the reprocessing techs, microbial growth was detected in 12 of the 20
scopes, including 7 in the intervention group. It's worth noting that the
microbial growth didn't always appear immediately. In fact, if the sam-
ples taken from the scopes had been incubated for only 48 hours,
instead of 5 to 7 days, 4 positive readings and 2 potential pathogens
would have been missed. A third of the contaminated scopes showed
nothing until after 48 hours, and the potential pathogens
(Corynebacterium spp and Methylobacterium extorquens) didn't
appear until day 5 or 6.
• Bacteria presence. Additionally, and somewhat surprisingly, 5 of
the 6 gastroscopes tested not only showed bacterial presence, they
also generally had much higher bacteria counts than the colono-
scopes. Who would guess that you can treat a colonoscope and gas-
troscope exactly the same way and end up with a clean colonoscope
and a dirty gastroscope?
Add to that the fact that even the more rigorous reprocessing rou-
tine applied to the intervention group failed to make much of a differ-
ence, and it's clear that peace of mind can only be achieved through
visual inspection and routine monitoring for biochemical markers of
residual contamination.
• Visible irregularities. All 20 scopes had fluid, discoloration and
debris in their channels, and 17 of the 20 showed enough damage that
they had to be sent out for repair. Among the defects found by the
manufacturer were failed leak tests, chipped or cracked lenses and
insulation damage. It's clear that regularly used scopes take a beating,
and it's important to recognize that damaged scopes are more likely to
harbor organic debris and biofilm.
The findings underscore the importance of preventive maintenance
and regular assessments to determine the integrity of scopes, and the
need to have them repaired or refurbished when they're damaged. It's
M A y 2 0 1 8 • O U T PA T I E N TS U R G E R Y. N E T • 1 9
