Common Canister Policy: The devil is in the details
The safety of CCP hinges on proper cleaning of the MDI between users. Typical cleaning protocols include: 1. spraying the MDI mouthpiece with compressed air; 2. cleaning the entire MDI with 70% isopropyl alcohol spray, immersion in isopropyl alcohol for 2 minutes, or cleaning with a bleach swab; and 3. allowing the MDI to air dry before returning it to the shared stock for reissue (Larson T, et al). Although cleaning protocols minimize potential patient harm, they may not always be followed properly. Human errors that put patients at risk for nosocomial infection while utilizing CCP have been reported. In two such instances, patients isolated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection had their individual MDIs put back into the common canister stock and utilized by other patients for approximately 24 hours (Larson T, et al). Once this was noticed, the patients who received inhalations from the “at-risk” MDI were monitored in isolation. No cross-infection occurred, but the mistake paradoxically increased hospital costs. In another reported instance, a bone marrow transplant patient received MDI therapy from the common canister stock (Larson T, et al). Although no harm occurred, this broke protocol as these patients were excluded from the program because of their increased risk of infection from cross-contamination. Other reports describe protocol breaches such as clinicians not returning MDIs to stock in a timely manner or keeping MDIs in their coat pockets. These events highlight the need for health care professionals associated with CCP to adhere to protocols.
Cross-contamination has been studied at institutions utilizing CCPs. While the majority of reports show no growth in postuse MDI cultures, one study reported growth of group D streptococci when alcohol disinfection did not occur and Staphylococcus epidermidis in 5% of the cultures taken after disinfection per protocol (Grissinger M. PT. 2013;38[8]:434). Although the bacteria that grew in these studies could be considered environmental contaminants, these findings reinforce the need for concern regarding iatrogenic infection.
The legal landscape
The decision to enact CCP requires careful analysis, planning, and communication by all key decision makers. State laws must be reviewed for formal statements or regulations regarding CCP. Protocol standards should also be evaluated against Joint Commission and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services standards for medication administration and storage. Before initiating CCP, communication should occur among risk managers, the pharmacy and therapeutics committee, pulmonologists, respiratory therapists, the medical executive committee, infection control personnel, and the professional liability insurance provider. A contingency plan should be put in place should cross-contamination occur. Note that while the goal of CCP is cost savings, no economic analysis to date has considered the incremental costs of cross-contamination and iatrogenic infection.
What alternative strategies to CCP exist?
CCP aims to turn a single-user multidose inhaler into one that is a unit-dose inhaler shared by multiple patients. One alternative strategy of unit-dose inhalations is nebulization as each treatment consists of a single-use ampule of medication. Another strategy is the use of institutional dose packages that allow hospitals to purchase single-user inhalers limited to five or seven doses of therapy. The prices for nebulized treatments and institutional dose packages may offer cost savings similar to CCP while obviating the increased risk of nosocomial infection.
Dr. Malesker is professor of pharmacy practice and medicine, department of pharmacy practice, School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, Creighton University, Omaha, Neb.
