Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41467756›Full record

ReviewInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2026

A review of the sterile processing department's reprocessing of surgical instruments.

Lawrence D Fredendall, Sayed Rezwanul Islam, Kevin Taaffe, Sudeep Hegde, Mike Rayo, Steven Foster, Jacob Hionis, Miriam Balkin, Gabriel Segarra, Ken Catchpole

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

10 authors.

Lawrence D FredendallDepartment of Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7127-9737
Sayed Rezwanul IslamSchool of Polytechnic, Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN, United States.
Kevin TaaffeDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
Sudeep HegdeDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
Mike RayoCognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Steven FosterDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
Jacob HionisDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
Miriam BalkinThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center-Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, OH, United States.
Gabriel SegarraEmbedded Human Factors and Clinical Safety Science Unit, Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
Ken CatchpoleEmbedded Human Factors and Clinical Safety Science Unit, Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4073-3025

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS027912
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe sterile processing department (SPD) of hospitals is expensive to operate, but it is needed for surgical procedures to be conducted safely and efficiently in an operating room (OR). Late instrument arrival at the OR risks the patient's safety and increases the hospital's costs. If the delivered instruments are not sterile, the risk of hospital-acquired infections increases. While the SPD knows how to process each instrument, there is no well-established set of best practices about how to design and manage its processes. The SPD's instrument process has four major steps: decontamination, assembly, sterilization, storage and picking instrument sets. This review seeks to identify what is known about each step's best practices and where research is needed to create evidence-based best practices.

methodsThe PRISMA 2020 guidelines for a literature review were used to identify existing SPD process literature. The relevant process design and performance data were extracted for data synthesis using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety framework, where buffer theory was used to capture the environment.

resultsA total of 30 relevant articles that included case studies, interventions, experiments, and qualitative interviews were identified for data extraction. Most performance improvement interventions identified did not report important environmental information that would allow other managers to evaluate the appropriateness of the intervention for their facility. Also, most interventions focused on one variable and did not report how the intervention affected multiple system components. Three key interventions that improved throughput were to increase instrument inventory, increase assembly capacity, and reduce the number of unused instruments. Three studies found a large percentage (25%-48%) of instruments processed in the SPD were not actually used during a surgical procedure. Revising the surgeon's preference card to eliminate these instruments increased the available SPD capacity.

conclusionThe theory used to guide this literature review of SPD research indicates that more data about the SPD environment are needed in future SPD research to generalize research findings. The limited information provided in prior research about the SPD environments did not allow for identification of the "best" combinations of processing capacity, instrument inventory and process layout. Most existing research about the SPD process provides limited insight into how to design and manage the SPD bottleneck processes.

Indexed as

Equipment ReuseOperating RoomsSterilizationSurgical InstrumentsCross InfectionHumansPatient Safetyimprovement scienceinstrument trayspatient safetysterile processingsterile processing departmentsystems science

Identifiers

PMID41467756
PMCPMC13460267

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.