Evaluation of Factor Effecting Sterility of Surgical Instruments During Transportation from Central Sterile Supply Department to Operation Theatre

Authors

  • Bisma Zahra Department of Operation Theater Technology, Riphah International University Lahore, Pakistan
  • Shahid Ijaz Department of Operation Theater Technology, Riphah International University Lahore, Pakistan
  • Saman Department of Operation Theater Technology, Riphah International University Lahore, Pakistan
  • Fakhra Fakhr Head of Department Assistant Professor at Riphah International University Lahore, Pakistan
  • Muhammad Asif Department of Operation Theater Technology, Riphah International University Lahore, Pakistan
  • Muhammad Abdullah Clinical Instructor at Green International University Lahore, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v4i5.3200

Keywords:

Central Sterile Supply Department, Surgical Instruments, Sterility, Transportation, Operating Theatre, Patient Safety

Abstract

Background: Maintaining the sterility of surgical instruments is essential for preventing surgical site infections and ensuring patient safety. Although considerable emphasis is placed on sterilization and reprocessing within the Central Sterile Supply Department (CSSD), the transportation phase from CSSD to the operating theatre represents a critical yet underexplored point where sterility may be compromised due to environmental exposure, handling practices, and packaging integrity. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the factors affecting the sterility of surgical instruments during transportation from the Central Sterile Supply Department to the operating theatre. Methodology: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted over a six-month period at Tertiary Care Hospital. A total of 73 operating theatre and CSSD staff members were selected using convenience sampling. Data were collected using structured questionnaires and observation checklists assessing demographic characteristics, professional experience, transport practices, and perceived sterility maintenance. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings, and inferential analysis, including chi-square testing, was applied to assess associations between professional variables and overall sterility-related ratings. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 21. Results: The majority of respondents demonstrated moderate to high overall ratings, with 93.3% scoring 60% or above, indicating generally satisfactory practices related to instrument handling and transportation. CSSD and OT technicians constituted the largest proportion of participants, reflecting their central role in sterile processing activities. No statistically significant association was found between profession and overall rating (p > 0.05). Most respondents were early to mid-career professionals, highlighting the importance of training and supervision. Conclusion: The study concludes that while sterility practices during transportation are generally satisfactory, opportunities for improvement remain. Maintaining sterility extends beyond effective sterilization to include safe transport conditions, packaging integrity, and adherence to standard protocols. Strengthening transport systems, staff training, and quality assurance measures is essential to enhance infection prevention and patient safety.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. World Health Organization. Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. Geneva: WHO; 2016.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2016.12.016

2. Allegranzi B, et al. Surgical site infections 1. Lancet. 2016.

3. Anderson DJ, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014.

https://doi.org/10.1086/676022

4. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). ANSI/AAMI ST79: Comprehensive guide to steam sterilization.

5. Greenberg CC, et al. Preventability of retained surgical items. Ann Surg. 2018.

6. Egorova NN, et al. Retained surgical items: a national perspective. Ann Surg. 2019.

7. Gibbs VC. Risks for retained surgical items. Surg Clin North Am. 2015.

8. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN). Guidelines for sterile technique.

9. Alfa MJ, Singh H. Impact of packaging and transport on sterility. Am J Infect Control. 2020.

10. Seavey R. Sterile supply chain vulnerabilities. Am J Infect Control. 2019;47(9):1053–7.

11. Dreikhausen U, et al. Microbial contamination during instrument processing. J Hosp Infect. 2019.

12. Spry C. Sterile processing department management. Elsevier; 2020.

13. Kampf G, Kramer A. Post-COVID CSSD challenges. Infect Prev Pract. 2021.

14. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities. Am J Infect Control. 2019;47.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107153165.009

15. World Health Organization. Decontamination and reprocessing of medical devices.

16. Joint Commission International. Infection prevention and control standards.

17. Huang Y, et al. Moistening of surgical instruments and cleaning efficacy. Healthcare Infection. 2018.

18. Ofstead CL, et al. Residual contamination on surgical instruments after reprocessing. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(8):884–9.

19. Sehulster L. Packaging failures and sterility loss. Am J Infect Control. 2018.

20. Zhang L, et al. Packaging defects in sterile sets. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020.

21. Mitchell A, et al. Human factors in sterile processing. J Patient Saf. 2021.

22. McCormick RD, et al. Hospital transport systems. Health Environ Res Des J. 2019.

23. Alfa MJ. Sterile barrier system failures. Am J Infect Control. 2016.

24. Ofstead CL, et al. Human-factor risks in reprocessing. J Healthc Risk Manag. 2020.

25. Blevins A, et al. Education and sterile processing quality. Am J Infect Control. 2022.

26. World Health Organization. Safe Surgery Saves Lives.

27. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN). Guidelines for sterile processing.

28. Teshome BF, et al. Organizational factors and SSI risk. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020;41(6):694–700.

29. Allegranzi B, et al. Infection prevention systems. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018.

30. de Jonge SW, et al. Global SSI prevention challenges. BMJ. 2020.

31. Almedaini A, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practices among CSSD staff in Saudi MOH hospitals. 2021.

https://doi.org/10.12691/ajidm-9-4-5

32. Surabhi S, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to sterilization among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study. 2025.

https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.95275

33. Chen Y, et al. Factors associated with deficiencies in packaging of surgical instruments. 2022.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08030-1

34. Zhu X. Errors in packaging surgical instruments based on tracking system in CSSD. 2019.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4007-3

35. Huang J, et al. Training needs

36. Chen H, et al. Incidence of adverse events in CSSD and quality improvement. 2023. Available from:

37. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN). Instrument cleaning guideline (transport in closed container). AORN J. 2020.

38. AORN. Manual 5: Sterile processing projects (case cart/transport considerations). 2024–2025.

39. Sukhlecha AG, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding sterilization. 2015.

https://doi.org/10.5455/ijmsph.2015.20052015284

Downloads

Published

2026-05-30

How to Cite

Zahra, B., Ijaz, S., Saman, Fakhr, F., Muhammad Asif, & Muhammad Abdullah. (2026). Evaluation of Factor Effecting Sterility of Surgical Instruments During Transportation from Central Sterile Supply Department to Operation Theatre. Indus Journal of Bioscience Research, 4(5), 21-25. https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v4i5.3200