 |
| |
risk factors / risk reduction factors |
|
| |
What are the specific product deficits identified by these references? |
- Intricate access surfaces are more difficult to disinfect
- Internal corrugations and moving parts may serve as reservoirs and foster growth of microbial contamination
- Housing is opaque which prohibits visual confirmation of flushing
- Potential difficulty in disinfecting the gap between the housing and internal components (also known as interstitial space)
|
|
| Dr. Jarvis identifies potential risk factors...2 |
| Best Practices |
Difficulty cleaning access surface |
HCW’s may not adequately clean the intricate surface details, leading to fluid path contamination. |
| Swabability |
Gap around plunger harbors bacteria |
Gap cannot be accessed for disinfection and can lead to fluid path contamination especially with repeated access such as SAS or SASH method. |
| Flush Clearance |
Opaque housing hides incomplete flushing of media based fluids |
During the course of normal manipulation of the catheter small amounts of media like fluid contaminate the valve. If these organisms proliferate, then they can be infused with subsequent manipulations. |
| Visibility |
Internal mechanisms obscure fluid path |
Impossible to visually confirm complete flushing. |
The ability to disinfect the access port is of utmost importance |
| |
|
| Robert Garcia, RN, CIC clarifies risk reduction factors...3 |
| Smooth, flat surface with minimal crevices |
Reduces risk of contamination |
| No Interstitial Space |
Eliminates space within the valve where blood or fluid can accumulate reducing risk of bacterial growth medium. |
| Advance Seal Design |
Multiple seals reduce risk of bacterial entry. |
| Positive Fluid Pulse |
Reduces risk of occlusions. No need for clamping during flush procedures |
|
| |
|
