5 8 S U P P L E M E N T T O O U T P A T I E N T S U R G E R Y M A G A Z I N E M A Y 2 0 1 6
says. As for aerobic colony counts, they're "relatively simple to perform and
can detect the presence of pathogens, but are more expensive and results
aren't available for 48 hours." ATP bioluminescence assay systems can "pro-
vide a quantitative measure of cleanliness, provide quick results and can
improve cleaning practices, but are more expensive and require special equip-
ment." Fluorescent marker tests are inexpensive, don't require much in the
way of equipment and can improve cleaning practices, but they're labor inten-
sive. "You must mark surfaces before cleaning and check them after cleaning,"
says Ms. Havill.
Whole-room solutions
Given that recent research has raised concerning questions about how clean a
disinfected surface truly is, the tests mentioned earlier deliver only a random-
ly sampled spot-check and don't provide a reassuring overall view of between-
case room turnovers or even terminal cleanings.
"Depending on the pathogens and surface materials, a room that is consid-
ered disinfected may see microbes rebound to pre-cleaning levels a few hours
later," says Ms. Lybert. "There might not even be an opportunity to notice this,
since 2 hours later there will be another patient on the table."
This quandary neatly highlights the benefits of whole-room disinfection
technologies. These portable, automated units employ ultraviolet light or
hydrogen peroxide in various forms to reach and disinfect more surfaces,
more intensely, than your staff's hands can.
While they require more time to complete the job than is regularly available
between cases, infection prevention experts recommend them as solid additions
to surface disinfection efforts. "Their no-touch processes offer a huge step for-
ward over manual terminal cleaning efforts by minimizing human error and
omissions," says Ms. Lybert.
OSM
