Patient safety and reprocessing: A usability test of the endoscope reprocessing procedure

Jonathan D. Jolly, Emily A. Hildebrand, Russell Branaghan, T. B. Garland, Dana Epstein, Judith Babcock-Parziale, Victoria Brown

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

When endoscopes are reprocessed correctly, endoscopy is a safe procedure. Recent incidents of insufficient reprocessing, however, have resulted in public concern. Results of a usability test of the reprocessing procedure identified that none of 24 users, naïve to the procedure, could reprocess endoscopes correctly, nor could they correctly complete any of the component tasks in the procedure. Five of the 76 subtasks were identified as particularly critical. These were 1) brushing the instrument channel, 2) attaching the channel plug and injection tube, 3) identifying leaks, 4) blowing water out of the endoscope's internal channels during high-level disinfection, and 5) aspirating solution through the endoscope to remove debris loosened by brushing. Additionally, three themes were identified as causes of the majority of problems: 1) lack of visibility, 2) high memory demands, and 3) insufficient user feedback. Design recommendations for these problems are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalHuman Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing
Volume19
Issue number6
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2012

Fingerprint

reprocessing
Endoscopy
Disinfection
incident
Blow molding
Debris
Visibility
water
cause
lack
Feedback
Data storage equipment
Water

Keywords

  • Endoscope
  • Patient safety
  • Reprocessing
  • Reusable medical equipment
  • Usability test

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Human Factors and Ergonomics
  • Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

Cite this

Patient safety and reprocessing : A usability test of the endoscope reprocessing procedure. / Jolly, Jonathan D.; Hildebrand, Emily A.; Branaghan, Russell; Garland, T. B.; Epstein, Dana; Babcock-Parziale, Judith; Brown, Victoria.

In: Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jolly, Jonathan D. ; Hildebrand, Emily A. ; Branaghan, Russell ; Garland, T. B. ; Epstein, Dana ; Babcock-Parziale, Judith ; Brown, Victoria. / Patient safety and reprocessing : A usability test of the endoscope reprocessing procedure. In: Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing. 2012 ; Vol. 19, No. 6.
@article{25d0e21ed0cf458e91d1bf0f0d5e1270,
title = "Patient safety and reprocessing: A usability test of the endoscope reprocessing procedure",
abstract = "When endoscopes are reprocessed correctly, endoscopy is a safe procedure. Recent incidents of insufficient reprocessing, however, have resulted in public concern. Results of a usability test of the reprocessing procedure identified that none of 24 users, na{\"i}ve to the procedure, could reprocess endoscopes correctly, nor could they correctly complete any of the component tasks in the procedure. Five of the 76 subtasks were identified as particularly critical. These were 1) brushing the instrument channel, 2) attaching the channel plug and injection tube, 3) identifying leaks, 4) blowing water out of the endoscope's internal channels during high-level disinfection, and 5) aspirating solution through the endoscope to remove debris loosened by brushing. Additionally, three themes were identified as causes of the majority of problems: 1) lack of visibility, 2) high memory demands, and 3) insufficient user feedback. Design recommendations for these problems are discussed.",
keywords = "Endoscope, Patient safety, Reprocessing, Reusable medical equipment, Usability test",
author = "Jolly, {Jonathan D.} and Hildebrand, {Emily A.} and Russell Branaghan and Garland, {T. B.} and Dana Epstein and Judith Babcock-Parziale and Victoria Brown",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1002/hfm.20386",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
journal = "Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing",
issn = "1090-8471",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient safety and reprocessing

T2 - A usability test of the endoscope reprocessing procedure

AU - Jolly, Jonathan D.

AU - Hildebrand, Emily A.

AU - Branaghan, Russell

AU - Garland, T. B.

AU - Epstein, Dana

AU - Babcock-Parziale, Judith

AU - Brown, Victoria

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - When endoscopes are reprocessed correctly, endoscopy is a safe procedure. Recent incidents of insufficient reprocessing, however, have resulted in public concern. Results of a usability test of the reprocessing procedure identified that none of 24 users, naïve to the procedure, could reprocess endoscopes correctly, nor could they correctly complete any of the component tasks in the procedure. Five of the 76 subtasks were identified as particularly critical. These were 1) brushing the instrument channel, 2) attaching the channel plug and injection tube, 3) identifying leaks, 4) blowing water out of the endoscope's internal channels during high-level disinfection, and 5) aspirating solution through the endoscope to remove debris loosened by brushing. Additionally, three themes were identified as causes of the majority of problems: 1) lack of visibility, 2) high memory demands, and 3) insufficient user feedback. Design recommendations for these problems are discussed.

AB - When endoscopes are reprocessed correctly, endoscopy is a safe procedure. Recent incidents of insufficient reprocessing, however, have resulted in public concern. Results of a usability test of the reprocessing procedure identified that none of 24 users, naïve to the procedure, could reprocess endoscopes correctly, nor could they correctly complete any of the component tasks in the procedure. Five of the 76 subtasks were identified as particularly critical. These were 1) brushing the instrument channel, 2) attaching the channel plug and injection tube, 3) identifying leaks, 4) blowing water out of the endoscope's internal channels during high-level disinfection, and 5) aspirating solution through the endoscope to remove debris loosened by brushing. Additionally, three themes were identified as causes of the majority of problems: 1) lack of visibility, 2) high memory demands, and 3) insufficient user feedback. Design recommendations for these problems are discussed.

KW - Endoscope

KW - Patient safety

KW - Reprocessing

KW - Reusable medical equipment

KW - Usability test

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859933588&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859933588&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/hfm.20386

DO - 10.1002/hfm.20386

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84859933588

VL - 19

JO - Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing

JF - Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing

SN - 1090-8471

IS - 6

ER -