Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31723018›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2020

Work systems analysis of sterile processing: decontamination.

Myrtede Alfred, Ken Catchpole, Emily Huffer, Larry Fredendall, Kevin M Taaffe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A review of the sterile processing department's reprocessing of surgical instruments.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Frontiers in human factors: embedding specialists in multi-disciplinary efforts to improve healthcare.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Myrtede AlfredDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA alfredm@musc.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0045-0426
Ken CatchpoleDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4073-3025
Emily HufferDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.
Larry FredendallDepartment of Management, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.
Kevin M TaaffeDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.

Funding

A Work Systems Analysis of Sterile ProcessingR03HS025538 · AHRQ · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI CATCHPOLE, KEN · 2017 to 2017
$100k
AHRQ HHS R03 HS025538
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew studies have explored the work of sterile processing departments (SPD) from a systems perspective. Effective decontamination is critical for removing organic matter and reducing microbial levels from used surgical instruments prior to disinfection or sterilisation and is delivered through a combination of human work and supporting technologies and processes.

objectiveIn this paper we report the results of a work systems analysis that sought to identify the complex multilevel interdependencies that create performance variation in decontamination and identify potential improvement interventions.

methodsThe research was conducted at a 700-bed academic hospital with two reprocessing facilities decontaminating approximately 23 000 units each month. Mixed methods, including 56 hours of observations of work as done, formal and informal interviews with relevant stakeholders and analysis of data collected about the system, were used to iteratively develop a process map, task analysis, abstraction hierarchy and a variance matrix.

resultsWe identified 21 different performance shaping factors, 30 potential failures, 16 types of process variance, and 10 outcome variances in decontamination. Approximately 2% of trays were returned to decontamination from assembly, while decontamination problems were found in about 1% of surgical cases. Staff knowledge, production pressures, instrument design, tray composition and workstation design contributed to outcomes such as reduced throughput, tray defects, staff injuries, increased inventory and equipment costs, and patient injuries.

conclusionsEnsuring patients and technicians' safety and efficient SPD operation requires improved design of instruments and the decontamination area, skilled staff, proper equipment maintenance and effective coordination of reprocessing tasks.

Indexed as

Surgical InstrumentsSystems AnalysisTask Performance and AnalysisAcademic Medical CentersDecontaminationDisinfectionHumansQuality ControlQuality Improvementhuman factorsinfection controlnosocomial infectionspatient safetyquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID31723018
PMCPMC7752140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.