Research presented at the 2026 HSPA Annual Conference highlights the significance of human factors in infection prevention, casting a light on the often-underexplored question of delineating best practices when different cleaning methods yield comparable results. The conference poster, prepared by Mary Ann Drosnock, a leading figure in clinical affairs for Healthmark Industries, scrutinized three methods of endoscope reprocessing: traditional manual cleaning (MC), pump-assisted manual cleaning (PAM), and an enhanced manual method (EM).
Each technique was evaluated not only for its technical effectiveness in reducing residual soil but also its impact on healthcare workers’ sustainability and safety. Given flexible endoscopes’ notorious reputation as an infection risk if not appropriately cleaned, the importance of effective sterilization cannot be overstated.
The study findings, based on a prospective laboratory comparison, divulged little difference between the methods in terms of technical outcomes, with all residual soil levels falling below the ISO alert and action thresholds. However, the real revelations came from the qualitative data procured, especially the feedback from the technicians and workflow observation.
While traditional manual cleaning emerged as the most physically draining with an inherent risk of repetitive strain injuries, pump-assisted and enhanced methods came across as less exhausting. However, they necessitated larger counter space, extra equipment, and extended processing times that could prove inconvenient in busy environments.
Despite yielding no glaring differences in quantitative terms, pump-assisted and enhanced methods prevailed as the poster’s top recommendations owing to their relative ease of use, reduced risk of fatigue and injury, and lesser likelihood of skipping critical steps.
Drosnock’s study underscores the need to look beyond quantitative data when evaluating cleaning methods, incorporating human and environmental factors in the decision-making process. Alleviating fatigue and mitigating injury risks sit at the core of the study’s conclusion, asserting the importance of processes that foster effectiveness and consistency.
This research carries significant implications for sterile processing leaders and infection prevention professionals, advocating for adequate safety measures during critical task performance and creating a favorable work ambiance. An increased focus on larger sample sizes, multiple technicians, and real-world clinical samples can bolster these findings.
In closing, Drosnock’s insightful research reaffirms a broader truth within infection prevention: achieving the best results goes beyond surpassing technical benchmarks to aligning procedures with human factors and creating practices that are as sustainable as they are effective.