Transducer Disinfection for Assessment and Insertion of Peripheral
and Central Catheters for Vascular Access Teams and Clinicians
Judy Thompson, MSN, RN, VA-BC™
June 18, 2018
Guidance Document
Transducer Disinfection for Assessment and Insertion of Peripheral and Central Catheters for Vascular Access Teams and Clinicians
Authors:
Judy Thompson, MSN, RN, VA-BC™
J. Hudson Garrett Jr., PhD, FNP-BC, IP-BC™, VA-BC™
Introduction / Summary
Use of real-time ultrasound guidance for vascular access (USGVA) procedures is recommended by multiple organizations, associations, guidelines and standards (2,4,7,8,10,12,17,26,32,35,44,49,50). When performed by trained, competent clinicians, USGVA has been shown to decrease complications and reduce multiple attempts to gain vascular access (2,4,7-10,12,13,15,17,18,26-29,31,33,35,36,41,44,48-50,52).
Use of ultrasound for vascular access, particularly peripheral access, presents distinct challenges to existing recommendations. Healthcare professionals responsible for vascular access also have a responsibility to ensure patient safety during those procedures, therefore, they also must address inconsistent practice with respect to cleaning and disinfection practices involving USGVA.
Background / Problem
Greater than ninety percent (90%) of hospitalized patients have a Vascular Access Device (VAD) inserted, making VAD insertion the most common invasive procedure patients experience (22,23,30) Use of ultrasound in VAD insertion also has a strong and increasing presence in outpatient settings making consistent practice across the care continuum an essential yet complex goal. Use of ultrasound for vessel assessment and real-time guidance is strongly recommended by many professional clinical societies and organizations, is widely practiced, and has shown to decrease complications, reduce multiple access attempts and, as a result, has improved patient safety and satisfaction (2,4,7-10,12,15,17,18,26-29, 31,32,35,36,41,44,48-50). Use of
ultrasound for the placement of VADs is directly aligned with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Triple Aim philosophy of improved population health, improved patient satisfaction with care, and cost reduction (24).
As identified previously, conflicting guidance documents have been published regarding the most appropriate level of disinfection for ultrasound transducers. Asdefined by the Spaulding Classification, global recommendations range from High-Level Disinfection (HLD) to Low-Level Disinfection (LLD) (3,5,6,11,14,16,19-21,25,33,34,38,42,53-55). AVA’s collaborative document will guide safe practice for the disinfection of ultrasound transducers used in access procedures providing a consistent approach to the application of the Spaulding classification scheme. Adhering to recommendations of HLD or sterilization for ultrasound transducers used during peripheral and central intravenous catheter insertion may have unacceptable repercussions resulting in
adverse patient outcomes.
This guidance document examines existing practice with respect to ultrasound transducer disinfection as it is currently performed. Furthermore, this document evaluates how the current evidence supports existing best practice and meets the evidence-based criteria.
Recommendations and guidelines must be able to be reasonably operationalized if we expect compliance. That is not to say that patient safety is ever negotiated, but we must address risk versus benefit. Complexities layer this issue and require insights of front line specialists with respect to practice and areas where there is a need for process and outcomes research(13). Use of ultrasound has been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes through the:
1. Reduction of:
a. Multiple needle sticks b. Pneumothorax/Hemothorax c. Inadvertent arterial access 2. Assessment/identification of:
a. non-patent vasculature to prevent inappropriate catheterization complications
c. nerve bundles and prevents associated complications d. guidewire direction (2,4,7-10,12,15,17,18,26-29, 31,32,35,36,41,44,48,49,51)
USGVA is transforming practice into the accepted standard of care across the entire healthcare continuum. Ultrasound technology is now being used in Emergency Departments, Intensive Care Units, preoperative units, acute care units, long term care facilities and clinics for peripheral and central access. AVA expects this trend to continue and overall usage of these evidence-based technologies to expand in the coming years. Recent literature from global publications recommend HLD for reprocessing non-invasive ultrasound transducers used for the insertion of VADs. (6,14,16,19,20,21,33,38,42)
Use of HLD for these procedures make reprocessing of these transducers impracticable and problematic for multiple reasons:
1. Reduce throughput by creating delays in transducer availability due to HLD cycle time. 2. Increase cost of additional ultrasound probes
3. Increased cost related to HLD products (special facilities, equipment and associated disinfection chemicals)
4. Non-Compliance with HLD policy and procedure 5. Additional HLD training and competency requirements
6. Reduced ultrasound guidance for VAD insertion
Through this guidance document, AVA provides a pragmatic approach to disinfection of the USGVA transducers which promote patient safety, reduce risk for healthcare-associated infections, creates uniformity and consistency to healthcare facilities across the continuum of care and enhances the opportunity to improve patient satisfaction which is so critical to evidence-based care.
Using the Spaulding Classification to Assess Patient Risk and Influence Decision-making
The authors of this guidance document conducted an extensive literature review of relevant published manuscripts to provide background and context on this important clinical issue. In addition, the authors reviewed relevant clinical guidelines and guidance statements from clinical societies and the United Stated Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Each guideline cites the Spaulding Classification Scheme (38,46,47,51). Interpretation of the Spaulding Classification is very specific in some areas and left to interpretation in others. According to the CDC, the Spaulding classification is strategy for determining reprocessing methods for contaminated medical devices based upon the use of that device (37). The system classifies a medical device as critical, semicritical, or noncritical on the basis of risk to patient safety from contamination of a device. The system also recommends three levels of disinfection activity (Sterilization, HLD, and LLD) for use according to the
classification of medical devices (critical, semicritical, and noncritical). By necessity, the Classification must recognize the prior use of the device as well as the intended use in
disinfected to meet that purpose. This demonstrates the complexity involved in disinfection of an ultrasound transducer that healthcare personnel may share and use as equipment for more than vascular assessment or VAD insertion.
The intended use of an ultrasound transducer for the purposes of placing peripheral or central vascular access devices is to assess vasculature under intact skin and not come in contact with mucous membranes. However, during insertion, the device comes into contact with the blood of the patient, and de facto the bloodstream of the patient. Therefore, cleaning and disinfection practices used within a given facility must assess the risks involved in the ultrasound transducer use and the ability to perform the necessary level of cleaning and disinfection in a manner that is consistent, reliable and reproducible.
The Association for Vascular Access (AVA) recommendations: Vascular Access Device Low-Level Disinfection
Practice Recommendations
Given the variability of facilities, personnel, organizational capabilities, and practices, AVA recommends the following steps regarding cleaning, disinfection of an ultrasound transducer used for vascular access:
1. Healthcare Facilities should conduct a thorough infection prevention and control risk assessment in collaboration with Vascular Access, Infection Prevention and Control, Environmental Services, and other relevant facility stakeholders to evaluate risks with ultrasound transducers used for vascular access to evaluate risks of healthcare associated infection transmission.
2. Prior to the first episode of ultrasound transducer use, and at least annually, all clinicians involved in USGVA will undergo comprehensive training on proper disinfection of US transducers/probes.
3. Training to include, at a minimum, cleaning and disinfection of all ultrasound transducers used as part of job responsibilities, application and use of sheaths (sterile and unsterile), application and use of gel (single use sterile), process monitoring, and performance improvement.
4. Training should be competency-based with validation.
5. All transducers/probes used for peripheral VAD insertion will undergo, at a minimum, low level disinfection using an EPA-registered, hospital-grade germicide with broad spectrum efficacy claims against clinically relevant microorganisms (including enveloped and non-enveloped viruses such as Hepatitis B Virus and HIV, multidrug resistant bacteria,
pathogenic fungi, and mycobacterium). Collaboration with the facility infection prevention and control personnel and review of the device manufacturer’s instructions for use should be part of this decision-making process.
7. Germicide use must conform with the manufacturer’s instructions for use with respect to product selection, application process, and product overall contact/dwell time. Vascular access clinicians should follow the level of disinfection (i.e. Low Level Disinfection,
Intermediate Level Disinfection, High Level Disinfection, or Sterilization) as dictated by the manufacturer’s instructions for use.
8. During assessment, consider using a single use condom or commercially manufactured transducer sheath (excluded: transparent dressing, gloves) during all use where there is the possibility of contact with blood/body fluids or non-intact skin (2,6,18,45).
9. Perform ALL ultrasound guided vascular access device insertions (PIV, Midline, PICC, CVC, Arterial line) with the use of a sterile sheath and single-use sterile gel (1,3,43).
10. Following the conclusion of the procedure, the used sheath should be immediately inspected for any tears or punctures. The sheath should then be discarded in accordance with institutional waste policies.
11. Inspect the transducer for potential compromise such as puncture evidence. If damaged, remove the device from service and consult the facility’s infection prevention and control team and the device manufacturer to determine the most appropriate cleaning,
reprocessing, and repair methods.
12. Once the probe has been inspected, the devices should be thoroughly cleaned of any visible bioburden, and then disinfected using an EPA-registered, hospital-grade disinfectant
according to the manufacturer’s instructions for use with particular attention to the
product’s overall contact time. The disinfectant must be at least capable of proving LLD and preferably be effective against Mycobacterium spp, and therefore meet the criteria as an intermediate level disinfectant.
13. The institution performing these procedures should document and retain the verification and validation of steps 1-12 above.
14. In the event ongoing process monitoring identifies cleaning and disinfectant failure(s), adverse patient outcomes that may be attributable to transducer reprocessing methods, or user techniques that demonstrate risk to the use of Low Level Disinfection (e.g., needlestick injuries, damage to transducer/probes, punctures of sheaths during procedures) existing approaches should be re-evaluated with consideration of operational and organizational changes including centralization of cleaning and disinfection, use HLD, or other changes that serve to protect the safety of the patient.
Product Evaluation Checklist for the safe practice of ultrasound transducer disinfection for vascular access procedures:
1 Is the ultrasound technology cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration?
Yes/No
3 Does the manufacturer provide validated instructions for use for cleaning and disinfection using an EPA registered, hospital-grade disinfectant with an efficacy claim against broad spectrum, clinically relevant microorganisms (including enveloped and non-enveloped viruses such as Hepatitis B Virus and HIV, multidrug resistant bacteria, pathogenic fungi, and mycobacterium)?
Yes/No
4 Does facility have a policy and procedure for ultrasound transducer (used for vascular access) disinfection?
Yes/No
5 Does clinician demonstrate competence (annual and on-going) in the fundamentals of cleaning and disinfection of transducers used for vascular access.
Yes/No
6 Does clinician have documented competency in the appropriate disinfection of the transducer according to the manufacturer’s instructions for use?
Yes/No
7 Has the facility conducted an infection control risk assessment based on current use of ultrasound technologies and current clinical practice for reprocessing these portable devices?
Yes/No
8 Does the facility have a comprehensive cleaning and disinfection process that has been, and is regularly validated (at least annually) for medical devices and relevant users?
Yes/No
Summary:
There is an associated risk for transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens and infection anytime a medical device is used between patients. This problem is not unique to the use of portable ultrasound devices in the specialty of vascular access, but rather a systems-related issue that must be addressed using the multi-faceted approach of People, Processes, and Products.
First, the user of these devices, the vascular access clinician must grasp the principles of cleaning and disinfection and have a comprehensive understanding of the product (transducer and disinfectant) instructions for use prepared by the manufacturer.
Second, healthcare facilities must develop, implement and constantly evaluate highly-reliable infection prevention and control processes for cleaning, disinfecting and storing portable ultrasound equipment used for the insertion of VADs. Facilities must validate and document each process, assess individual competencies for the user population at the time of hire, when the device’s instructions for use change and at least annually to document on-going
Third, facilities should continuously evaluate practice, identify situations where actual practice does not meet the standard of practice, and implement a performance improvement and/or research strategy to improve process and outcomes.
Fourth, healthcare facilities, clinicians, regulators, and manufacturers must be called upon to collaborate in order to deliver to the market new clinical product innovations that not only provide access to improved diagnostic and therapeutic products, but also incorporate infection prevention and control and patient safety as a key element of the product’s design, approval and clinical utilization.
Finally, we must address the need for further research in the area of transducer disinfection used for vascular access. By focusing on each element of the multi-faceted approach,
healthcare facilities can reduce risk, improve outcomes and remove unnecessary costs from the healthcare delivery system.
Conclusion:
Low level disinfection or preferably Intermediate level disinfection with an EPA-registered, hospital-grade disinfectant is appropriate for the general reprocessing of an ultrasound transducer used externally for the placement of VADs when a sterile probe cover is utilized. Additionally, further research is needed to address this critical topic and better understand current clinical practices related to disinfection competencies of vascular access clinicians and methods to create high-reliability clinical practices to ensure ultrasound transducers do not serve as vectors for cross transmission.
About the authors:
Judy Thompson, MSN, RN, VA-BC™
Ms. Thompson is the Director of Clinical Education at the Association for Vascular Access. She is a vascular access clinician with expertise in the assessment and insertion of ultrasound guided peripheral and central vascular devices. She has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
J. Hudson Garrett Jr., PhD, MSN, MPH, MBA, FNP-BC, PLNC, IP-BC™, VA-BC™, FAAPM
Assistant Professor of Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases
University of Louisville School of Medicine President, Board of Directors
Vascular Access Certification Corporation Co-Founder
Dr. Garrett is an international expert in the field of infectious diseases and infection prevention and control. He currently serves as an Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of
Infectious Diseases at the University of Louisville School of Medicine as part of the division’s gratis faculty. He is an expert in healthcare associated infections and frequently collaborates with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to educate healthcare providers on evidence-based practices to reduce vascular access related infections. Dr. Garrett has no financial relevant relationships to disclose.
Contributors: AVA wishes to thank the following healthcare professionals for their contribution
to the development of this document: Dr. Ruth Carrico, Dr. Ken Syminton, Andrea Owens, Cindy Winfrey, Frank Myers, Michelle DeVries, and Russ Nassof.
Approved by:
References:
1. Abdelfattah, R., Al-Jumaah, S., Al-Qahtani, et al (2018). Outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia bacteraemia in a tertiary care centre due to contaminated ultrasound probe gel. J Hosp Infect, 98(3), 289-294. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2017.09.010
2. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) (2013) practice guideline for the use of ultrasound to guide vascular access procedures, in J Ultrasound Med. p. 191-215. 3. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. (2017). Guidelines for Cleaning and
Preparing External and Internal use Ultrasound Probes Between Patients, Safe Handling, and use of Ultrasound Coupling Gel.
4. American Society of Anesthesiologists (2012). Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access. www.asahq.org/.../standards-guidelines/practice-guidelines-for-central-venous-access
5. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). (2013).
ANSI/AAMI ST58:2013 Chemical sterilization and high-level disinfection in health care facilities. American National Standard.
6. Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control (ACIPC) and Australasian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (ASUM). (2017). Guidelines for Reprocessing Ultrasound Transducers.
7. Australasian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine. 20:1:30-40. Based on Australian/New Zealand Standards 4815:2006 and 4187:2014.
8. Bodenham Chair, A., Babu, S., Bennett,J., et al (2016). Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland: Safe vascular access 2016. Anaesthesia, 71(5), 573-585. doi:10.1111/anae.13360
9. Brass, P., Hellmich, M., Kolodziej, L., et al. (2015). Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian or femoral vein catheterization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1, Cd011447. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011447
10. Buchanan, M., Backlund, B., Liao, M., et al (2014). Use of Ultrasound Guidance for Central Venous Catheter Placement: Survey from American Board of Emergency Medicine Longitudinal Study of Emergency Physicians. Journal of the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine. (21)4 p 416-421
11. Carrico, R., Furmanek, S., English, C. (2018). Ultrasound probe use and reprocessing: Results from a national survey among U.S. infection preventionists. American Journal of Infection Control. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2018.03.025
12. College of Surgeons, (2011). Revised Statement on Recommendations for the use of Real-Time Ultrasound Guidance for Placement of Central Venous Catheters.
https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/60-real-time-ultrasound
13. Davis, L., Owens, A., Thompson, J., (2016). Defining the Specialty of Vascular Access through Consensus: Shaping the Future of Vascular Access. Journal of the Association for Vascular Access (21)3 pp 125-130. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.java.2016.06.001
15. Egan, G., Healy, D., O'Neill, H., et al (2013). Ultrasound guidance for difficult peripheral venous access: systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Med J, 30(7), 521-526. doi:10.1136/emermed-2012-201652
16. European Committee for Medical Ultrasound Safety (ECMUS). (2017). Best Practice recommendations for cleaning and disinfection of ultrasound transducers whilst maintaining transducer integrity. Available from
http://www.efsumb.org/safety/resources/2017-probe_cleaning.pdf
17. Gorski, L., Hadaway, L., Hagle, M. et al (2017). The 2016 Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice. Journal of Infusion Nursing, (39)1S
18. Gottlieb, M., Sundaram, T., Holladay, D., et al (2017). Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Intravenous Line Placement: A Narrative Review of Evidence-based Best Practices. West J Emerg Med, 18(6), 1047-1054. doi:10.5811/westjem.2017.7.34610
19. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisor Committee. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/
20. Health Facilities Scotland, NHS National Services Scotland, Health Protection Scotland. (2016). NHS Scotland Guidance for Decontamination of Semi-Critical Ultrasound Probes; Semi-invasive and Non-invasive Ultrasound Probes. Document: HPS/HFS Version 1.0.
21. Health Service Executive (HSE) Quality Improvement Division ‐ Decontamination Safety Programme. (2017). HSE Guidance for Decontamination of Semi‐Critical Ultrasound Probes; Semi‐invasive and Non‐invasive Ultrasound Probes. Document: QPSD-GL-028 22. Helm, R., Klauser, J., Klemperer, J. (2015). Accepted but Unacceptable: Peripheral IV
Catheter Failure. Journal of Infusion Nursing (13)3 pp 189-203
23. iData Research. (2013). U.S. market for vascular access device and accessories. Burnaby, British Columbia: author.
24. Institute for Healthcare Improvement, (2018). Triple Aim Initiative. In Better Care for Individuals, Better Health for Populations, and Low Per Capita Costs.
25. Joint Commission (2017). Improperly sterilized of HLD equipment - a growing problem. Retrieved from https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/23/qs_33a_2017.pdf 26. Lamperti, M., Bodenham, A., Pittiruti, M., et al (2012). International evidence-based
recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med, 38(7), 1105-1117. doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2597-x
27. Leung, J., Duffy, M., Finkh, A. (2006). Real-Time Ultrasonographically-Guided Internal Jugular Vein Catheterization in the Emergency Department Increases Success Rates and Reduces Complications. In A. C. o. E. Physicians (Ed.), A Randomized, Prospective
Study (Vol. 48): Elsevier Inc.
28. Liu, Y. T., Alsaawi, A., Bjornsson, H. M. (2014). Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials. Eur J Emerg Med, 21(1), 18-23. doi:10.1097/MEJ.0b013e328363bebc
30. Marsh, N., Webster, J., Larsen, E. (2017). Observational Study of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Outcomes in Adult Hospitalized Patients: A Multivariable Analysis of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Failure. Journal of Hospital Medicine
31. Moore, C. (2014). Ultrasound first, second, and last for vascular access. J Ultrasound Med, 33(7), 1135-1142. doi:10.7863/ultra.33.7.1135
32. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2002). Technology Appraisal No 49: guidance on the use of ultrasound locating devices for placing central venous catheters; 1 – 24. Available from http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/ 11474/32461/32461.pdf
33. Nyhsen, C., Humphreys, H., Koerner, R. et al (2017). Infection prevention and control in ultrasound - best practice recommendations from the European Society of Radiology Ultrasound Working Group. Insights Imaging, 8(6), 523-535. doi:10.1007/s13244-017-0580-3
34. Nyhsen, C., Humphreys, H., Nicolau, C., et al (2016). Infection prevention and ultrasound probe decontamination practices in Europe: a survey of the European Society of Radiology. Insights Imaging, 7(6), 841-847. doi:10.1007/s13244-016-0528-z 35. O'Grady, N., Alexander, M., Burns, L., et al (2011). Guidelines for the prevention of
intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control, 39(4 Suppl 1), 1-83. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2011.01.003
36. Peabody, C., Mandavia, D., (2017) Deep Needle Procedures: Improving Safety with Ultrasound Visualization. Journal of Patient Safety (13) 2, pp 103-108
37. Rutala, W., Weber, D. (2004). Disinfection and Sterilization in Health Care Facilities" What Clinicians Need to Know. In (Vol. 39, pp. 702-709). Healthcare Epidemiology. 38. Rutala, W., Weber, D., HICPAC (2008, updated 2017). Guideline for Disinfection and
Sterilization of Healthcare Facilities. Pp. 1-158. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/guidelines/disinfection-guidelines.pdf
39. Rutala, W., & Weber, D., (2007). How to Assess Risk of Disease Transmission to Patients When There Is a Failure to Follow Recommended Disinfection and Sterilization
Guidelines. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 28(2), 146-155. doi:10.1086/511700
40. Sartoretti, T., Sartoretti, E., Bucher, C., et al (2017). Bacterial contamination of
ultrasound probes in different radiological institutions before and after specific hygiene training: do we have a general hygienical problem? Eur Radiol, 27(10), 4181-4187. doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4812-1
41. Saugel, B., Scheeren, T., Teboul, J. et al. (2017). Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement: a structured review and recommendations for clinical
practice. Critical Care, 21, 225. doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1814-y
42. Scotland, Health Facilities (2016). NHSScotland Guidance for Decontamination of Semi-Critical Ultrasound Probes; Semi-invasive and Non-invasive Ultrasound Probes. In N. S. Scotland & H. P. Scotland (Eds.).
gel used for central line insertion under ultrasound guidance and other procedures. Am J Infect Control, 45(9), 954-958. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2017.06.025
44. Shekelle, P., Dallas, P. (2013). Use of Real-Time Ultrasound Guidance during Central Line Insertion. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville.
https://archive.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/ptsafetyII-full.pdf 45. Shokoohi, H., Armstrong, P., Tansek, R. (2015). Emergency department ultrasound
probe infection control: challenges and solutions. Open Access Emergency Medicine : OAEM, 7, 1-9. doi:10.2147/OAEM.S50360
46. Spaulding, E. H. (1972). Chemical disinfection and antisepsis in the hospital. Erie, Pa., U.S.A: American Sterilizer Co., Research and Educational Divisions.
47. Spaulding EH. (1968). Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materials. In:
Lawrence C, Block SS, eds. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1968:517-31.
48. Stolz, L., Stolz, U., Howe, C., et al (2015). Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Vasc Access, 16(4), 321-326.
doi:10.5301/jva.5000346
49. Thomson, N., Williams, W., Byass, O., (2015). Guidelines for Professional Ultrasound Practice. Society and College of Radiographers, & The British Medical Ultrasound Society
50. Troianos, C., Hartman, G., Glas, K., et al (2011). Guidelines for performing ultrasound guided vascular cannulation: recommendations of the American Society of
Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 24(12), 1291-1318. doi:10.1016/j.echo.2011.09.021
51. United Stated Food and Drug Administration (2015). Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidan cedocuments/ucm253010.pdf
52. Weiner, M., Geldard, P., Mittnacht, A. (2013). Ultrasound-guided vascular access: a comprehensive review. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 27(2), 345-360.
doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2012.07.007
53. Westerway, S., Basseal, J. (2017). Advancing infection control in Australian medical ultrasound practice. In (Vol. 20, pp. 26-29). Australian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine: Wiley.
54. Westerway, S., Basseal, J. (2017). The ultrasound unit and infection control - Are we on the right track? Ultrasound, 25(1), 53-57. doi:10.1177/1742271x16688720
55. Westerway, S., Basseal, J., Brockway, A., et al (2017). Potential Infection Control Risks Associated with Ultrasound Equipment - A Bacterial Perspective. Ultrasound Med Biol, 43(2), 421-426. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.09.004
device’s approved instructions for use provided by the manufacturer. This document should also be used in conjunction with a facility-specific infection control risk assessment to create
