Duodenoscopes like this have been linked to the superbug outbreak at a UCLA hospital. The scopes are commonly used by physicians to diagnose and treat cancer, gallstones and other conditions.
(Liz Martin/The Gazette)
3 comments:
Owen
said...
I don't think that the FDA is being irresponsible for not taking the device off the market because the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. On a percentage basis, the risk of infection is low. Most medical procedures have risk so this doesn't seem ay worse than anything else. I do think that the FDA should have the company that makes the device alter it in a way so that it can be disinfected more thoroughly. Reducing the risk of infection is important and should be done.
I agree with Owen. Even if the FDA knew of the design flaw and could have possibly taken it off the market to prevent this outbreak, I think another outbreak like this is inevitable. Even with an improved version of the duodenoscope, sterilization mistakes can't be prevented even with close monitoring. Some bacteria can live through the harshest conditions, and if not perfectly cleaned, they might survive. However, I do think there should be a better model of the duodenoscope because it is half the problem. First it goes inside the body to scan, and then it is sterilized for the next procedure. If the duodenoscope is flawed, sterilization might not work.
I am somewhat ambivalent about this; I do think that the FDA made a good decision by deciding that the benefits are more substantial than the detriments, but they should have been more worried and tried to create an improved version of the duodenoscope. Also, maybe the sterilization process should be improved.
3 comments:
I don't think that the FDA is being irresponsible for not taking the device off the market because the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. On a percentage basis, the risk of infection is low. Most medical procedures have risk so this doesn't seem ay worse than anything else. I do think that the FDA should have the company that makes the device alter it in a way so that it can be disinfected more thoroughly. Reducing the risk of infection is important and should be done.
I agree with Owen. Even if the FDA knew of the design flaw and could have possibly taken it off the market to prevent this outbreak, I think another outbreak like this is inevitable. Even with an improved version of the duodenoscope, sterilization mistakes can't be prevented even with close monitoring. Some bacteria can live through the harshest conditions, and if not perfectly cleaned, they might survive. However, I do think there should be a better model of the duodenoscope because it is half the problem. First it goes inside the body to scan, and then it is sterilized for the next procedure. If the duodenoscope is flawed, sterilization might not work.
I am somewhat ambivalent about this; I do think that the FDA made a good decision by deciding that the benefits are more substantial than the detriments, but they should have been more worried and tried to create an improved version of the duodenoscope. Also, maybe the sterilization process should be improved.
Post a Comment