Contaminated Medical Device

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 02-21-2015, 10:33 AM
Barefoot's Avatar
Barefoot Barefoot is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Winters in TV, Summers in Canada.
Posts: 17,681
Thanks: 1,681
Thanked 238 Times in 180 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL View Post
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.
__________________
Barefoot At Last
No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.
Saving one dog will not change the world, but surely for that one dog, the world will change forever.
  #17  
Old 02-21-2015, 10:43 AM
asianthree's Avatar
asianthree asianthree is offline
Sage
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pennacamp, Fernandinia 2 Frogs
Posts: 7,128
Thanks: 18
Thanked 1,079 Times in 411 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbussone View Post
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. 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
__________________
Do not worry about things you can not change
  #18  
Old 02-21-2015, 10:49 AM
zonerboy's Avatar
zonerboy zonerboy is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tamarind Grove
Posts: 473
Thanks: 22
Thanked 78 Times in 18 Posts
Default

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.
  #19  
Old 02-21-2015, 10:56 AM
graciegirl graciegirl is offline
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,375
Thanks: 4,172
Thanked 4,653 Times in 1,591 Posts
Send a message via AIM to graciegirl
Default

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.
  #20  
Old 02-21-2015, 11:40 AM
sunnyatlast sunnyatlast is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The Villages, FL
Posts: 1,208
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL View Post
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
  #21  
Old 02-21-2015, 01:46 PM
Villages PL Villages PL is offline
Sage
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Belvedere
Posts: 5,280
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbussone View Post
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.
  #22  
Old 02-21-2015, 01:52 PM
Villages PL Villages PL is offline
Sage
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Belvedere
Posts: 5,280
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred53 View Post
given was wrong...passing bad info is a no-no...
Absolutely, and it wasn't me who passed "bad info".
  #23  
Old 02-21-2015, 02:19 PM
Villages PL Villages PL is offline
Sage
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Belvedere
Posts: 5,280
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zcaveman View Post
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.
  #24  
Old 02-21-2015, 02:24 PM
graciegirl graciegirl is offline
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,375
Thanks: 4,172
Thanked 4,653 Times in 1,591 Posts
Send a message via AIM to graciegirl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL View Post
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.
  #25  
Old 02-21-2015, 02:39 PM
Villages PL Villages PL is offline
Sage
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Belvedere
Posts: 5,280
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health1..._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.
  #26  
Old 02-21-2015, 03:42 PM
thelegges thelegges is offline
Platinum member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Drayton Plains, MI, Vietnam, Waterford, MI, Pennacamp, Fernandina /One Retired in Duval
Posts: 1,502
Thanks: 10
Thanked 843 Times in 271 Posts
Default

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.
  #27  
Old 02-21-2015, 07:04 PM
dbussone's Avatar
dbussone dbussone is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,836
Thanks: 0
Thanked 84 Times in 77 Posts
Default Contaminated Medical Device

I didn't make it up.
///VPL
__________________
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.
Winston Churchill
  #28  
Old 02-21-2015, 07:15 PM
dbussone's Avatar
dbussone dbussone is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,836
Thanks: 0
Thanked 84 Times in 77 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asianthree View Post
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. 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.
__________________
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.
Winston Churchill
  #29  
Old 02-21-2015, 07:20 PM
dbussone's Avatar
dbussone dbussone is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,836
Thanks: 0
Thanked 84 Times in 77 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelegges View Post
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.
__________________
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.
Winston Churchill
  #30  
Old 02-21-2015, 07:24 PM
dbussone's Avatar
dbussone dbussone is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,836
Thanks: 0
Thanked 84 Times in 77 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedChariot View Post
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.
__________________
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.
Winston Churchill
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:00 PM.