Health Care : Current Reviews

Health Care Equipment Donations in Health System

Xin Yan^* Department of Health, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
^*Correspondence: Xin Yan, Department of Health, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China, Email:

Received: 25-Nov-2022, Manuscript No. HCCR-22-19435; Editor assigned: 28-Nov-2022, Pre QC No. HCCR-22-19435(PQ); Reviewed: 15-Dec-2022, QC No. HCCR-22-19435; Revised: 22-Dec-2022, Manuscript No. HCCR-22-19435(R); Published: 29-Dec-2022, DOI: 10.35248/2375-4273.22.10.328

Description

Numerous people contract infections each year as a result of Nosocomial Infections (NIs) which are costly to both the individual and the healthcare system. According to one-third of all NIs may be avoided by thorough equipment cleaning which has been identified as a possible cause of these illnesses. In order to ascertain the levels of pollution on healthcare equipment identify workable cleaning procedures and establish the methodological caliber of the available evidence. Eight major databases held information on published and unpublished studies from January 1972 to December 2004. A quantitative critical appraisal instrument and the hierarchy of evidence were used to assess the methodological quality. Five key outcome indicators were used to extract and analyse the data. Methodological quality for observational studies ranged from 6.5 to 9.5 out of 14 and for repeated measures studies, it ranged from 6.5 to 9.5 out of 15. According to the included this 86.8% of all sampled equipment was contaminated. Equipment polluted with 70% alcohol had an 82.1% reduction in contamination levels. A big source of NI is medical equipment. Numerous pieces of medical equipment have high levels of contamination. However, routine equipment cleaning with 70% alcohol can significantly reduce the majority of contamination and thus any danger of obtaining an NI. The function of community healthcare equipment in NI needs more investigation.

Donations of medical equipment take many different forms. Corporations acting directly or through private nonprofit organizations may be donors as well as governments lending support to other governments. Individual healthcare facilities and entire health systems are among the anticipated beneficiaries. Thus there are justified distinctions between these situations. However, there are many fundamental guidelines for a proper donation that are universal. This shared core of good donation practice is intended to be described by these standards. There are possible deviations to the general rules that are noted when they are required for particular circumstances. In addition to actual donations of medical equipment the recommendations also focus on the procedure for making such donations.

A donation of medical equipment should maximize the recipient's advantage. A donation should be made in accordance with current administrative and governmental policies and a donation should be made with respect for the authority and wishes of the recipient. There shouldn't be a double standard when it comes to quality if an item's quality is poor in the country of origin it should also be poor when donated. There should be good communication between the donor and the recipient with all donations coming as a result of a need that the recipient has expressed. Never send unsolicited donations. Currently reprocessing works well with three types of devices. Elastic bandages pressure infuser bags, tourniquet cuffs and common surgical scissors are class I devices with a relatively low danger to patients. These are exempt from the prerequisites for premarket filing. A premarket notification report demonstrating equivalence to devices already on the market in terms of safety effectiveness and intended use must be submitted for around 65% to 75% of reprocessed that fall into Class II. Class II devices comprise the majority of laparoscopic tools, drills, compression sleeves and pulse sensors. Class III devices fall under the last category and in order to acquire FDA premarket approval the reprocessing facility must pass an acceptable inspection and provide credible scientific data demonstrating its effectiveness and safety. These products include implanted infusion pumps, percutaneous tissue ablation electrodes and balloon angioplasty catheters. Most health care institutions avoid reprocessing Class III devices because to the significant patient risk involved and the demanding approval process. Inspection of reprocessing facilities and examination of device safety reports, particularly those describing adverse occurrences are two postmarket tasks of the FDA.

Health care workers who use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) are less likely to have their skin or clothing contaminated with germs but this risk is still present. Even when wearing gloves and gowns, 2% to 5% of staff members tending to patients who had multidrug-resistant germs on their hands following glove removal.

Additionally, after taking off their gloves, 24% of staff members who were treating patients with Clostridium Difficile Infection (CDI) had spore contamination on their hands. High-risk exposures that increased the likelihood of infection included handling contaminated bodily fluids, staying exposed for a long time and improper PPE use. The danger of infection with potentially lethal diseases including the Ebola virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronaviruses increases when health care workers' skin and clothing are contaminated. Additionally staff members frequently contract nor virus infections during outbreaks in healthcare facilities and are susceptible to developing CDI if they take antibiotics.