Site Logo

Hello, you are using an old browser that's unsafe and no longer supported. Please consider updating your browser to a newer version, or downloading a modern browser.

Skip to main content
Kelly McCormick
April 28, 2022

6 GI societies have rejected 2021 revisions to endoscope processing standards in healthcare facilities.

The Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation recently has been informed their 2021 revisions to endoscope processing standards in healthcare facilities have been rejected. Six gastrointestinal societies released the joint statement in January 2022. These societies included Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, and Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates.

“The joint GI societies remain concerned and do not support some of the finalized revisions to the standards and therefore voted negative on the vote for approval,” the press release states. “While the GI community awaits the availability of widespread, cost-effective, alternative endoscopes and novel reprocessing technologies, it is critical for our patients that the focus of the national dialogue continues for the more salient issues of training, oversight, and enhancement of cleaning practices and technologies.”

The release adds that the societies felt that healthcare teams would be unable to implement the proposed changes in endoscope processing standards. The groups also expressed concerns over implementation at the practice level. They cited “length, construction, internal redundancies, disparate definitions, and, at times, conflicting recommendations,” as areas of concern.

The societies outlined several areas of concern within the revision, including the following:

  • An opening editorial with statements the groups believed did not include enough supporting evidence or data to back up “inflammatory claims.”
  • A lack of transparency regarding the development process
  • The six societies claimed there were several statements unsubstantiated by evidence.

To read the full press release click here.