Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bucx, M. J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Harrison, T. E. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bucx, M. J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Harrison, T. E. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2001, Vol. 86, No. 1 99-102
© 2001 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Decontamination of laryngoscopes in The Netherlands

M. J. L. Bucx1, J. Dankert2, M. M. Beenhakker1 and T. E. J. Harrison1

Departments of 1Anaesthesia and 2Medical Microbiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands*Corresponding author

In this study the decontamination procedures of laryngoscopes in Dutch hospitals are described, based on a structured telephone questionnaire. There were substantial differences between decontamination procedures in Dutch hospitals and the standards of the APIC (Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology), CDC (Centers of Disease Control) and ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) were met in full in 19.4% of the hospitals. The standards of manual decontamination, used in 78% of the 139 hospitals, were particularly disappointing; manual cleaning was considered inadequate in 22.9% of these hospitals and manual disinfection did not meet the standards of the APIC, CDC or ASA in any of these hospitals. Decontamination by instrument cleaning machines as a standard procedure was used in 30 (22%) hospitals. In three of these hospitals the blades were subsequently sterilized. We suggest adherence to the infection control guidelines of the CDC, APIC and ASA, until the safety of less conservative infection control practices are demonstrated.

Br J Anaesth 2001; 86: 99–102


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.