PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Frank M Moses

Publications and source records attributed to Frank M Moses.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Exercise-associated intestinal ischemia.

Ischemic bowel disease exhibits a complex spectrum of clinical presentations and in the athlete the disease may be superimposed on dehydration, hyperthermia, and exhaustion. Physicians caring for athletes should be aware of the manifestations of ischemic bowel disease and the optimum methods of diagnosis and treatment. Abdominal pain and diarrhea are typical initial symptoms of ischemia and these symptoms generally limit further damage. However, symptoms may be overridden in cases of extreme athletic competition or other significant endurance events such as combat. Athletes and coaches should be aware of the danger of ischemic bowel disease. Patients or athletes with recurrent symptoms of abdominal pain and diarrhea during exercise may be at increased risk for ischemic damage. However, no underlying anatomic abnormalities have been noted. Ischemic hemorrhagic gastritis is generally reversible and may be controlled with effective acid blockade. Ischemic colitis generally presents with pain, diarrhea, and bleeding. It is usually mild but may require volume and transfusion support, rarely progressing to need for resection or stricture. Severe presentations with intestinal infarction are rare but potentially life threatening. The athlete is usually able to ultimately resume his or her activities without restriction.

Abdominal Pain↗
PubMed2003

Surveillance cultures to monitor quality of gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing.

OBJECTIVES: High-level disinfection of GI endoscopes can be reliably obtained under controlled conditions with approved reprocessing methods. However, there are scant data regarding the effectiveness of these methods in clinical practice and no published methods of verification. The purpose of this study is to review retrospectively the results of environmental cultures of flexible endoscopes and to analyze the pattern of results. METHODS: Cultures of selected GI endoscopes listed as ready to use were obtained by adding 5-15 ml of trypticase soy broth or saline or 30-50 ml of sterile water to the biopsy channel of an endoscope. This wash was collected in a sterile container, plated onto blood and MacConkey agar, incubated at 37 degrees C, and examined for growth at 24 and 48 h. Personnel trained in accordance with approved procedures performed endoscope reprocessing. RESULTS: A total of 312 surveillance cultures were performed between 1990 and 1999. Initially, three of 17 water bottles were found to be contaminated with Pseudomonas species. The bottles were sterilized daily; only sterile water was used and subsequent cultures were negative. Between 1992 and 1994, 15/129 (11.6%) cultures were positive; 14 (93%) were from duodenoscopes. From 1995 to 1997, 18/124 (14.5%) cultures were positive, but only six (33%) were from duodenoscopes. However, 10 (55.6%) positive cultures were obtained from therapeutic upper endoscopes, attributed to faulty mechanical cleaning by nonnursing personnel after emergent procedures. The reprocessing procedure was altered, with improvement. One duodenoscope was persistently culture positive and was found to have a damaged biopsy channel. There were no recognized iatrogenic infections associated with endoscopic procedures. Organisms cultured were commonly gram-negative rods. CONCLUSIONS: The use of environmental endoscope culturing is a rapid, simple, inexpensive method to monitor effectiveness of standard reprocessing procedures. Disinfection is less effective with poor mechanical cleansing, and high-titer positivity is a marker for poor cleaning technique. Standard upper and lower scopes are commonly culture negative. Duodenoscopes, because of their inherent complexity, and other scopes used in emergent conditions require particular attention. Surveillance culture results can be used to identify patterns of poor technique, to reinforce proper procedure, and to modify clinical practice. No associated clinical illness was apparent during this study.

Bacteria↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Current GI endoscope disinfection and QA practices.

High-level disinfection (HLD) of GI endoscopes is readily achieved when published guidelines are observed. Contamination is linked to breakdowns in accepted procedure. However, there is no recognized method of verifying adequacy of endoscope reprocessing in routine practice and no data regarding current quality assurance (QA) practice. Prior reports have demonstrated a wide variation in routine clinical practice of GI endoscopy HLD. The goal of this study was to determine current practice at regional endoscopy centers with regard to endoscope cleaning and HLD, maintenance, and QA practice. An anonymous multiple-choice questionnaire was mailed to 367 SGNA members in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia and completed by 230 (63%). The majority of responders were hospital-based and 59% of the units performed over 3000 procedures per year. After use the endoscope was hand-carried or transported in a dry container (97%) to a separate cleaning room (85%) for HLD by technicians (40%). Wide variations existed in manual step procedures including use of disposable (50%) brushes and number of times channel brushed: once (21%), twice (35%), or three to five times (37%). Soaking duration in disinfectant (70% gluteraldehyde) was for <10 min (8%), 10-20 min (35%), 20-30 min (38%), 30-40 min (7%), and >40 min (3%). Sixty-seven percent had an active unit infection control (IC) service and 98% had a QA program. Monitoring of cleaning effectiveness was by visual inspection (50%) and culturing endoscopes (17%). Culture was done weekly (1%) and <biannually (6.5%) and performed by swabing the endoscope end (5%) or rinsing the biopsy channel (8%). If culture positive, most would remove the instrument from clinical use and reevaluate the protocol and personnel for technique lapses. Two respondents were aware of a procedure-related infection. Wide practice variations were noted in manual cleaning and in soaking time during automated HLD in this community. Fewer variations were noted in cleaning personnel and training, location and methods of cleaning, and presence of IC services and QA programs. Endoscope culturing was infrequently done and positive cultures were rare. While most units claim to have ongoing QA programs, few use objective criteria to monitor effective disinfection or lapses in technique. Iatrogenic infection is uncommonly recognized following GI endoscope procedures.

Disinfectants↗