ising and may be a very effective approach, there are drawbacks. It's
been validated for only a few flexible scopes and it can process only
one scope at a time with what turns out to be a fairly long cycle time.
• Low-temperature sterilization. This may also be a viable alterna-
tive for heat-sensitive instruments and scopes, but some units are limit-
ed in terms of the length and diameter of channels they can handle.
• Automated endoscope reprocessors. Some of the newer AERs
claim they can either augment or eliminate steps in the manual clean-
ing process. Be sure you use the appropriate connectors for the spe-
cific scope model, load the machine correctly, don't overload and fol-
low all other instructions.
The most important tool
Manufacturers may try to reduce the human factor — some, in fact,
claim to have eliminated it — but the entire process is still very
human-dependent. You need to pre-clean, scrub and flush; you need
to carefully follow instructions; and you need to use equipment the
way it's designed to be used.
In fact, people are the most important tool of all. Having managed
sterile processing departments, and having had the opportunity to do
consulting work at many hospitals over the years, I've found sterile
processing techs to be very dedicated and very capable — as long as
you give them the tools, the inventory, the training, the support and
the patience they need to do the job.
Along with the complexity of the instruments, the big challenge they
face is pressure to hurry up, move a little faster and get it done
already. In fast-paced, demanding environments, there's a real danger,
because when sterile processing departments are pushed and nagged
and urged to reprocess more quickly than they should, they're tempt-
ed to take shortcuts. The phenomenon is especially prevalent in facili-
7 2 • O U T PA T I E N T S U R G E R Y M A G A Z I N E • A U G U S T 2 0 1 6
