study addresses the question of whether microbiological contamination in an ENT unit during a normal working day might pose a risk for patient safety. Thus, contamination must be analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.</Pgraph></TextBlock>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Methods">
<MainHeadline>Methods</MainHeadline><SubHeadline>Setting</SubHeadline><Pgraph>The study was performed in the ENT outpatient clinic of the University Hospital Essen. Each working day, approximately 70 patients are treated in five different treatment rooms. The ENT work stations are produced by Atmos<Superscript>©</Superscript> (Lenzkirch, Germany). The instruments are delivered sterilized but are not stored under sterile conditions. The reprocessing procedures are performed by the central sterile supply department of the University Hospital Essen. After use on a patient, the device is placed in a separate box for disposal. At the end of the working day, the ENT unit is cleaned completely and all residual instruments are reprocessed. The unit itself and the trays are disinfected with a surface disinfectant containing quaternary ammonium compound (Incidin plus<Superscript>©</Superscript>, Ecolab, Monheim, Germany). The next morning, the unit is restocked with sterilized instruments.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Environmental sampling</SubHeadline><Pgraph>Before the beginning of the working day in each treatment unit, 13 swabs were taken from the stored disinfected instruments (Port-A-Cul<Superscript>©</Superscript>swab) to obtain baseline data regarding contamination. Only the surfaces of the instruments which might have contact with mucosa were sampled (“semicritical instruments”); the handles of the instruments were not swabbed. Also only unused instruments were sampled. Furthermore, different parts of the worktop were swabbed (see Figure 1 <ImgLink imgNo="1" imgType="figure"/>). The swabs were analyzed for microbiological contamination, especially skin flora, oral flora, pathogens, and spore-formers. To evaluate bioburden, environmental samples were taken (RODAC<Superscript>©</Superscript> plates 25 cm<Superscript>2</Superscript>) at 6 determined sites. The samples were analyzed using standard methods at the hygiene laboratory at the University Hospital Essen <TextLink reference="10"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="11"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Statistics</SubHeadline><Pgraph>Statistical analyses were performed with EXCEL 2013 (Microsoft, USA); figures were prepared with GraphPad Prism (La Jolla, USA). A value of p<0.05 was considered significant, p<0.01 as highly significant and p<0.001 very highly significant.</Pgraph></TextBlock>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Results">
<MainHeadline>Results</MainHeadline><Pgraph>In total, 305 swabs from the instruments were taken on five different days; 117 were taken at the beginning of a working day, 188 were taken at the end of the day. Each day, three different ENT units were analyzed. At the beginning of the day, 5.9% (7 of 117) of the instruments were microbiologically contaminated. This contamination always consisted of skin flora. Analyzed in detail, it can be stated that six of these seven contaminated instruments belonged to one single working day. </Pgraph><Pgraph>At the end of the working day, 17.0% (32 of 188) of the unused instruments were contaminated with bacteria. This increase is significant (p<0.01). In most of the cases the contamination was due to skin flora; however, in 1.6% (3 of 188), the contamination was due to aerobic spore-forming bacteria. The contamination was approximately equally distributed among all investigated ENT units. Figure 2 <ImgLink imgNo="2" imgType="figure"/> shows the contamination rates on each day.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Furthermore, we performed qualitative analysis of the trays and the ENT unit itself. Besides the above mentioned finding of skin flora, we detected aerobic spore-forming bacteria and, in two cases, pathogens. On the workstation, we found <Mark2>Ralstonia picketii</Mark2> and <Mark2>Enterobacter cloacae</Mark2>. The places of detection are displayed in <TextGroup><PlainText>Figure 1 </PlainText></TextGroup><ImgLink imgNo="1" imgType="figure"/>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>For quantitative evaluation of microbial contamination, we performed imprints. In this analysis, 108 samples were taken from trays and surfaces. Of these, 54 samples were taken at the beginning and 54 at the end of the working day. At each time, 6 samples were taken at predefined points. The average contamination at the beginning of the working day was 4 CFU per 25 cm² with a median of 3 CFU/25 cm². At the end of the working day the average contamination was 34 CFU/25 cm² with a median of 29 CFU/25 cm². This increase was significant (p<0.001). Furthermore, in the morning, no sample was contaminated with more than 30 CFU/cm²; in the afternoon, this was the case in more than 22 (of 54) samples. In one case, there were more than 100 CFU/cm²; in two cases there was a bacterial lawn. The results are summarized in Figure 3 <ImgLink imgNo="3" imgType="figure"/>.</Pgraph></TextBlock>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Discussion">
<MainHeadline>Discussion</MainHeadline><Pgraph>Most of the instruments used for ENT examinations have contact with mucosa, e.g. tongue spatula, mirrors, nose spatula. According to the German guidelines for reprocessing, which are mandatory according to law <TextLink reference="12"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="13"></TextLink>, the ENT instruments must be classified as semi-critical <TextLink reference="3"></TextLink>. This designation means that these medical devices must be disinfected after use. In addition, contamination of the reprocessed instruments must be prevented, but this might be difficult to achieve. </Pgraph><Pgraph>Several studies have already dealt with hygiene in ENT facilities and reprocessing of ENT instruments <TextLink reference="14"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="15"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="16"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="17"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="18"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="19"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="20"></TextLink>. The current study is the first to evaluate contamination of ENT units or ENT instruments during a working day. </Pgraph><Pgraph>The study has shown that no pathogens or pharyngeal flora were detectable on these medical devices. As described in the methods section, the ENT unit is stocked with instruments by the nursing staff, after the equipment was sterilized by the central sterile supply department. This, of course, can lead to slight bacterial contamination despite performing hand disinfection. The instruments in the ENT unit classified as “semi-critical” were found nearly completely free of bacteria in the morning. Only in one case were 5% of the instruments already contaminated. This was found in one single ENT unit on one single day. It is possible that the nurse performed insufficient hand hygiene during stocking of the ENT unit on that day. </Pgraph><Pgraph>During the working day, the rate of contaminated unused instruments increased significantly up to 17%. In this study, only bacteria belonging to the skin flora were detected. This means that the contamination of the instruments is most likely due to the hands of the ENT physician. The physician repeatedly takes instruments from the unit during examination of the patient. Pathogens were found twice; the bacteria were <Mark2>Ralstonia pickettii</Mark2> and <Mark2>Enterobacter cloacae</Mark2>. Both pathogens are Gram-negative bacteria and known causative agents of nosocomial infections, for example, sepsis or meningitis (<Mark2>Ralstonia pickettii</Mark2>), wound infections or urinary tract infections (<Mark2>Enterobacter cloacae</Mark2>). Thus, the presence of these bacteria poses a risk to the patients. The pathogens were detected in the ENT unit. Since all cabins are used by all physicians, we suspect a general problem which is not limited to a specific person. Incorrect hand hygiene seems to be the most likely cause. Thus, it is highly probable that instruments can and will be contaminated by the hands of the physician.</Pgraph><Pgraph>When reviewing the total bacterial count, it is still difficult to evaluate the results because there are no generally accepted limits for the contamination of surfaces in hospitals. Basically, bacterial skin flora can be acceptable on semi-critical instruments, e.g., endoscopes <TextLink reference="3"></TextLink>. </Pgraph><Pgraph>In the current study, we examined instruments used on mucous membranes. Thus, we see similarities to the standard in food hygiene <TextLink reference="21"></TextLink>. In this standard, contamination of 30 CFU/25 cm² is classified as highly contaminated, which is not acceptable for a commercial kitchen. Studies which examine hand-contact surfaces (e.g., handles, switches, stethoscopes, waste bins, telephones, soft furniture and so on) in hospitals describe 65 CFU/cm² or even 125 CFU/cm² as acceptable <TextLink reference="22"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Comparing our data with the criteria of the studies mentioned above <TextLink reference="3"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="21"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="22"></TextLink>, it is clear that at the beginning of the working day all surfaces (instruments and trays) fulfill the criteria. At the end of the working day, half of the trays were contaminated at a higher level. In a commercial kitchen, this level would not be acceptable <TextLink reference="21"></TextLink>. In some cases, contamination was even higher than one would accept for hand-contact surfaces in hospitals. In our opinion, higher standards for semi-critical instruments should be applied than for hand-contact surfaces, because a higher microbial burden may increase the risk of exposure to pathogens.</Pgraph><Pgraph>In principle, this contamination could be avoided with correct hand hygiene. The work flow during an ENT examination has to be interrupted by hand hygiene every time after touching the patient. The physician should perform hand disinfection for 15 seconds before taking an instrument from the clean tray <TextLink reference="23"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="24"></TextLink>. A problem is that no disinfectant dispensers from the manufacturer are provided in the treatment units. In addition, there is often not enough space to set up a pump dispenser. However, using a wall dispenser will lead to additional disruptions of the workflow, which might promote noncompliance with hygienic hand disinfection.</Pgraph><Pgraph>With regard to the requirements in the dental field, the question arises whether it may be necessary to transfer these to ENT. We estimate the risk of infection in the field of dentistry to be significantly higher for two reasons: </Pgraph><Pgraph><OrderedList><ListItem level="1" levelPosition="1" numString="1.">Dental procedures are often associated with injuries of the mucous membranes and bleeding, which is usually not the case in the ENT examination; </ListItem><ListItem level="1" levelPosition="2" numString="2.">The contamination risk in the dental sector is significantly increased, as the treatments are often associated with the formation of aerosols <TextLink reference="5"></TextLink>.</ListItem></OrderedList></Pgraph><Pgraph>Our study has some limitations. First, we only took samples from small surfaces. The swabbed surface from an instrument is very small, only a few cm² which may lead to a sampling error. This may be the reason why we did not find major contamination on instruments. Furthermore, we did not analyze for viruses, although viruses causing upper respiratory infections remain infectious on surfaces (e.g., about 24 hours for rhinoviruses ) <TextLink reference="25"></TextLink>. Taking into consideration that patients with respiratory infections are common in ENT outpatient clinics, there is a potential risk of a viral infection due to the open storage.</Pgraph><Pgraph>In our study, the instruments were reprocessed at the latest at the end of the day and the surfaces were disinfected. This is also recommended by the German Society for Hospital Hygiene <TextLink reference="1"></TextLink>. However, in many units, it is common to use instruments for seven days before reprocessing. This procedure is not acceptable, as shown by our data. Furthermore, the replacement of instruments every 24 hours is associated with risks. Thus, we conclude that the mandatory guidelines of the Commission of Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany (KRINKO) and the Medical Devices Act for semi-critical medical devices are not being followed. It should be noted that every patient has to be examined with properly reprocessed instruments. Although no acute risk to patients were found in this study, we cannot rule it out in the long term. Thus, new concepts are needed. </Pgraph></TextBlock>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Notes">
<MainHeadline>Notes</MainHeadline><SubHeadline>Competing interests</SubHeadline><Pgraph>The authors declare that they have no competing interests.</Pgraph></TextBlock>
<References linked="yes">
<Reference refNo="1">
<RefAuthor>AG Praxishygiene der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Krankenhaushygiene</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Hygienische Aspekte in der Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Praxis: Leitfaden zu Organisation und Hygienemanagementin der Arztpraxis (Struktur- und Prozessqualität)</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2016</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Hyg Med</RefJournal>
<RefPage>66–80</RefPage>
<RefTotal>AG Praxishygiene der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Krankenhaushygiene. Hygienische Aspekte in der Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Praxis: Leitfaden zu Organisation und Hygienemanagementin der Arztpraxis (Struktur- und Prozessqualität). Hyg Med. 2016; 2016(41):66–80.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="2">
<RefAuthor>Jager E</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Heudorf U</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Hygiene in der Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde: Anforderungen und Beobachtungen</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2015</RefYear>
<RefJournal>HNO</RefJournal>
<RefPage>831-40</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Jager E, Heudorf U. Hygiene in der Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde: Anforderungen und Beobachtungen [Hygiene in otorhinolaryngology: Requirements and reality]. HNO. 2015 Dec;63(12):831-40. DOI: 10.1007/s00106-015-0063-0</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00106-015-0063-0</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="3">
<RefAuthor>Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO)</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor> Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM)</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Anforderungen an die Hygiene bei der Aufbereitung von Medizinprodukten. Empfehlung der Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention (KRINKO) beim Robert Koch-Institut (RKI) und des Bundesinstitutes für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM)</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2012</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz</RefJournal>
<RefPage>1244-310</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO); Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). Anforderungen an die Hygiene bei der Aufbereitung von Medizinprodukten. Empfehlung der Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention (KRINKO) beim Robert Koch-Institut (RKI) und des Bundesinstitutes für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM) [Hygiene requirements for the reprocessing of medical devices. Recommendation of the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM)]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2012 Oct;55(10):1244-310. DOI: 10.1007/s00103-012-1548-6</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00103-012-1548-6</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="4">
<RefAuthor>Gleich S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Fulle W</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Linner M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Perugia S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Heimstädt V</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Kaser M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Eckert H</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Motz C</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Hygienemanagement in der außerklinischen Intensivpflege – Anforderungen an Struktur- und Prozessqualität.</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2009</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Hyg Med</RefJournal>
<RefPage>443–53</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Gleich S, Fulle W, Linner M, Perugia S, Heimstädt V, Kaser M, Eckert H, Motz C. Hygienemanagement in der außerklinischen Intensivpflege – Anforderungen an Struktur- und Prozessqualität. [Infection control regimens in ambulatory intensive care settings – demands on structural and process quality]. Hyg Med. 2009;34(11):443–53. Available from: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Krankenhaushygiene/ThemenAZ/H/Artikel_Heime.pdf?__blob=publicationFile</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Krankenhaushygiene/ThemenAZ/H/Artikel_Heime.pdf?__blob=publicationFile</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="5">
<RefAuthor>Rautemaa R</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Nordberg A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Wuolijoki-Saaristo K</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Meurman JH</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Bacterial aerosols in dental practice - a potential hospital infection problem?</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2006</RefYear>
<RefJournal>J Hosp Infect</RefJournal>
<RefPage>76-81</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Rautemaa R, Nordberg A, Wuolijoki-Saaristo K, Meurman JH. Bacterial aerosols in dental practice - a potential hospital infection problem? J Hosp Infect. 2006 Sep;64(1):76-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2006.04.011</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2006.04.011</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="6">
<RefAuthor>Williams HN</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Singh R</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Romberg E</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Surface contamination in the dental operatory: a comparison over two decades</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2003</RefYear>
<RefJournal>J Am Dent Assoc</RefJournal>
<RefPage>325-30; quiz 339</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Williams HN, Singh R, Romberg E. Surface contamination in the dental operatory: a comparison over two decades. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003 Mar;134(3):325-30; quiz 339. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0161</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0161</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="7">
<RefAuthor>Esfahani M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Sharifi M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Tofangchiha M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Salehi P</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Gosili A</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Bacterial contamination of dental units before and after disinfection</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2017</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Scholars J Dental Sci</RefJournal>
<RefPage>206–10</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Esfahani M, Sharifi M, Tofangchiha M, Salehi P, Gosili A. Bacterial contamination of dental units before and after disinfection. Scholars J Dental Sci. 2017;4:206–10.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="8">
<RefAuthor>Umar D</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Basheer B</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Husain A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Baroudi K</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Ahamed F</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Kumar A</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Evaluation of bacterial contamination in a clinical environment</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2015</RefYear>
<RefJournal>J Int Oral Health</RefJournal>
<RefPage>53-5</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Umar D, Basheer B, Husain A, Baroudi K, Ahamed F, Kumar A. Evaluation of bacterial contamination in a clinical environment. J Int Oral Health. 2015 Jan;7(1):53-5.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="9">
<RefAuthor>Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Infektionsprävention in der Zahnheilkunde - Anforderungen an die Hygiene. Mitteilung der Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention beim Robert Koch-Institut</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2006</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Bundesgesundheitsbl</RefJournal>
<RefPage>375–94</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention. Infektionsprävention in der Zahnheilkunde - Anforderungen an die Hygiene. Mitteilung der Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention beim Robert Koch-Institut. Bundesgesundheitsbl. 2006; 49(4):375–94. DOI: 10.1007/s00103-005-1219-y</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00103-005-1219-y</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="10">
<RefAuthor>Trautmann M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Christiansen B</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Häfner H</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Lemmen SW</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Martiny H</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Okpara-Hofmann J</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Krankenhaushygienische Untersuchungen: Teil I</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2018</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>MiQ: Qualitätsstandards in der mikrobiologisch-infektiologischen Diagnostik – Grundwerk Heft 1-35c zur Fortsetzung</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Trautmann M, Christiansen B, Häfner H, Lemmen SW, Martiny H, Okpara-Hofmann J et al. Krankenhaushygienische Untersuchungen: Teil I. In: Podbielski A, Herrmann M, Kniehl E, Mauch H, Rüssmann H, editors. MiQ: Qualitätsstandards in der mikrobiologisch-infektiologischen Diagnostik – Grundwerk Heft 1-35c zur Fortsetzung. München: Urban & Fischer, Elsevier; 2018.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="11">
<RefAuthor>Trautmann M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Christiansen B</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Häfner H</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Lemmen SW</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Martiny H</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Okpara-Hofmann J</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Krankenhaushygienische Untersuchungen: Teil II, Heft 23</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2018</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>MiQ: Qualitätsstandards in der mikrobiologisch-infektiologischen Diagnostik – Grundwerk Heft 1-35c zur Fortsetzung</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Trautmann M, Christiansen B, Häfner H, Lemmen SW, Martiny H, Okpara-Hofmann J et al. Krankenhaushygienische Untersuchungen: Teil II, Heft 23. In: Podbielski A, Herrmann M, Kniehl E, Mauch H, Rüssmann H, editors. MiQ: Qualitätsstandards in der mikrobiologisch-infektiologischen Diagnostik – Grundwerk Heft 1-35c zur Fortsetzung. München: Urban & Fischer, Elsevier; 2018.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="12">
<RefAuthor>Anonym</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear></RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Verordnung über das Errichten, Betreiben und Anwenden von Medizinprodukten (Medizinprodukte-Betreiberverordnung - MPBetreibV). Medizinprodukte-Betreiberverordnung in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 21. August 2002 (BGBl. I S. 3396), zuletzt durch Art. 9 der Verordnung vom 29. 11. 2018 (BGBl. I S. 2034) geändert</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Verordnung über das Errichten, Betreiben und Anwenden von Medizinprodukten (Medizinprodukte-Betreiberverordnung - MPBetreibV). Medizinprodukte-Betreiberverordnung in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 21. August 2002 (BGBl. I S. 3396), zuletzt durch Art. 9 der Verordnung vom 29. 11. 2018 (BGBl. I S. 2034) geändert.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="13">
<RefAuthor>Anonym</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear></RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Gesetz zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung von Infektionskrankheiten beim Menschen. (Infektionsschutzgesetz - IfSG). Infektionsschutzgesetz vom 20.7.2000; BGBl I S. 1045, zuletzt durch Art. 6 des Gesetzes vom 11. 12. 2018 (BGBl. I S. 2394) geändert</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Gesetz zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung von Infektionskrankheiten beim Menschen. (Infektionsschutzgesetz - IfSG). Infektionsschutzgesetz vom 20.7.2000; BGBl I S. 1045, zuletzt durch Art. 6 des Gesetzes vom 11. 12. 2018 (BGBl. I S. 2394) geändert. Available from: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ifsg/IfSG.pdf</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ifsg/IfSG.pdf</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="14">
<RefAuthor>Knothe J</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Wichmann G</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Mosig A</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Beitrag zum Asepsisproblem am Arbeitsplatz des HNO-Arztes</RefTitle>
<RefYear>1989</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Laryngorhinootologie</RefJournal>
<RefPage>160-2</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Knothe J, Wichmann G, Mosig A. Beitrag zum Asepsisproblem am Arbeitsplatz des HNO-Arztes [The asepsis problem at the office of the ENT physician]. Laryngorhinootologie. 1989 Mar;68(3):160-2. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-998309</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-998309</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="15">
<RefAuthor>Geiss HK</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Hörmann K</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Hygiene in der HNO Was ist nötig, was ist möglich ?</RefTitle>
<RefYear>1998</RefYear>
<RefJournal>HNO</RefJournal>
<RefPage>695-8</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Geiss HK, Hörmann K. Hygiene in der HNO Was ist nötig, was ist möglich ? [Hygiene in ENT. What is necessary, what is possible?]. HNO. 1998 Jul;46(7):695-8. DOI: 10.1007/s001060050298</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001060050298</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="16">
<RefAuthor>Ebner W</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Laszig R</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Hauer TH</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Rüden H</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Daschner F</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Sinnvolle und nicht sinnvolle Hygienemassnahmen</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2000</RefYear>
<RefJournal>HNO</RefJournal>
<RefPage>693-9</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Ebner W, Laszig R, Hauer TH, Rüden H, Daschner F. Sinnvolle und nicht sinnvolle Hygienemassnahmen [Effective and ineffective disinfection measures]. HNO. 2000 Sep;48(9):693-9. DOI: 10.1007/s001060050641</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001060050641</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="17">
<RefAuthor>Hörmann K</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Hirth K</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Stasche N</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Plinkert PK</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Heeg P</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Geiss HK</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Pilotstudie zur hygienischen Aufbereitung optischer Instrumente in der Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2000</RefYear>
<RefJournal>HNO</RefJournal>
<RefPage>645-9</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Hörmann K, Hirth K, Stasche N, Plinkert PK, Heeg P, Geiss HK. Pilotstudie zur hygienischen Aufbereitung optischer Instrumente in der Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde [Pilot study of disinfection of optical instruments in otorhinolaryngology]. HNO. 2000 Sep;48(9):645-9. DOI: 10.1007/s001060050633</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001060050633</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="18">
<RefAuthor>Amin-Sharifi DA</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Ebner W</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Daschner F</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Frank U</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Reduktion der Keimbelastung in HNO-Behandlungseinheiten durch Membranfilter</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2000</RefYear>
<RefJournal>HNO</RefJournal>
<RefPage>54-8</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Amin-Sharifi DA, Ebner W, Daschner F, Frank U. Reduktion der Keimbelastung in HNO-Behandlungseinheiten durch Membranfilter [Reduction in germ load in ENT treatment units by means of membrane filter]. HNO. 2000 Jan;48(1):54-8. DOI: 10.1007/s001060050011</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001060050011</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="19">
<RefAuthor>Goessler UR</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>von Dömming C</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Schmidt H</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Hörmann K</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Stasche N</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Erfahrungen in der hygienischen Aufbereitung starrer optischer Instrumente mit Reinigungs-Desinfektions-Geräten in Bezug auf Praktikabilität im klinischen Alltag</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2007</RefYear>
<RefJournal>HNO</RefJournal>
<RefPage>E23-8</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Goessler UR, von Dömming C, Schmidt H, Hörmann K, Stasche N. Erfahrungen in der hygienischen Aufbereitung starrer optischer Instrumente mit Reinigungs-Desinfektions-Geräten in Bezug auf Praktikabilität im klinischen Alltag [Clinical experience with the hygienic reprocessing of rigid endoscopes lacking a working channel with reference to practicability in clinical routine]. HNO. 2007 May;55 Suppl 1:E23-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00106-006-1493-5</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00106-006-1493-5</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="20">
<RefAuthor>Rohrmeier C</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Strutz J</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Schneider-Brachert W</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Desinfektion und Rekontamination starrer Endoskope: Mehr Sicherheit durch ein Tauchköchersystem</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2014</RefYear>
<RefJournal>HNO</RefJournal>
<RefPage>746-51</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Rohrmeier C, Strutz J, Schneider-Brachert W. Desinfektion und Rekontamination starrer Endoskope: Mehr Sicherheit durch ein Tauchköchersystem [Disinfection and recontamination of rigid endoscopes: improved safety using an immersion quiver system]. HNO. 2014 Oct;62(10):746-51. DOI: 10.1007/s00106-014-2873-x</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00106-014-2873-x</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="21">
<RefAuthor>DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear>1997</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Bestimmung des Oberflächenkeimgehaltes auf Einrichtungs- und Bedarfsgegenständen im Lebensmittelbereich - Teil 3. Semiquantitatives Verfahren mit nährbodenbeschichteten Entnahmevorrichtungen (Abklatschverfahren)</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. Bestimmung des Oberflächenkeimgehaltes auf Einrichtungs- und Bedarfsgegenständen im Lebensmittelbereich - Teil 3: Semiquantitatives Verfahren mit nährbodenbeschichteten Entnahmevorrichtungen (Abklatschverfahren). Hamburg: Beuth; 1997.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="22">
<RefAuthor>Dancer SJ</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>How do we assess hospital cleaning? A proposal for microbiological standards for surface hygiene in hospitals</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2004</RefYear>
<RefJournal>J Hosp Infect</RefJournal>
<RefPage>10-5</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Dancer SJ. How do we assess hospital cleaning? A proposal for microbiological standards for surface hygiene in hospitals. J Hosp Infect. 2004 Jan;56(1):10-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2003.09.017</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2003.09.017</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="23">
<RefAuthor>Kramer A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Pittet D</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Klasinc R</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Krebs S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Koburger T</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Fusch C</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Assadian O</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Shortening the Application Time of Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs to 15 Seconds May Improve the Frequency of Hand Antisepsis Actions in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2017</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>1430-4</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Kramer A, Pittet D, Klasinc R, Krebs S, Koburger T, Fusch C, Assadian O. Shortening the Application Time of Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs to 15 Seconds May Improve the Frequency of Hand Antisepsis Actions in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017 12;38(12):1430-4. DOI: 10.1017/ice.2017.217</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ice.2017.217</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="24">
<RefAuthor>Paula H</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Becker R</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Assadian O</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Heidecke CD</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Kramer A</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Wettability of hands during 15-second and 30-second handrub time intervals: A prospective, randomized crossover study</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2018</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Am J Infect Control</RefJournal>
<RefPage>1032-5</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Paula H, Becker R, Assadian O, Heidecke CD, Kramer A. Wettability of hands during 15-second and 30-second handrub time intervals: A prospective, randomized crossover study. Am J Infect Control. 2018 Sep;46(9):1032-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2018.02.015</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.02.015</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="25">
<RefAuthor>Winther B</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>McCue K</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Ashe K</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Rubino J</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Hendley JO</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Rhinovirus contamination of surfaces in homes of adults with natural colds: transfer of virus to fingertips during normal daily activities</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2011</RefYear>
<RefJournal>J Med Virol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>906-9</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Winther B, McCue K, Ashe K, Rubino J, Hendley JO. Rhinovirus contamination of surfaces in homes of adults with natural colds: transfer of virus to fingertips during normal daily activities. J Med Virol. 2011 May;83(5):906-9. DOI: 10.1002/jmv.22027</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmv.22027</RefLink>
</Reference>
</References>
<Media>
<Tables>
<NoOfTables>0</NoOfTables>
</Tables>
<Figures>
<Figure format="png" height="482" width="641">
<MediaNo>1</MediaNo>
<MediaID>1</MediaID>
<Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Figure 1: Cumulative representation of bacterial contamination as well as its detection sites on the ENT unit</Mark1><LineBreak></LineBreak>(three examples of increased total bacterial count are displayed with yellow stars)</Pgraph></Caption>
</Figure>
<Figure format="png" height="270" width="526">
<MediaNo>2</MediaNo>
<MediaID>2</MediaID>
<Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Figure 2: Rate of contaminated instruments before the beginning and at the end of a working day for five consecutive days</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption>
</Figure>
<Figure format="png" height="257" width="526">
<MediaNo>3</MediaNo>
<MediaID>3</MediaID>
<Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Figure 3: Average contamination (CFU/25 cm</Mark1><Mark1><Superscript>2</Superscript></Mark1><Mark1>) and total CFU on trays used for instruments (increase p<0.001)</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption>
</Figure>
<NoOfPictures>3</NoOfPictures>
</Figures>
<InlineFigures>
<NoOfPictures>0</NoOfPictures>
</InlineFigures>
<Attachments>
<NoOfAttachments>0</NoOfAttachments>
</Attachments>
</Media>
</OrigData>
</GmsArticle>]]></plaintext></textgroup></pgraph></textblock></origdata></gmsarticle>