Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34301325›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2021

Assessment of laparoscopic instrument reprocessing in rural India: a mixed methods study.

Daniel Robertson, Jesudian Gnanaraj, Linda Wauben, Jan Huijs, Vasanth Mark Samuel, Jenny Dankelman, Tim Horeman-Franse

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Daniel RobertsonDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands. p.d.robertson@tudelft.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-3373-5113
Jesudian GnanarajShanthi Bhavan Medical Center, Biru, Jharkhand, India.
Linda WaubenDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.
Jan HuijsHeart Consultancy, Renkum, The Netherlands.
Vasanth Mark SamuelSurgery Unit 1, Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Jenny DankelmanDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.
Tim Horeman-FranseDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopy is a minimally-invasive surgical procedure that uses long slender instruments that require much smaller incisions than conventional surgery. This leads to faster recovery times, fewer post-surgical wound infections and shorter hospital stays. For these reasons, laparoscopy could be particularly advantageous to patients in low to middle income countries (LMICs). Unfortunately, sterile processing departments in LMIC hospitals are faced with limited access to equipment and trained staff which poses an obstacle to safe surgical care. The reprocessing of laparoscopic devices requires specialised equipment and training. Therefore, when LMIC hospitals invest in laparoscopy, an update of the standard operating procedure in sterile processing is required. Currently, it is unclear whether LMIC hospitals, that already perform laparoscopy, have managed to introduce updated reprocessing methods that minimally invasive equipment requires. The aim of this study was to identify the laparoscopic sterile reprocessing procedures in rural India and to test the effectiveness of the sterilisation equipment.

methodsWe assessed laparoscopic instrument sterilisation capacity in four rural hospitals in different states in India using a mixed-methods approach. As the main form of data collection, we developed a standardised observational checklist based on reprocessing guidelines from several sources. Steam autoclave performance was measured by monitoring the autoclave cycles in two hospitals. Finally, the findings from the checklist data was supported by an interview survey with surgeons and nurses.

resultsThe checklist data revealed the reprocessing methods the hospitals used in the reprocessing of laparoscopic instruments. It showed that the standard operating procedures had not been updated since the introduction of laparoscopy and the same reprocessing methods for regular surgical instruments were still applied. The interviews confirmed that staff had not received additional training and that they were unaware of the hazardous effects of reprocessing detergents and disinfectants.

conclusionAs laparoscopy is becoming more prevalent in LMICs, updated policy is needed to incorporate minimally invasive instrument reprocessing in medical practitioner and staff training programmes. While reprocessing standards improve, it is essential to develop instruments and reprocessing equipment that is more suitable for resource-constrained rural surgical environments.

Indexed as

Hospitals, RuralLaparoscopyDeveloping CountriesEquipment ContaminationIndiaSteamSterilizationSteamGlobal healthLaparoscopyLMICSterile reprocessing

Identifiers

PMID34301325
PMCPMC8300979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.