Assessment of endoscope reprocessing using peer-to-peer assessment through a clinical community

Jonathan Teter, Michael E. Zenilman, Patricia Wachter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization (CDS) of medical devices are intended to help prevent health care-associated infections (HAIs), a significant cause of mortality and morbidity. In February 2013 the Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS; Baltimore) formed a clinical community of experts and stakeholders - physicians, nurses, administrators, infection control practitioners, risk managers, and regulatory staff - to assess CDS practices across facilities. Methods: A survey administered to leadership indicated endoscopy areas of risk. An endoscopy tracer tool with eight major performance areas was then created from best practices identified in the literature, regulatory requirements, and national guidelines for endoscope reprocessing. Peer-to-peer (P2P) assessments using the tracer tool were performed at five Johns Hopkins Medicine gastrointestinal endoscopy sites (three hospital-based; two freestanding ambulatory surgery centers) selected on the basis of their large procedural volumes and their operational ability to participate in further areas of the project. Results: The P2P assessments revealed that 20 (42%) of the 48 possible criteria had a noted deficiency at one or more sites. Three of the eight major performance areas on the tracer tool had no deficiencies identified at any of the five sites. Deficiencies were mostly minor process improvements, and only one critical process required immediate alteration of practice. Because the assessments were nonpunitive, horizontal communication enabled feedback on process improvements, alternate methods to achieve outcomes, and solutions to common issues. Conclusions: A nonpunitive and collaborative peer methodology was successful in capturing and sharing best practices in endoscopy areas. Successful replication in other clinical areas can be an effective way to assess CDS processes and facilitate dialogue for improvements.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)265-270
Number of pages6
JournalJoint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety
Volume42
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - Jun 1 2016

    Fingerprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Leadership and Management

Cite this