대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학 (Journal of radiological science and technology)

  • 제43권1호
  • /
  • Pages.1-7
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2288-3509(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-1168(eISSN)
대한방사선과학회 (Korean Society of Radiological Science)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

ATP meter를 이용한 초음파 탐촉자의 오염도 분류

Ultrasound Probe Contamination Classification using ATP Meter

  • 하명진 (한림대학교 동탄성심병원 산부인과 초음파실) ;
  • 김정구 (한서대학교 방사선학과)
  • Ha, Myeong-Jin (Dept. of Ultrasonography room in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jeong-Koo (Dept. of Radiological Science, Hanseo University)
  • 투고 : 2020.01.28
  • 심사 : 2020.02.28
  • 발행 : 2020.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

In this study, the contamination level was measured using an ATP meter using adenosine triphosphate bioluminescent material to find effective infection control to compensate for the disadvantages of the microbial culture method used for hygiene control of ultrasound probe. The convex probes were selected from six ultrasound probe in the hospital, and the samples were taken in real time before and after cleaning to check the contamination of the probe. In order to classify the pollution degree using the APT meter was classified by category. A total of 78 samples were collected from the ultrasound probe. When the pollution levels before and after cleaning were classified by category, 76.6% of the samples were classified into category 3·4 before cleaning, but they decreased to 23.3% after cleaning. 13.3% before cleaning was in category 1, but increased to 43.3% after cleaning. By classifying the pollution level, it was confirmed that the pollution level was significantly reduced by category. Until now, there was no suitable criterion for determining the contamination level by using ATP meter in medical machines where sample area is small and reused. In this study, criteria for each category were set to measure the contamination level of ATP meter suitable for small sample area such as ultrasound probe, so that contamination level could be determined in real time at the site. Therefore, it is considered that hygiene management for ultrasound probe can be more actively performed.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Shin JS, Park CW, Jeon BK. Analysis on infection control of general hospital radiology. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology. 2012;6(5):335-42. https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2012.6.5.335
  2. Kim MJ, Moon IB, Sohn SJ. The Relationship between the Awareness, performance and empowerment about nosocomial infection control in radiological technologists. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 2013;13(13):328-36. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2013.13.12.328
  3. AIUM. Guidelines for Cleaning and Preparing Externaland Internal-Use Ultrasound Transducers Between Patients & Safe Handling and Use of Ultrasound Coupling Gel. 2018:1-12.
  4. Pearson ML. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Infection contral & Hospital Epidemiology. 1996;17(7): 438-73.
  5. Aylirffe G, Babb J, Taylor L. Cleaning, disinfection or sterilization? Hospital acquired infection. 3rd ed. London, Arnold; 2001.
  6. Mirza WA, Lmam SH, Mohd Salim K, Kharal A. Cleaning methods for ultrasound probes. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. 2008;18(5):286-9.
  7. Fowler C, Mc Cracken D. US Probes: Risk of cross infection and ways to reduce it comparison of cleaning methods. Radiology. 1999;213:299-300. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.213.1.r99au41299
  8. Muradali D, Gold WL, Phillips A, Wilson S. Can ultrasound probes and coupling gel be a source of nosocomial infection in patients undergoing sonography? An in vivo and in vitro study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164:1521-4. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.164.6.7754907
  9. Huang YS, Chen, YC. Comparing visual inspection, aerobic colony counts, and adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay for evaluating surface cleanliness at a medical center. American Journal of infection Control. 2015;43:882-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.03.027
  10. Mulvey D, Redding P, Robertson C, Woodall C. Finding a benchmark for monitoring hospital cleanliness. Journal of Hosptal Infection. 2011;77:25-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2010.08.006
  11. Lee CB, Lee YS, Lee WH. Investigation into the actual state of sanitary management and recognition degree and infection level of ultrasonographic probes. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2004;27(3):51-8.
  12. Nam SM. A study on infection control practices by dental hygienists. Journal of Korean Society of Dental Hygiene. 2011;11(1):137-48.
  13. Griffith CJ, Cooper RA, Gilmore J, Davies C, Lewis M. An evaluation of hospital cleaning regimes and standards. J Hosp Infect. 2000;45:19-28. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhin.1999.0717
  14. Aycicek H, Oguz U, Karci K. Comparison of results of ATP bioluminescence and traditional hygiene swabbing methods for the determination of surface cleanliness at a hospital kitchen. Int J Hyg Envion Health. 2006;209:203-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2005.09.007
  15. Whiteley GS, Glasbely TO, Westervay SC. A new sampling algorithm demonstrates that ultrasound equipment cleanliness can be improved. American Journal of Infection Control. 2018 Aug;46(8):887-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.01.028
  16. Sciortino CV, Giles RA. Validation and comparison of three adenosine triphosphate luminometers for monitoring hospital surface sanitization. American Journal of Infection Control. 2012 Oct;40(8):e233-e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.04.318