Featured Articles
PT022 - Laryngoscope Blades - July 2018
The EBPB were initially asked to consider this Topic to assess variation of use across Wales. Since the Topic was submitted, an All Wales contract has been renewed with a sole award outcome, meeting the rationalisation and standardisation requirements, and therefore the EBPB agreed at t heir July 2018 meeting that the Topic should not be progressed.
If you become aware of substantial change in the evidence base or circumstances related to published advice, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. who will then consider whether a review is necessary.
- Details
Hip Prostheses - Apr 2017
If you became aware of substantial change in the evidence base or circumstances related to published advice, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. who will then consider whether a review is necessary.
- Details
Single-use and multiple-use of Medical Devices
Paper by Dr Mike Simmons (Chair of All Wales decontamination and sterilization advisory group), Pete Phillips (Director of SMTL) and Matthew Alderman (Operations manager, SMTL).
The All Wales Decontamination and Sterilization Advisory Group have been asked on a number of occasions to provide advice regarding single use items. The questions are generally:
- Does single-use imply single use within a determined period of time on more than one patient?
- Can the device be used more than once on a single patient?
This paper [PDF] attempts to answer these questions and give some advice in this area.
- Updated Oct 2019: Single-use and multiple-use of Medical Devices (Revision 0.7 01/10/2019)
- Updated Sept 2019: Single-use and multiple-use of Medical Devices (Revision 0.6 23/09/2019)
- Previous version: Single-use and multiple-use of Medical Devices (Revision 0.3 02/02/2017)
- Details
Endoscope contamination and rinse water TVCs
Pamela Ashman, Paul Hay, Emma Lindsay, Fara Shadroo, Joanna Ford and Pete Phillips
October 6th 2015
Introduction
The link between contaminated endoscopes and outbreaks of infection (both genuine outbreaks of infection and pseudo-outbreaks where positive samples are taken from patients not exhibiting clinical symptoms of infection) has long been established (Srinivasan et al., 2003 and Wang et al., 1995). Failure of procedures can cause contamination (Moses and Lee 2004) and monitoring bacterial levels in rinse water can be a useful indicator of system or technique failures (Leung et al., 2003). The Choice Framework for local policy and procedure (CFPP 01-06) and the equivalent policy in Wales (WHTM 01-06) states that less than 10 colony forming units (or CFUs) of bacteria detected in 100ml of rinse water is considered acceptable. This figure is frequently referred to as the TVC (total viable count).
However, the relationship between rinse water CFU levels and endoscope contamination is still unclear - does a high level of rinse water CFUs correlate with contamination of the endoscope itself?
- Details
Strategy Group Review Date: 26th February 2016
Recommendation of AWMCDSG
Following consideration of the Health Technology Assessment on antimicrobial and antiseptic-impregnated urethral catheters (Pickard et al 2012*) and other evidence**, the strategy group were confident to make the recommendation that silver alloy urinary catheters should NOT be used within NHS Wales. The document was considered thorough with robust conclusions and the strategy group through their evidence based approach advised the use of silver alloy-coated urinary catheters did not support positive patient outcomes.
The requirement for exceptionality was considered and the strategy group agreed that none was required.
PDF version of recommendation for download.
If you became aware of substantial change in the evidence base or circumstances related to published advice, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. who will then consider whether a review is necessary.
Notes:
** The AWMCDSG acknowledge and were guided by the conclusions of the HTA** that there is, at best, no clinical benefit compared with standard catheters, that at worst they may increase the risk of UTI and that they are “unlikely to be cost-effective”.
- Details
