Contaminated Medical Device

[Villages PL]

A contaminated medical device is thought to be the cause of two deaths in LA.

Seven people were infected and two died. They were infected by antibiotic resistant bacteria in a Los Angeles hospital. This was from endoscopic procedures, but could just as well have been from colonoscopies I suppose.

Disinfecting procedures didn't work.

Going to the hospital is getting more and more dangerous.

This was in today's Daily Sun. (02-20-15)

[dbussone]

Wrong! The disinfecting procedures were not followed properly. There is a difference and it is important.

[zcaveman]

Wrong! The disinfecting procedures were not followed properly. There is a difference and it is important.

Doesn't make it any safer. Now I have to worry about someone taking shortcuts disinfecting medical tools.

Z

[dbussone]

Doesn't make it any safer. Now I have to worry about someone taking shortcuts disinfecting medical tools.

Z


It makes it correctable. That makes it safer.

[billethkid]

Sounds like an opportunity for non re-useable products....like so many other things are these days. A legitimate cause for health care cost increase....for a change.

[dbussone]

Sounds like an opportunity for non re-useable products....like so many other things are these days. A legitimate cause for health care cost increase....for a change.


Good thought, but the expense would be astronomical. Endoscopes and associated equipment run north of $50k per scope.

[billethkid]

Good thought, but the expense would be astronomical. Endoscopes and associated equipment run north of $50k per scope.

I envision that only the parts that enter the body to be disposable. Whether these devices would be able to take advantage of disposables, I have no idea.

Just think of all the endoscopic and minimally invasive tools that are highly repetative repeat use instruments.

If the majority of issues are operator (cleaning) error. That is easy to fix.
Then enforce what they should already be doing.

Even though an incidence of one is not acceptable, the number out of the thosands used is statistically pretty small. I do vote they do whatever needs to be done for zero defects!!!

[dbussone]

I envision that only the parts that enter the body to be disposable. Whether these devices would be able to take advantage of disposables, I have no idea.

Just think of all the endoscopic and minimally invasive tools that are highly repetative repeat use instruments.

If the majority of issues are operator (cleaning) error. That is easy to fix.
Then enforce what they should already be doing.

Even though an incidence of one is not acceptable, the number out of the thosands used is statistically pretty small. I do vote they do whatever needs to be done for zero defects!!!


I agree. The scope is what enters the body and the interior of the scope contains most of the expensive components. I'm trying to think how the exterior could be made disposable. Another issue is that there are several channels in the scope along with the fiber optic bundle. Various instruments can be passed through the channels. Without proper cleaning the channels and instruments can also become a source of infection.

[Loudoll]

Sounds like an opportunity for non re-useable products....like so many other things are these days. A legitimate cause for health care cost increase....for a change.
The supervisor in the respiratory therapy dept. where I worked years ago actually had used, non re-usable equipment, "sterilized", reused and charged to the next patient as a new disposable item. Chilling and scary.

[fred53]

A contaminated medical device is thought to be the cause of two deaths in LA.

Seven people were infected and two died. They were infected by antibiotic resistant bacteria in a Los Angeles hospital. This was from endoscopic procedures, but could just as well have been from colonoscopies I suppose.

Disinfecting procedures didn't work.

Going to the hospital is getting more and more dangerous.

This was in today's Daily Sun. (02-20-15)

given was wrong...passing bad info is a no-no...

[gomoho]

Actually I believe I read the procedures were followed; however, they were apparently not sufficient.

[Cisco Kid]

A contaminated medical device is thought to be the cause of two deaths in LA.

Seven people were infected and two died. They were infected by antibiotic resistant bacteria in a Los Angeles hospital. This was from endoscopic procedures, but could just as well have been from colonoscopies I suppose.

Disinfecting procedures didn't work.

Going to the hospital is getting more and more dangerous.

This was in today's Daily Sun. (02-20-15)

Your post make me think one day I will die.

[RedChariot]

Wrong! The disinfecting procedures were not followed properly. There is a difference and it is important.

Not sure you are 100% correct on this statement. The mere nature of the equipment and movable parts make the serialization problematic. Did the hospital follow CDC guidelines? I expect they would have. I was was a Critical Care nurse eventually working in Nursing Administration. This was a major concern during the Aids crisis in the 80's and 90's. We followed ate accepted guidelines that included soaking in a solution for a designated period of time after instrument being flushed repeatedly. Can you ever be sure all bodily fluids have been removed and instrument totally disinfected? We do our best.

[dbussone]

Actually I believe I read the procedures were followed; however, they were apparently not sufficient.


I did a little more research and found that those investigating the incident believe proper cleaning processes were not followed. That is most often the case. Another common situation is that the person performing the procedure uses poor technique.

[zonerboy]

I believe we often read into news articles what we are wanting to hear.

[Barefoot]

A contaminated medical device is thought to be the cause of two deaths in LA.
Seven people were infected and two died. They were infected by antibiotic resistant bacteria in a Los Angeles hospital. This was from endoscopic procedures, but could just as well have been from colonoscopies I suppose. Disinfecting procedures didn't work.
Going to the hospital is getting more and more dangerous.

It's a conundrum. Having hospital tests may pose some danger of infection.
But when my close friend had an endoscopy, cancer of the esophagus was identified.
A life was saved because of early detection.

[asianthree]

I did a little more research and found that those investigating the incident believe proper cleaning processes were not followed. That is most often the case. Another common situation is that the person performing the procedure uses poor technique.

Ok read all you want on the internet. That scope is run thru the same system that all scopes are cleaned in process takes 58 minutes. Prior to that run they are cleaned by hand to remove whatever you did not clean out in your prep. This scope has a lateral view in which is harder for the machine to clean. Those using this scope will be running a different program. Not all scopes are 50 thousand dollars. They start at $10,000. Trust me if there was a way to make a scope disposable than every one in the field would be jumping for joy.:a040: But the fiber optics inside the bundle and the sheath to protect the structure will not support any thing disposable. And if it did you would never get the picture that is needed to diagnose your issues. At this time FDA has no approval for disposable. Concerning the thousands of procedures that are done in the US every day this super bug is just a new issue that had to be addressed. Just the facts no internet research required

[zonerboy]

The fiber optic portion of endoscopic equipment is what allows the user to see what he/she is doing. This is the expensive part of the scope and is sealed so as to prevent damage during sterilization procedures. Along side the flexible fiber optic tube there are small channels to allow instruments for grasping, cutting, or manipulation to be passed. Or for fluids to be sucked out. These channels are quite small in diameter and thus difficult to clean. Perhaps such instruments need to be engineered such that the channels are removable and not re-usable.
The same principles apply whether the instruments are endoscopes for colonoscopy, gastroesophagoscopy, or bronchoscopy. In laparoscopy (ie. abdominal surgery done thru a scope) usually several ports are used. One for the viewing scope, and other portals thru the skin into the abdominal cavity for the passage of instruments. This makes use of disposable instruments more practical. This is also what is done for arthroscopic (knee, shoulder, etc.) surgical procedures.

[graciegirl]

THE BOTTOM LINE is, as Bare points out.

That Colonoscopy and endoscopy saves lives and they show what is happening in your innards early enough to fix them..

My first one at age fifty showed some pre cancerous polyps that were removed immediately. My second was clear three years later and the one I had four months ago had three pre cancerous polyps. They too were removed. I have the pictures.

There was no after pain, no bleeding, when I woke up, I felt fine and ordinary and had no discomfort at all. The worse part is the pooping before hand and drinking a boatload of stuff to make you poop.

Please folks. don't let this not common incident deter you from having a very important life saving test.

[sunnyatlast]

A contaminated medical device is thought to be the cause of two deaths in LA.

Seven people were infected and two died. They were infected by antibiotic resistant bacteria in a Los Angeles hospital. This was from endoscopic procedures, but could just as well have been from colonoscopies I suppose.

Disinfecting procedures didn't work.

Going to the hospital is getting more and more dangerous.

This was in today's Daily Sun. (02-20-15)

Probably more people die from e. coli, listeria, and other contamination of "organic"-farmed vegetables fertilized "naturally"…..or by wildlife dropping in …..

Root crops and leafy vegetables have the greatest risk of infection from manure application to soil. They can also become contaminated through direct or indirect contact with cattle, deer and sheep. E. coli O157:H7 is most prevalent in ruminants in general and in cattle in particular (both beef and dairy). Other known carriers include birds, insects and squirrels. While the bacteria do not appear to make these animals sick, the animals carry and shed the bacteria in their feces. Drinking and recreational water have been carriers in several outbreaks, most likely from fecal contamination by infected animals or people.

Preventing E. coli From Garden to Plate (http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09369.html)

[Villages PL]

Wrong! The disinfecting procedures were not followed properly. There is a difference and it is important.

Wrong! You just made that up. There's a difference between knowing and making something up, and it's important.

The article stated: The "adequacy of the procedures" has raised questions.

[Villages PL]

given was wrong...passing bad info is a no-no...

Absolutely, and it wasn't me who passed "bad info".

[Villages PL]

Doesn't make it any safer. Now I have to worry about someone taking shortcuts disinfecting medical tools.

Z

zcaveman, you are correct. Either way it's unsafe. This time it's procedures that are suspected. Next time it may be something else. Everything is supposedly correctable. I assume they may come up with better procedures but you still have to worry about someone taking shortcuts in disinfecting.

Hospital infections are a continuing problem. I went to the CDC site and found statistics for 2002: The estimated number of hospital associated infections in U.S. hospitals was approximately 1.7 million.

People sometimes die from hospital infections. In this current article it happened to be two out of seven. I don't have a nation wide statistic for that yet.

[graciegirl]

zcaveman, you are correct. Either way it's unsafe. This time it's procedures that are suspected. Next time it may be something else. Everything is supposedly correctable. I assume they may come up with better procedures but you still have to worry about someone taking shortcuts in disinfecting.

Hospital infections are a continuing problem. I went to the CDC site and found statistics for 2002: The estimated number of hospital associated infections in U.S. hospitals was approximately 1.7 million.

People sometimes die from hospital infections. In this current article it happened to be two out of seven. I don't have a nation wide statistic for that yet. PLEASE LINK US to the "current article". THAT CANNOT BE RIGHT.


But we all will probably need a hospital. We cannot let fear make our decisions for us.

We will all die, of something. Hopefully it won't be bad decisions or fear of medical procedures.

[Villages PL]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health1827159/infection_deaths_from_us_hospitals/

The fourth paragraph in my link states 99,000 deaths per year from hospital infections. This was reported by the CDC. As far as I can tell, it's for 2006.

It's all correctible, of course, but hasn't been corrected yet.

[thelegges]

there is no shortcuts to the scope cleaning, how do you think it was traced back to this procedure.. each scope as it is cleaned is entered with the patient, the vin number, the scope number, time and date. If they were taking shortcuts none of this info would have been entered. As new strains of bugs come into light it is becoming harder to find how to kill them. Bonus is you can use abundant amounts of new sterile cleaning products to scopes, but kind of hard to get the patient to drink the same stuff.

[dbussone]

I didn't make it up.
///VPL

[dbussone]

Ok read all you want on the internet. That scope is run thru the same system that all scopes are cleaned in process takes 58 minutes. Prior to that run they are cleaned by hand to remove whatever you did not clean out in your prep. This scope has a lateral view in which is harder for the machine to clean. Those using this scope will be running a different program. Not all scopes are 50 thousand dollars. They start at $10,000. Trust me if there was a way to make a scope disposable than every one in the field would be jumping for joy.:a040: But the fiber optics inside the bundle and the sheath to protect the structure will not support any thing disposable. And if it did you would never get the picture that is needed to diagnose your issues. At this time FDA has no approval for disposable. Concerning the thousands of procedures that are done in the US every day this super bug is just a new issue that had to be addressed. Just the facts no internet research required


Your data is quite old. A fiberoptic laryngoscope alone costs $15k plus. I've signed off on the purchase of at least 100 endo and colonoscopes in the past five years. With the new columns, etc a GI setup per room is outrageously expensive.

You are quite correct, all the internet research did was to confirm my existing knowledge.

[dbussone]

there is no shortcuts to the scope cleaning, how do you think it was traced back to this procedure.. each scope as it is cleaned is entered with the patient, the vin number, the scope number, time and date. If they were taking shortcuts none of this info would have been entered. As new strains of bugs come into light it is becoming harder to find how to kill them. Bonus is you can use abundant amounts of new sterile cleaning products to scopes, but kind of hard to get the patient to drink the same stuff.


You are quite accurate but in one similar case it was found that techs made an assumption that scopes assumed to be on one counter in a "dirty" room and assumed ready for disinfection, had not undergone any processing at all. Human error strikes again.

[dbussone]

Not sure you are 100% correct on this statement. The mere nature of the equipment and movable parts make the serialization problematic. Did the hospital follow CDC guidelines? I expect they would have. I was was a Critical Care nurse eventually working in Nursing Administration. This was a major concern during the Aids crisis in the 80's and 90's. We followed ate accepted guidelines that included soaking in a solution for a designated period of time after instrument being flushed repeatedly. Can you ever be sure all bodily fluids have been removed and instrument totally disinfected? We do our best.

I'm never 100% correct. Your comments are most welcome.

[asianthree]

Your data is quite old. A fiberoptic laryngoscope alone costs $15k plus. I've signed off on the purchase of at least 100 endo and colonoscopes in the past five years. With the new columns, etc a GI setup per room is outrageously expensive.

You are quite correct, all the internet research did was to confirm my existing knowledge.

Then I need to tell the company that I just got quotes for they are too low need to charge me more according to the totv.

[dbussone]

Then I need to tell the company that I just got quotes for they are too low need to charge me more according to the totv.


New or refurbished?

[asianthree]

New or refurbished?

New the refurb is only $1000. Difference replacing 27 scopes and getting second ebis

[Villages PL]

An 18 year-old patient who is still in the hospital being treated for his infection is bringing a law suit against the device maker for negligence. (02-27-15)

[CFrance]

THE BOTTOM LINE is, as Bare points out.

That Colonoscopy and endoscopy saves lives and they show what is happening in your innards early enough to fix them..

My first one at age fifty showed some pre cancerous polyps that were removed immediately. My second was clear three years later and the one I had four months ago had three pre cancerous polyps. They too were removed. I have the pictures.

There was no after pain, no bleeding, when I woke up, I felt fine and ordinary and had no discomfort at all. The worse part is the pooping before hand and drinking a boatload of stuff to make you poop.

Please folks. don't let this not common incident deter you from having a very important life saving test.
You are so, so right, and I believe anyone pointing out these low percentages of things gone wrong is just afraid of either the procedure or giving over control of his body to someone else.

So far, my last two have saved me from cancer. I'm okay with pooping! And there are new preps that don't involve drinking gallons of glue. ( I wanted to say snot, but that's a little too graphic.)

[Villages PL]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health1827159/infection_deaths_from_us_hospitals/

The fourth paragraph in my link states 99,000 deaths per year from hospital infections. This was reported by the CDC. As far as I can tell, it's for 2006.


There are 99,000 deaths per year from hospital infections: If all those people lived in one place that would make up a fairly large size city. Over a period of ten years that would be just a few less than 1,000,000 people. And that's just from infections, there are other issues that cause harm other than infections.

No one is telling anyone not to get tested. And no one is saying that certain tests don't sometimes save lives. I have simply said that colonoscopy and other such invasive scoping tests are not for me. And I have made my decision based on calculations of family history and lifestyle.

Anyone who has a family history of certain health issues and/or lives a standard American lifestyle, should go ahead and get tested, if they so choose. It's an individual choice that adults make for themselves.

I haven't yet seen any concrete proof that there's more benefit than harm from colonoscopies. Of course lives are saved, and that's impressive, but why do we just conveniently forget the harm that's done and the lives that are lost?

[graciegirl]

There are 99,000 deaths per year from hospital infections: If all those people lived in one place that would make up a fairly large size city. Over a period of ten years that would be just a few less than 1,000,000 people. And that's just from infections, there are other issues that cause harm other than infections.

No one is telling anyone not to get tested. And no one is saying that certain tests don't sometimes save lives. I have simply said that colonoscopy and other such invasive scoping tests are not for me. And I have made my decision based on calculations of family history and lifestyle.

Anyone who has a family history of certain health issues and/or lives a standard American lifestyle, should go ahead and get tested, if they so choose. It's an individual choice that adults make for themselves.

I haven't yet seen any concrete proof that there's more benefit than harm from colonoscopies. Of course lives are saved, and that's impressive, but why do we just conveniently forget the harm that's done and the lives that are lost?


Your link is not active.

In my opinion you are wasting your doctor's time and ours too.

[Villages PL]

Probably more people die from e. coli, listeria, and other contamination of "organic"-farmed vegetables fertilized "naturally"…..or by wildlife dropping in …..

Root crops and leafy vegetables have the greatest risk of infection from manure application to soil. They can also become contaminated through direct or indirect contact with cattle, deer and sheep. E. coli O157:H7 is most prevalent in ruminants in general and in cattle in particular (both beef and dairy). Other known carriers include birds, insects and squirrels. While the bacteria do not appear to make these animals sick, the animals carry and shed the bacteria in their feces. Drinking and recreational water have been carriers in several outbreaks, most likely from fecal contamination by infected animals or people.

Preventing E. coli From Garden to Plate (http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09369.html)

It's a good thing I don't buy organic "leafy vegetables". :icon_wink: Apples were about the only item I sometimes bought organic. But I don't even buy them anymore.

However, as far as contamination goes, even non-organic vegetables can get pooped on by birds, insects and squirrels. It calls for conscientiousness in washing everything before eating.

Because it's possible to get sick and die from eating contaminated produce, it doesn't mean one should do something else like motorcycle racing or skydiving etc.

[dbussone]

Another subject change.