No content results match your keyword.
Content
You have successfully logged out.
Not registered yet?
No content results match your keyword.
Content
No product results match your keyword.
Products
Surgical Asset Management
Daily challenges in the CSSD
Resources and infrastructure for management of sterile goods can be challenging, which can have an impact the provision of surgical sets. CSSD staff understand the impact their work has on schedules and patient safety; having the right systems and processes can help avoid inefficient and time-consuming infrastructures and support hospitals in adapting to meet new requirements.
On average, only 18% of instruments on sets are in good condition for use. The remainder need either replacing (33%), repairing (31%) or require surface treatment (18%) [6].
Hospitals require an efficient, quality-assured service to enable broken instruments to be repaired promptly and to high standards however, the funding, contracting and organisation of routine repairs can be missing or incomplete. This can lead to varying response times making planning very difficult, or the use of service providers who are unable to provide a high quality repair and maintain the performance of the instrument.
With standardised packing lists overloading and the placing of wrong instruments on sets is avoided.
Provide the right set, at the right place, at the right time and in the right condition?
What could make the difference in your CSSD?
[1] Stockert EW, Langerman A. Assessing the magnitude and costs of intraoperative inefficiencies attributable to surgical instrument trays. J Am Coll Surg 2014;219(4):646-55.
[2] Paula JRdA, Silva RdCRd, Vedovato CA, et al. Instrumentais nas caixas cirúrgicas: avaliação de custo. Rev. Sobecc 2015;20(2):73-80.
[3] Guido Wismer, T.Z. (2013) Handbuch Sterilisation Von der Reinigung bis zur Bereitstellung von Medizinprodukten. Wiesbaden: mhp-Verlag GmbH
[4] Jelks, M.L. An overview of lean transformation in sterile processing. HEALTHCARE Purchasing News 2017:28-31
[5] Jeffreys B (2008). NHS ‘chaos’ over surgical tools. BBC, 24 April 2008.
[6] ABHI (June 2020), Quality, Safety and Value: The role of Surgical Instruments.
[7] Lunardini D, Arington R, Canacari EG, et al. Lean principles to optimize instrument utilization for spine surgery in an academic medical center: an opportunity to standardize, cut costs, and build a culture of improvement. Spine 2014;39(20):1714-17.
[8] Waked WR, Simpson AK, Miller CP, et al. Sterilization wrap inspections do not adequately evaluate instrument sterility. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;462:207-11.
[9] Aesculap. Data on file.
[9a] Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells Trust, FOI, 2019.
https://www.mtw.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Decontamination-and-sterilisation-service.-300719.pdf#:~:text=It%20can%20also%20vary%20depending%20on%20quantity%20required,anywhere%20between%20%C2%A32500-%C2%A35000%20or%20more%20for%20specialist%20surgery
[10] Aesculap Sterile Technologies, Real time Event Related 360-day Shelf Life Study: STERILCONTAINER system with PrimeLine Lid, DOC570 Rev. B 3M 9/06.
[11] Aesculap, Sterilization Validation Study, One year Shelf-Life of the STERILCONATINERTM system with BASIC Lid, DOC 173 REV 5M 1/02.
[11a] Aesculap Aicon Sterile Container System Test Results - Sterilization Performance. D-ST19061, 0720.
[12] Junghanß U., Winterfeld S., Gabele L., Kulow U., Hygienisch-mikrobiologische und technische Überprüfung von Sterilisier-Containersystemen, Zentralsterilisation 1999, 7 (3):154-162.