When Automation Fails: Problems with Chemical Machines

Hydrogen peroxide machines and washer-disinfectors are marketed as automated disinfection solutions, but often create more problems than they solve. From hidden costs and probe damage to long cycles and workflow disruption, hospitals need safer, faster, and more tailored alternatives.

Hydrogen Peroxide Machines: Safe on Paper, Pain in Practice

Hydrogen Peroxide for HLD is often marketed as a breakthrough for ultrasound probe disinfection, an automated solution that delivers consistent outcomes. But in clinical practice, it creates as many challenges as it solves.

Probe Damage and Compatibility Issues

Such machines relies on hydrogen peroxide mist to disinfect probes. That chemical is effective, but also harsh. Over time, probes show signs of degradation, especially seals, adhesives, and lenses. Manufacturers of some ultrasound systems have compatibility concerns regarding repeated exposure to hydrogen peroxide.

Hidden Costs and Workflow Delays

It also creates a hidden cost structure. The machines are expensive, but the real cost is in consumables: proprietary cartridges, drying kits, and other accessories. Hospitals may be locked into long-term contracts with rising operational expenses that were never part of the original investment pitch.

And then there’s workflow. Each cycle can take several minutes. For a department handling high patient volumes, that delay adds up. Staff are forced to wait, delay procedures, or risk reprocessing errors due to time pressure.

Finally, like all chemical systems, these hydrogen peroxide machines raises concerns about residue. Even when cleared by standards, the perception and legal risk remain. While Hydrogen Peroxide for ultrasound machines was once innovative, it is no longer the only option. It’s time for hospitals to ask whether this method - chemical, consumable-heavy, and workflow-disruptive - is really the best path forward.

Washer-Disinfectors: Overkill for ENT & TEE, and Still Not Enough

Endoscope washer-disinfectors are well suited for GI scopes with long lumens and heavy bioburden. But when used on ENT scopes and TEE probes, they become inefficient, excessive, and too complicated.

Inefficient Cycles for Simple Devices

These machines often require 20 to 45 minutes per cycle. That might be justifiable for complex channelled endoscopes, but not for ENT or TEE devices. Which are often solid or semi-rigid with no channels. Waiting 45 minutes to disinfect a probe used for a 2-minute procedure is not just inefficient, it disrupts clinic throughput and patient scheduling.

High Costs and Unnecessary Exposure

The cost of ownership is also high. Washers require specialized chemicals, water filtration systems, maintenance contracts, and validations. These systems take up space, demand infrastructure, and require staff training. ENT clinics and cardiac departments often lack the scale to justify such an investment.

Moreover, washers are designed with complex internal rinsing and chemical delivery systems, none of which apply to unchanneled devices. This creates unnecessary exposure to heat, water, and chemicals, accelerating wear on delicate materials.

Lastly, washers offer no flexibility. One cycle fits all, whether you’re processing a GI colonoscope or a small ENT scope. The result? A costly system used far outside its optimal application. Hospitals need machines that fit the instruments and not force the instruments to fit the machine. ENT and cardiology departments need fast, safe, and validated alternatives that meet their specific needs without compromise.