Tag Archives: Patient Safety

Healthcare Safety, Perioperative Nursing, Surgical Best Practice

Jewellery, Piercings & Metal in the Operating Room – The Hidden Burn Risk

Leave a comment

Why This Matters

Electrosurgical units (ESUs)—both monopolar and bipolar—are essential to modern surgery, but they carry the risk of burn injuries when electricity strays from its intended path. Metal items—such as jewellery, piercings (including tongue and genital), or internal implants—can potentially become unintended pathways. This post highlights how to mitigate those risks, why it matters for patient safety, and the financial consequences for hospitals.

The Numbers – Global Perspective

Electrosurgical burns are rare but costly:

  • Canada: 53 reported cases over five years involving OR burns or fires, nearly half linked to electrosurgery.

  • USA: State safety data reveal over 50% of ESU-related incidents involve burns, often due to accidental activation or poor return pad contact.

  • UK: ~80 electrosurgical burn incidents annually, with ~35% involving grounding pad issues.

  • Australia: Fewer published stats—but repeated safety alerts highlighting risks like instrument insulation failure underscore ongoing concerns.

Globally, 2–5 electrosurgical burns per 1,000 laparoscopic procedures translate to thousands affected yearly across high-volume health systems.

Jewellery & Piercings – Myth vs. Reality

Modern studies—including one in JAMA Surgery—show that most jewellery and piercings don’t cause burns when the ESU system is functioning properly. Electricity prefers the low-resistance return pad over small metal objects covered by drapes.

But caution remains necessary. In rare cases of pad failure or equipment malfunction, any metal can become a hazard.

When Risk Increases

The danger spikes when metal is very close to the surgical site or in a high-risk combo:

  • Tongue Piercings: During oral surgery (e.g., tonsillectomy), having a metal tongue bar plus cautery and supplemental oxygen presents a notable risk of alternate-site burn or fire. Tongue jewellery should always be removed pre-op.

  • Genital Piercings: Piercings near operative sites (e.g., groin, perineal, or urological procedures) similarly elevate burn risk; removal and patient awareness are essential.

Why Nurses Tape Rings and Secure Piercings

When a ring or piercing cannot be removed—due to swelling, embedded design, cultural significance, or patient refusal—nurses will often tape over the item.
This is not done to prevent electrical conduction (tape doesn’t insulate against electrosurgery current) but to:

  1. Prevent mechanical injury – Jewellery can scratch or tear surgical gloves, drapes, or delicate equipment insulation.

  2. Avoid snagging – Metal can catch on surgical gowns, patient positioning devices, or instrument cables.

  3. Protect from loss or damage – Taping secures the jewellery in place during patient transfer or positioning.

This practice is a secondary safety measure, not a substitute for removal. Whenever possible, jewellery and piercings should be fully removed before surgery to eliminate risk.

Internal Metal Implants

Although theoretically concerning, no documented burns have occurred due to internal hip or knee implants in recent years. However, grounding pads must never be placed over or near implants, as soft tissue routes are vastly safer for current flow.

The Real Culprits Behind ESU Burns

Far more common causes include:

  • Poor return pad adhesion

  • Damaged instrument insulation

  • Contact with conductive OR fixtures

  • Accidental activation when the active electrode rests on drapes or the patient

Financial Cost to Hospitals

Burn incidents from electrosurgery aren’t just patient safety issues—they carry significant financial burdens:

  • General surgical complications increase hospital costs by nearly $19,600 per case, while reducing profit margins to nearly zero compared to uncomplicated surgeries.

  • Burn-specific care is especially resource-intensive:

    • Average total cost per burn patient in the U.S.: $51,770, with daily costs averaging $8,845.

    • Severe burns can range from $300,000–$500,000 per patient.

    • Hospital stays for burn-related injuries average $24,000, double the cost of typical admissions.

    • In the U.S., burn-related hospital costs exceed $1 billion annually—about 1% of all hospital spending.

Preventing even a handful of ESU burns annually can translate into significant cost savings and reduced patient harm.

Standards of Practice – Minimizing Risk and Cost

To protect patients—and hospital resources—adhere to these best practices:

  1. Remove all jewellery and piercings, including tongue and genital ones, especially if near the surgical field.

  2. Patient education: Clearly communicate burn risks from piercings and implants as part of consent.

  3. If jewellery cannot be removed, tape to secure and protect from mechanical harm—but never rely on tape for electrical safety.

  4. Position grounding pads away from piercings or metal implants.

  5. If the incision is close to metal, consider using bipolar electrosurgery instead of monopolar — this is safer and reduces current spread.

  6. Inspect instruments for intact insulation before use.

  7. Holster the active electrode when not in use; never leave it on drapes or patient.

  8. Prevent patient contact with grounded surfaces.

  9. Use lowest effective power, shortest activation bursts.

  10. Allow surgical prep to fully dry, preventing fires and burns.

Takeaway for the Surgical Team

Jewellery and piercings are rarely direct causes of electrosurgical burns—but eliminating even the slightest risk helps protect patients and hospitals. Burn care is complex, costly, and emotionally taxing. Preventing ESU burns through vigilance and best practices safeguards both human and financial health.

References

  1. Blumenstein N, et al. Bringing to Light the Risk of Burns From Retained Metal Jewelry Piercings in the Operating Room – Torching the Myth. JAMA Surgery. 2022. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2789491

  2. Calder LA, et al. Surgical Fires and Burns: A 5-Year Analysis of Medico-Legal Cases in Canada. J Burn Care Res. 2019;40(6):744–750.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30562214/

  3. Vilos GA, et al. Understanding and Practising Safe Electrosurgery in the Operating Room. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018;40(3):e207–e222. https://www.jogc.com/article/S1701-2163(17)30856-7/fulltext

  4. Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority. Electrosurgery Safety Issues. PA-PSRS Patient Safety Advisory. March 2006. https://patientsafety.pa.gov/ADVISORIES/Pages/200603_01.aspx

  5. NSW Health. Safety Notice 013/23 – Risk of Burn Injury from Degraded Insulated Laparoscopic Instruments. 2023. https://www1.health.nsw.gov.au/pds/ActivePDSDocuments/PD2023_013.pdf

  6. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Medical Device Safety Reports – Electrosurgery. UK, 2010–2020. https://www.gov.uk/drug-device-alerts

  7. Choudhry AJ, et al. Surgical Fires and Operative Burns: A 33-Year Review of Litigation. Am J Surg. 2017;213(3):558–564. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27894644/

  8. Deml MC, et al. Thermic Effect on Metal Body Piercing by Electrosurgery (Ex Vivo). Technol Health Care. 2018;26(1):131–138. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29286953/

  9. Sheldon RR, et al. Microdermal Implants Show No Effect on Surrounding Tissue During Surgery With Electrocautery. J Surg Res. 2019;235:59–63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30935737/

  10. Lasker Foundation. Burn Injury Fact Sheet. 2021. https://laskerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/burns_fact_sheet.pdf

  11. Net Health. The Cost of Chronic Wounds. 2023. https://www.nethealth.com/blog/cost-of-chronic-wounds/

  12. American Burn Association. Burn Incidence and Treatment in the United States: 2016 Fact Sheet. https://ameriburn.org/who-we-are/media/burn-incidence-fact-sheet/

Infection Control, Perioperative Nursing, Perioperative Practice, Surgical Best Practice

🚫 Artificial Nails in the Operating Room: More Than a Policy—It’s a Patient Safety Imperative

Leave a comment

In perioperative environments, details matter—especially those that impact infection prevention and patient safety. While acrylic and artificial nails may be fashionable, in the sterile world of the OR and Sterile Processing Department (SPD), they pose a real risk.

🔬 Evidence of Patient Harm

Healthcare workers wearing long or artificial nails have been directly linked to serious infections and even fatalities in patients:

📍 NICU Outbreak (USA)

  • Pathogen: Pseudomonas aeruginosa

  • Impact: 46 infected infants; 16 deaths

  • Source: Nurses with long and artificial nails

  • Outcome: Outbreak ceased after nail-length restrictions were implemented

📍 Spinal Surgery Fungal Infections

  • Pathogen: Candida albicans

  • Impact: Multiple patients developed postoperative osteomyelitis

  • Source: OR technician with artificial nails

  • Outcome: No further cases after technician was removed

🔬 Lab-Based Evidence

Studies show that:

  • Up to 87% of healthcare workers with artificial nails harbored pathogenic organisms, even after scrubbing.

  • Natural nails showed significantly lower colonization rates.

💰 The Financial Toll

Preventable infections don’t just harm patients—they’re expensive:

  • Cost per hospital-acquired infection:
    AUD $18,000–$42,000+

  • 10-case outbreak could cost a hospital $400,000+, not including litigation or reputational damage.

  • Surgical site infections (SSIs) cost hospitals about $20,000 per patient

  • MRSA-related SSIs can exceed $60,000 per case, with longer hospital stays and higher risk of complications

  • Even just 5–10 avoidable cases linked to policy breaches (like wearing acrylic nails) could cost a hospital hundreds of thousands of dollars

  • Infections linked to lapses in infection control—like poor nail hygiene—carry a major financial burden:

  • Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) cost the U.S. healthcare system an estimated $28–45 billion annually 📉

📜 What the Guidelines Say

✅ AORN (USA)

“Artificial nails should not be worn by perioperative team members who have direct contact with patients.”

✅ ACORN (Australia)

“Staff in the perioperative environment must not wear artificial fingernails or nail enhancements.”

Both standards emphasize natural nails ≤ ¼ inch in length, free from polish chips or artificial coatings.

🔄 Best Practice for OR & SPD Teams

  • Keep nails natural, short, and clean

  • Avoid all artificial enhancements (acrylic, gel, overlays)

  • Practice strict hand hygiene and glove integrity checks

🧠 Bottom Line

Nail hygiene in the surgical space isn’t about appearance—it’s about protecting patients. Even one overlooked fingernail can change a life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

📚 References

  1. Moolenaar, R. L., et al. (2000). A prolonged outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a neonatal intensive care unit: did staff fingernails play a role? Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 21(2), 80–85.
    https://doi.org/10.1086/501745

  2. Hedderwick, S. A., et al. (2000). Pathogenic organisms associated with artificial fingernails worn by healthcare workers. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 21(8), 505–509.
    https://doi.org/10.1086/501795

  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2002). Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 51(RR-16), 1–45.
    https://www.cdc.gov/handhygiene/

  4. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN). (2023). Guideline for Hand Hygiene.
    https://www.aorn.org/guidelines

  5. Australian College of Perioperative Nurses (ACORN). (2023). Standards for Perioperative Nursing in Australia.
    https://www.acorn.org.au/standards

  6. Alberta Health Services. (2020). Artificial Nails and Nail Polish in Healthcare Settings – Fact Sheet.
    https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/hp/hh/if-hp-hh-artificial-nails-in-healthcare.pdf

  7. World Health Organization (WHO). (2009). WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care.
    https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241597906

  8. Scott, R. D. (2009). The Direct Medical Costs of Healthcare-Associated Infections in U.S. Hospitals and the Benefits of Prevention. CDC.
    https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11550

  9. Kaye, K. S., et al. (2009). The Cost of Surgical Site Infections in the United States. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology.
    https://www.wired.com/2009/12/one-surgical-infection-with-mrsa-61000

  10. Magill, S. S., et al. (2014). Multistate Point-Prevalence Survey of Health Care–Associated Infections. New England Journal of Medicine, 370, 1198–1208.
    https://www.cdc.gov/hai/data/portal/index.html

  11. Graves, N., Halton, K., & Lairson, D. R. (2007). The economics of infection control: Hospital-acquired infections and patient safety. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 20(4), 337–341.
    https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0b013e3282638e25

  12. Gillespie, B. M., et al. (2021). The Burden of Surgical Site Infections in Australia: A Cost of Illness Study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, 91(3), 387–392.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.16339

  13. Infection Control Today. (2001). Artificial Nails Undermine Infection Control.
    https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/artificial-nails-undermine-infection-control

  14. CIDRAP. (2023). Study: Healthcare-Linked Infections Cost US $10 Billion a Year.
    https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/clostridium-difficile/study-healthcare-linked-infections-cost-us-10-billion-year

 

 

 

 

 

Nursing Workforce, Operating Room Leadership

🧱 When Rostering Feels Like Jenga: The Unseen Burden of Building OR Teams

Leave a comment

💥 Introduction: Rostering Is No Small Feat

In a perfect world, every surgical team is consistent—familiar nurses, trusted techs, the surgeon’s “dream team.” But in the real world? Staffing the OR is a high-stakes game of Jenga.

Nurse managers must balance:

  • Leave, breaks, and unexpected absences

  • Maternity cover, new grads, and on-the-fly replacements

  • Skill levels, specialty experience, and surgeon preferences

One wrong piece—and the entire surgical list could collapse.

🧠 The Real Cost of Unseen Stress

While CEOs review performance metrics, the behind-the-scenes chaos of managing staff schedules is rarely noticed—until it impacts patients, delays cases, or increases staff burnout.

According to BMC Health Services Research (2019), communication breakdowns and inadequate team familiarity significantly contribute to flow disruptions in the OR, which can ultimately affect patient safety and surgical efficiency.

🔄 Enhancing Surgical Team Competency Through Cross-Specialty Rotations

In the dynamic environment of the operating room, consistent team composition is often challenged by factors such as staff breaks, holidays, maternity leave, sudden illnesses, and the necessity to train new personnel. These variables can disrupt the continuity that surgeons rely upon for optimal performance.

To mitigate these challenges, structured cross-specialty rotations have been identified as a valuable strategy. A comprehensive review published in the Journal of Surgery and Research underscores several benefits of such rotations:

  • Broadened Clinical Exposure: Trainees gain experience across various surgical disciplines, fostering a more versatile skill set.

  • Enhanced Teamwork: Exposure to different specialties promotes better understanding and collaboration among multidisciplinary teams.

  • Improved Patient Outcomes: A diverse training background equips surgical staff to handle a wider array of clinical scenarios effectively.

Moreover, the British Journal of Surgery emphasizes that cross-specialty training is instrumental in preparing surgeons for the complexities of modern patient care, which often requires a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach.

💡 Implementing Supportive Systems

To fully leverage the benefits of cross-specialty rotations, it’s crucial to establish systems that:

  • Facilitate Knowledge Sharing: Ensure that critical information is accessible to all team members, regardless of their primary specialty.

  • Support Continuous Learning: Provide ongoing educational resources to keep staff updated on best practices across specialties.

  • Promote Flexibility: Develop adaptable protocols that accommodate the dynamic nature of surgical team compositions.

By embracing these strategies, we can create a resilient surgical workforce capable of delivering high-quality care, even amidst staffing fluctuations.

🎯 Let’s Recognize the Real MVPs

To every perioperative manager playing roster Jenga…
To every team that flexes, fills gaps, and keeps surgery moving…
We see you. You’re not just building rosters—you’re holding the OR together.

🧱 The Nurse Manager’s Jenga: Balancing OR Staffing & Schedules

Section 1: The Daily Challenges

  • Staff Availability: Managing unexpected absences due to illness or emergencies.

  • Shift Preferences: Accommodating individual staff scheduling preferences.

  • Skill Mix: Ensuring the right combination of skills for each shift.

  • Compliance: Adhering to labor laws and organizational policies.

 

Section 2: The Impact on OR Efficiency

  • Delayed Surgeries: Scheduling issues leading to postponed procedures.

  • Increased Overtime: Staff working extra hours to cover gaps.

  • Burnout Risk: Elevated stress levels among staff due to scheduling conflicts.

  • Patient Satisfaction: Potential decline in patient experience due to staffing issues.

 

Section 3: Strategies for Stability

  • Advanced Scheduling Tools: Utilizing software to optimize shift planning.

  • Cross-Training Staff: Preparing staff to handle multiple roles as needed.

  • Open Communication: Maintaining transparent dialogue about scheduling needs.

  • Regular Reviews: Assessing and adjusting schedules proactively.Proactive Healthcare Staffing

“Supporting our nurse managers in their balancing act ensures a stable and efficient operating room environment.”

Hospital Efficiency, Perioperative Nursing, Sterilization & Infection Control, Surgical Equipment, Surgical safety

The Intricate Workflow of Sterile Processing

Leave a comment

The SPD operates through a series of well-defined stages, each critical to maintaining instrument integrity and patient safety:

  1. Decontamination: Used instruments are transported to the decontamination area, where they undergo thorough cleaning to remove organic and inorganic materials. This process often involves manual scrubbing, ultrasonic cleaning, and the use of washer-disinfection .specialtycareus.com

  2. Inspection and Assembly: Post-cleaning, instruments are meticulously inspected for cleanliness and functionality. They are then assembled into sets according to specific surgical procedures, ensuring that each tray contains the necessary tools in proper working order .specialtycareus.com

  3. Sterilization: Assembled instrument sets are subjected to sterilization processes, commonly using steam sterilization at temperatures of 121°C (250°F) or 134°C (270°F). The choice of sterilization method depends on the instrument’s material and design .

  4. Storage and Distribution: Sterilized instruments are stored in controlled environments to maintain sterility until they are needed in surgical procedures. The SPD ensures timely distribution to operating rooms, aligning with surgical schedules .

Navigating the Challenges of Loan Instrument Sets

The integration of vendor-loaned instrument sets introduces additional complexity to the SPD’s operations. These sets, often comprising up to 10 +/- trays for a single procedure, require the same rigorous decontamination and sterilization processes as hospital-owned instruments. However, they frequently arrive with limited lead time, pressuring SPD staff to expedite processing without compromising standards .blog.pdchealthcare.com+2ospecsconsulting.com+2sterileally.com+2readysetsurgical.com+1healthtrustpg.com+1

Proper management of loan sets necessitates:presentations.patientsafety-me.com+6infectioncontroltoday.com+6sterileprocessingtech.org+6

  • Advance Communication: Coordinating with vendors to ensure timely delivery and provision of detailed instrument lists and sterilization instructions .aorn.org

  • Thorough Documentation: Maintaining accurate records of sterilization cycles, including biological and chemical indicator results, to verify compliance with safety protocols .specialtycareus.com

  • Staff Training: Ensuring SPD personnel are trained to handle the specific requirements of various loaner instruments, including disassembly and reassembly procedures .readysetsurgical.com+5blog.pdchealthcare.com+5presentations.patientsafety-me.com+5

Specialized Sterilization: Handling Heat-Sensitive Instruments

Certain medical devices, such as flexible endoscopes, are sensitive to the high temperatures of standard steam sterilization. For these instruments, ethylene oxide (EtO) gas sterilization is employed. EtO is effective in sterilizing complex devices without causing damage, making it suitable for items with intricate channels and heat-sensitive materials .

However, EtO sterilization presents challenges:aqrdm.org

  • Extended Processing Time: The EtO sterilization cycle can take up to 12 hours, including aeration time to remove residual gas .

  • Health and Safety Concerns: EtO is a known carcinogen, necessitating stringent safety measures to protect staff and patients .

As a result, some facilities are exploring alternative methods, such as vaporized hydrogen peroxide, which offers effective sterilization with shorter cycle times and fewer health risks .verywellhealth.com+1steris.com+1

The Critical Role of the SPD in Surgical Efficiency

The efficiency of the SPD directly impacts surgical schedules and patient outcomes. Delays in instrument processing can lead to postponed surgeries, increased patient wait times, and elevated healthcare costs. Therefore, the SPD’s ability to manage complex workflows, adapt to the demands of loan instruments, and employ appropriate sterilization methods is vital to the overall success of surgical services .

In conclusion, the Sterile Processing Department is a cornerstone of patient safety and surgical efficacy. Through meticulous processes and adaptability to evolving challenges, SPD professionals ensure that every instrument meets the highest standards of cleanliness and functionality, thereby upholding the integrity of healthcare delivery.sterileprocessingtech.org+5steris.com+5sterileally.com+5

🔖 Reference List

  1. Macario, A. (2010). What does one minute of operating room time cost? Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 22(4), 233–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2010.02.003

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Ethylene oxide sterilization. https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/disinfection-sterilization/ethylene-oxide-sterilization.html

  3. SpecialtyCare. (n.d.). The Importance of the Sterile Processing Department in Hospitals. https://specialtycareus.com/hospital-sterile-processing

  4. STERIS. (n.d.). What is sterile processing? https://www.steris.com/healthcare/knowledge-center/sterile-processing/what-is-sterile-processing

  5. OSPECS Consulting. (2021). Vendor-loaned instrument reprocessing reality. https://ospecsconsulting.com/healthmarket-digest-vendor-loaned-instrument-reprocessing-reality

  6. Infection Control Today. (2020). Challenges associated with loaner instrumentation. https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/challenges-associated-loaner-instrumentation

  7. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN). (n.d.). Sample Policy: Loaned Instruments. https://www.aorn.org/docs/default-source/aorndocuments/toolkits/perioperative-efficiency/instrument-turnover/sample-policy-loaned-instruments.pdf

  8. Verywell Health. (2023). Vaporized hydrogen peroxide: A safer sterilization alternative. https://www.verywellhealth.com/vaporized-hydrogen-peroxide-sterilize-medical-devices-8553818

Clinical Governance, Healthcare Technology, Perioperative Education, Professional Development, Surgical Best Practice

📚 Why Time and Education Matter in Instilling Best Practice

Leave a comment

Embedding best practices into clinical skills requires deliberate time investment, structured education, and ongoing reinforcement. Research indicates that:

  • 🔍 Deliberate practice over time improves clinical performance.
    Ericsson et al.’s seminal work on skill acquisition demonstrates that expert performance arises from structured, repetitive practice—not merely experience. In surgical settings, this entails building skills through repeated exposure to procedural norms, instrument setup, and workflow protocols.
    (Ericsson KA et al., 1993. Psychological Review)

  • 🕒 Operating rooms are complex environments with high cognitive demands.
    A prospective observational study by Göras et al. (2019) found that surgical teams performed an average of 64 tasks per hour, with nearly half involving communication. Multitasking accounted for 48.2% of the time, and interruptions occurred at a rate of 3.0 per hour, predominantly due to equipment issues. These findings highlight the necessity for structured education and time allocation to manage the complexities of the OR effectively.
    (Göras C et al., 2019. BMJ Open)

  • 🧠 Simulation and structured education improve retention of best practices.
    A study in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that OR team members who engaged in simulation-based education were more likely to adhere to best practice protocols, such as surgical safety checklists and aseptic setup techniques.
    (Barsuk JH et al., 2009. J Am Coll Surg)

  • 📈 Structured learning platforms help consolidate complex clinical knowledge.
    Digital tools that reinforce policy-based workflows (like ACORN, AORN, AFPP) assist learners in absorbing, applying, and reflecting on clinical procedures in real-time. Platforms like ScrubUp bridge the gap between formal education and day-to-day clinical needs.

Final Thought (Updated):

By investing time in education and reinforcing evidence-based standards, we don’t just teach a skill—we nurture clinical judgment, adaptability, and professionalism. Whether it’s the first surgical tray setup or a case pivot under pressure, clinicians trained with time and structure are best equipped to deliver safe, efficient care.

References:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-40718-001

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31097486/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19667306/

Clinical Best Practices, Education, Education & Training, Infection Prevention, Operating Room, Operating Room Education, OR Nursing, Perioperative Education, Skin Antisepsis, Surgical Nursing

Reducing SSIs Through Best Practice Skin Preparation: What Every OR Nurse Should Know

Leave a comment

Best Practice for Surgical Skin Preparation: Reducing the Risk of Surgical Site Infections (SSIs)

Surgical skin preparation is one of the most critical steps in preventing Surgical Site Infections (SSIs)—a complication that not only affects patient recovery but places a significant financial burden on healthcare systems worldwide.

🦠 Why Surgical Site Infections Matter

SSIs are among the most common types of healthcare-associated infections and can occur in up to 5% of surgical procedures. Their consequences extend beyond the immediate surgical outcome:

  • In Australia, SSIs add an average $18,814 to the direct cost of treatment per patient.

  • In the United States, SSIs cost the healthcare system $3.3 to $10 billion annually.

  • A single infection following a hip or knee replacement can add $12,689 USD in direct costs.

  • SSIs significantly prolong hospital stays, often requiring readmission, further tests, and additional treatment.

Given the clinical and economic impact, preventing SSIs is not only a patient safety priority—it’s a healthcare imperative.

🧼 What Is Surgical Skin Preparation?

Surgical skin preparation involves cleansing the skin at and around the surgical site to reduce the microbial count to the lowest possible level. The goal is to create a sterile field that minimizes the risk of microbial contamination during the procedure.

Key Principles of Best Practice:

  • Clean to Dirty: Begin at the cleanest area—typically the planned incision site—and work outward in concentric circles or squares.

  • No Double Dipping: Use a fresh swab for each pass. Never return a used applicator to the antiseptic solution.

  • Wide Coverage: Prep a generous area to accommodate any extension of the surgical incision.

  • High-Risk Zones Prepped Last: Areas such as the groin, umbilicus, open wounds, stomas, orifices should be cleaned last and with separate sponges.

  • Reverse Technique for Contaminated Areas: For high-risk zones, start at the cleaner periphery and move inward to the more contaminated center.

The AORN (Association of periOperative Registered Nurses) recommends selecting an alcohol-based prepping agent based on the anatomical location and patient assessment. Alcohol-based preps should not be used near mucosa, eyes, or ears. Iodine-based alternatives are safer in such cases.

📊 Why It’s Done This Way – The Evidence Behind the Method

The technique of prepping from clean to dirty and using separate applicators for contaminated zones is designed to:

  • Prevent cross-contamination within the sterile field.

  • Maintain the lowest possible bacterial load at the incision site.

  • Ensure compliance with infection control standards such as those outlined by AORN, ACORN, and WHO guidelines.

👩‍⚕️ Educating the Next Generation of Perioperative Professionals

Understanding why and how we perform surgical skin preparation is critical for novice operating room staff. Proper technique supports not only patient safety, but also team trust, procedure efficiency, and hospital sustainability.

Visual guides help reinforce learning by showing the correct prepping zones and motion patterns for various surgical sites.

📷 

✅ Final Thoughts

Following best practice in surgical skin preparation isn’t just a procedural checklist item—it’s a frontline defense against infection. When done correctly, it protects patients, reduces complications, and ensures that the operating team upholds the highest standards of care.

Stay vigilant, prep with purpose, and lead with best practice.