Advancing MD Reprocessing: Challenges, Opportunities, Safety & Sustainability- ASP Learning Lab

Advancing MD Reprocessing:
Challenges, Opportunities, Safety & Sustainability

Webinar
Series

2026

Staff Safety in Sterilization:
Why Peak Fugitive Emissions Matter

April 29 & 30

Webinar #1
Series

2026
  1. /
  2. ASP Summit
  3. /
  4. Advancing MD Reprocessing: Challenges, Opportunities,...


Dr. P. Richard Warburton photo
 Mr. Alex Hilliker photo
Web.1 April 29 & 30
Staff Safety in Sterilization: Why Peak Fugitive Emissions Matter
Speakers:
Dr. P. Richard Warburton & Mr. Alex Hilliker
Learn More
Lionel Pineau, PhD photo
Celine Herra, MD photo
Web.2 June 24 & 25
Biofilms – The Major Threat on MD Reprocessing
Speakers:
Lionel Pineau, PhD & Celine Herra, MD
Learn More
Sylvie Dufresne,PhD photo
Melanie Marshall photo
Web.3 September 23 &24
Transition from HLD & LCS to LTS - Challenges & Opportunities
Speakers:
Sylvie Dufresne,PhD & Melanie Marshall
Learn More
Victoria McCreanor, PhD photo
David Bellamy photo
Web.4 November 25 & 26
Health Economics and Sustainability in Sterilization Practices
Speakers:
Victoria McCreanor, PhD & David Bellamy
Learn More
organizer-image
Dr. Ivan Salgo MD, MS, MBA
Chief Medical & Scientific Officer

Advanced Sterilization Products (ASP)

Boston, USA

As with previous editions, each webinar will feature a keynote speaker and include opportunities for interaction to address any questions.
We invite you to join us on this journey to explore the future of medical device reprocessing, tackling today’s risks and opportunities while advancing safety, infection prevention, innovation, and sustainability.

Web.1 April 29 & 30
Staff Safety in Sterilization: Why Peak Fugitive Emissions Matter
Dr. P. Richard Warburton photo
Dr. P. Richard Warburton
Chief Technology Officer and General Counsel
Pittsburgh, USA
 Mr. Alex Hilliker photo
Mr. Alex Hilliker
Executive Vice President
Pittsburgh, USA

SYNOPSIS:

Sterile Processing and Central Sterile Services Departments worldwide operate within diverse regulatory frameworks, infrastructure constraints, and levels of technological maturity. Yet across regions and care settings, one principle remains universal: safe reprocessing depends on occupational safety. 

This webinar opens the ASP Summit 2026 series by exploring how hydrogen peroxide fugitive vapor emissions associated with lowtemperature sterilization intersect with occupational health, technology evolution, monitoring practices, and international standards. Rather than focusing on a single regulation or geography, the session emphasizes globally relevant principles – understanding eventbased exposure patterns, recognizing the limitations of traditional safety assumptions, and appreciating the role of monitoring and data in informing riskaware practices. 

Evidence drawn from peer-reviewed literature and international guidance is used to illustrate key concepts and emerging trends in presenting a holistic solution. The goal is to equip participants with scientific language, foundational insight, and practical frameworks that can be adapted to regulatory requirements, operational realities, and resource levels – supporting continuous improvement in personal safety and reprocessing performance worldwide. 

Session #1 (live): 29th April

  • North America: 8 am PDT | 11 am EDT
  • LATAM: Brazil 12:00 pm | Chile 11 am | Colombia 10 am | Mexico 9 am
  • EMEA: 4 pm London GMT | 5 pm CET Amsterdam & Cape Town | 6 pm Moscow | 7 pm Dubai

Session #2 (recording): 30th April

  • EMEA: 8 am London GMT | 9 am CET Amsterdam & Cape Town | 10 am Moscow | 11 am Dubai
  • APAC: 2 pm Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia WIB | 3 pm China CST, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines | 12:30 pm India IST | 4 pm Japan & Korea JST/KST | 5 pm Sydney AEST
topic icon
Why occupational safety matters
in sterile processing worldwide
topic icon
Hydrogen peroxide
vapor in lowtemperature sterilization
topic icon
Exposure patterns
and health considerations
topic icon
The role of monitoring
and measurement
topic icon
Hydrogen Peroxide with Plasma Technology role
as a key to reducing fugitive environmental emission
General Announcement

Medical devices (MD) reprocessing is a set of activities essential for healthcare systems response, answering the needs of millions of procedures that are daily worldwide performed and contributing to the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI) and other procedure-related infections, particularly in endoscopy.1,2
The Sterile Processing Department (SPD), also known as the Central Sterile Services Department (CSSD), requires high operational standards in order to achieve quality, safety, responsiveness, efficiency and sustainability. Besides according to JCI’s “top 5 most challenging requirements for 2022,” a key focus is on implementing infection prevention protocols for disinfecting and sterilizing medical equipment, devices, and supplies to minimize the risk of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and increase patient safety.3,4
In this new ASP webinar series, Advancing MD Reprocessing: Challenges, Opportunities, Safety & Sustainability, we will focus be on new opportunities and trends in reprocessing that could solve some of the existing challenges, consolidating the future of procedures and processes, aiming higher standards of quality, safety and economic and environmental sustainability.
Central Sterile Supply Departments (CSSDs) are essential to safe medical device reprocessing and infection prevention—but protecting patients also means protecting the professionals who perform this work.4-5
Chemical sterilants used for heat-sensitive devices, including ethylene oxide, hydrogen peroxide vapor, and peracetic acid, can release hazardous chemical agents that may expose staff to respiratory, neurological, and carcinogenic risks. These emissions make effective ventilation, exposure monitoring, and strict safety practices critical.5,6
International frameworks such as AAMI ST58, ISO standards, and European occupational safety directives provide the guidance needed to ensure both safe sterilization processes and a safer working environment for healthcare professionals.7-14
Updated safety guidance, including AAMI ST58:2024, places increasing emphasis on protecting staff from harmful emissions.
Hospitals that proactively monitor and manage sterilant emissions to better protect their teams, support compliance, and stay prepared for evolving guidance.45
Biofilm formation on reusable medical devices poses a critical challenge for infection prevention and safe reprocessing. These structured microbial communities adhere to device surfaces within a protective matrix, significantly increasing resistance to detergents, disinfectants, and sterilization.15-17
Complex instruments—such as endoscopes, dental handpieces, and lumened or hinged surgical devices—are particularly vulnerable, especially when organic residues, moisture, or delays in reprocessing are present.
18-22
Once established, biofilms can compromise cleaning and disinfection steps, evade routine detection, and persist on device surfaces. Their presence has been linked to ongoing contamination and outbreaks associated with inadequately reprocessed instruments, including infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms—making effective biofilm control a crucial priority for healthcare professionals.23-26
Flexible endoscopes are indispensable in modern diagnosis and therapy, yet their intricate design—featuring internal channels, narrow lumens, and delicate materials—makes effective reprocessing uniquely challenging and prone to residual contamination.26-30
Traditional approaches such as high-level disinfection (HLD) and liquid chemical sterilization (LCS) remain widely used, but their effectiveness is highly dependent on strict protocol adherence (cleaning, drying, storage, and operator technique). 29,31
and may fall short of achieving consistent margin of safety, particularly in the presence of biofilms or residual moisture.14,20
Even potent LCS like peracetic acid require optimal conditions for sporicidal activity, but with limited penetration into structured biofilms and added safety concerns for healthcare workers.21,32
In contrast, low-temperature sterilization technologies, including hydrogen peroxide plasma, after pre-cleaning and cleaning steps, provide a higher margin of microbiological safety with validated sterility assurance for heat-sensitive devices.30 As healthcare systems confront increasing outbreaks linked to multidrug-resistant organisms and endoscope reprocessing failures, these technologies represent a critical step forward in strengthening infection prevention and patient safety. 33-36
Sterilization is vital for patient safety, preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), and ensuring high-quality care.
Steam sterilization remains the gold standard for heat-resistant instruments due to its proven efficacy and reliability, while low-temperature methods protect delicate devices, extending their lifespan, and reduce repair needs.37,38
Reusable instruments, when properly processed, cut both costs and carbon emissions compared to single-use alternatives.39
Since sterilization and packaging significantly impact the environmental footprint of surgery, optimizing trays, packaging, and sterilizer efficiency can simultaneously reduce costs and emissions.40
Besides, reprocessing technologies must also take into account economy and sustainability principles in order to support better decision-making. For example, efficient sterilization methods with reduced water and energy consumption mean cost savings and less damage to equipment and the environment, contributing to sustainable healthcare systems and a greener environment.41-45

Advanced Sterilization Products • Gubelstrasse 34, 6300 Zug, Switzerland • www.aspuniversity.com Smart, sustainable sterilization practices thus enhance patient safety, operational efficiency, and healthcare sustainability in one strategic approach.
Implementing best practices in sterilization not only contributes to healthcare sustainability but also supports resilient systems that balance safety, efficiency, and environmental stewardship.
By integrating considerations of clinical effectiveness, lifecycle costs, and sustainability, hospitals can design sterilization programs that optimize patient safety while reducing financial and ecological burdens.

In this new webinar series, “Advancing MD Reprocessing: Challenges, Opportunities, Safety & Sustainability”, we will count with renowned experts to address this topics in five sessions:

In this new webinar series, “Advancing MD Reprocessing: Challenges, Opportunities, Safety & Sustainability”, we are proud to announce the following sessions:

Webinar#1 – Personal safety at sterilization department – The impact of the Emissions

Webinar#2 – Biofilms – The Major Threat on MD Reprocessing

Webinar#3 – Transition from HLD & LCS to LTS – Challenges & Opportunities

Webinar#4 – Health Economics and Sustainability in Sterilization Practices

Round table – Advancing MD Reprocessing: Challenges, Opportunities, Safety & Sustainability

As with previous editions, each webinar will feature a keynote speaker and include opportunities for interaction to address any questions.  

We invite you to join us on this journey how to Advancing Medical Devices Reprocessing!

Carlos Palos, MD 

Consultant in Internal Medicine. Specialist in Intensive Care Medicine.
Certified in Infection Prevention and Rational Use of Antimicrobials by the Portuguese Medical Association.
Fellow of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID).
 

References :

  1. Jensen DM, Machicado GA. The advantages and disadvantages of endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57(6):S3-S6. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096286703000719
  2. Bisschops R, East JE, Hassan C, et al. Endoscopy Around the World: Perspectives. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;48(6):S1-S10
  3. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Role of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the screening of digestive tract cancers. Endoscopy. 2020;52(3):217-225. Available at: https://www.esge.com/assets/downloads/pdfs/guidelines/2020_a_1104_5245.pdf
  4. Grand View Research. Endoscopy Procedures Estimates Market Size Report, 2030. Published 2024. Accessed April 7, 2025.https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/endoscopy-procedures-estimates-market-report.
  5. Hearnshaw SA, Rutter MD, Bevan P, et al. Infection after endoscopic procedures: A large population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2019;157(3):684-693. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.06.053.
  6. Sethi S, Kassem E, El-Serag H. Gastrointestinal endoscopy and risk of infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(8):1562-1574.e1. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2020.09.038.
  7. Spach, D. H., Silverstein, F. E., & Stamm, W. E. (1993). Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Annals of internal medicine, 118(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-118-2-199301150-00008
  8. Ofstead CL, Dirlam Langlay AM, Mueller NJ, Tosh PK, Wetzler HP. Re-evaluating endoscopy-associated infection risk estimates and their implications. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(8):734-736. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2012.10.008
  9. Epstein, L., Hunter, J. C., Arwady, M. A., Tsai, V., Stein, L., Gribogiannis, M., Frias, M., Guh, A. Y., Laufer, A. S., Black, S., Pacilli, M., Moulton-Meissner, H., Rasheed, J. K., Avillan, J. J., Kitchel, B., Limbago, B. M., MacCannell, D., Lonsway, D., Noble-Wang, J., Conway, J., … Kallen, A. J. (2014). New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes. JAMA, 312(14), 1447–1455. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.12720
  10. Larsen, S., Russell, R. V., Ockert, L. K., Spanos, S., Travis, H. S., Ehlers, L. H., & Mærkedahl, A. (2020). Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine, 25, 100451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100451
  11. Alfa MJ, Sewell DL, Olson N, et al. The role of biofilms in reprocessing medical devices. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(5):S76-S80. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2013.01.001
  12. Zong Z, Li M, Li J, et al. A study of the efficacy of bacterial biofilm cleanout methods for endoscope reprocessing. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48(6):1898-1903. doi:10.1128/JCM.06221-11. ASM Journals+2PMC+2giejournal.org+2
  13. Alfa MJ, Singh H. Impact of wet storage and other factors on biofilm formation and contamination of patient-ready endoscopes: a narrative review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91(2):236-247. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.043.
  14. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. ANSI/AAMI ST91:2021. Flexible and semi-rigid endoscope processing in health care facilities. Arlington, VA: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 2021.
  15. Day LW, Muthusamy VR, Collins J, et al. Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories [published correction appears in Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Nov;94(5):1019. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.09.026.]. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93(1):11-33.e6. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2020.09.048
  16. Beilenhoff U, Biering H, Blum R, et al. Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic accessories used in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Position Statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) – Update 2018. Endoscopy. 2018;50(12):1201-1219.
  17. Ofstead CL, Hopkins KM, Buro BL, Eiland JE, Wetzler HP. Challenges in achieving effective high-level disinfection in endoscope reprocessing. Am J Infect Control. Published 2020;48(3):309-315. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2019.09.013
  18. Varghese MM, Memic S, Torres-Teran MM, Cadnum JL, Rutala WA, Donskey CJ. Evaluation of a new technology for terminal sterilization of flexible endoscopes using hydrogen peroxide gas plasma. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Published online January
    27, 2025. doi:10.1017/ice.2024.236
  19. Patel A, Jain N. Flexible Endoscopes: Terminal Sterilization and Impact to Patient Safety. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2020;54(s1):80-
    83. doi:10.2345/0899-8205-54.s3.80
  20. Omidbakhsh N, Manohar S, Vu R, Nowruzi K. Flexible gastrointestinal endoscope processing challenges, current issues and future perspectives. J Hosp Infect. 2021;110:133-138. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2021.01.021
  21. Ofstead CL, Smart AG, Hurst LL, Lamb LA. Endoscope processing effectiveness: A reality check and call to action for infection preventionists and clinicians. . Am J Infect Control. Published online April 9, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2025.04.003
  22. World Federation for Hospital Sterilization Sciences: WFHSS Guidelines (Chapter 9) – Flexible Endoscopy Reprocessing Principles – https://guidelines.wfhss.com/frontpage/flexible-endoscopy/, accessed on 8/4/2025
  23. Valde D, Lee CK, Yadav A, et al. Real-time sensing approaches and antibiofilm strategies for biofilm-associated infections: advances and perspectives on medical devices and clinical contexts. Biofilm. 2023;5:100096.
    doi:10.1016/j.bioflm.2023.100096. PMID: 37998357.
  24. Brunke MS, Konrat K, Schaudinn C, et al. Tolerance of biofilm of a carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae involved in a duodenoscopy-associated outbreak to the disinfectant used in reprocessing. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2022;11(1):81. Published 2022 Jun 3. doi:10.1186/s13756-022-01112-z Advanced Sterilization Products • Gubelstrasse 34, 6300 Zug, Switzerland • www.aspuniversity.com
  25. Haak J, Klempien I, Hans JB, Schaefer S, Meyer-Bothling K, Gatermann S, Dirks EE, Konrat K, Arvand M. Endoscope-associated outbreak of OXA-181-carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and its implications for hygiene management. J Hosp Infect. 2025;158:19-28. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2025.01.016. PMID: 39924117
  26. Săftoiu A, Hassan C, Areia M, et al. Role of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the screening of digestive tract cancers in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy. 2020;52(4):293-304. doi:10.1055/a-1104-5245
  27. Kurniawan N, Keuchel M. Flexible Gastro-intestinal Endoscopy – Clinical Challenges and Technical Achievements. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2017;15:168-179. Published 2017 Jan 18. doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2017.01.004
  28. Ponsky JL, Strong AT. A History of Flexible Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Surg Clin North Am. 2020;100(6):971-992. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2020.08.013
  29. Ofstead CL, Smart AG, Hurst LL, Lamb LA. Endoscope processing effectiveness: A reality check and call to action for infection preventionists and clinicians. Am J Infect Control. 2025;53(7):785-793. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2025.04.003
  30. Barakat MT, Banerjee S. Novel algorithms for reprocessing, drying, and storing endoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2020;30(4):677-691.
  31. Barakat MT, Huang RJ, Banerjee S. Comparison of automated and manual drying in the elimination of residual endoscope working channel fluid after reprocessing (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89(1):124-132.e2. PMID: 30148992.
  32. Bridier A, Briandet R, Thomas V, Dubois-Brissonnet F. Resistance of bacterial biofilms to disinfectants: a review. Biofouling. 2011;27(9):1017-1032. PMID: 22007904.
  33. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 22441:2022. Sterilization of health care products — Low temperature vaporized hydrogen peroxide — Requirements for the development, validation and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2022.
  34. Haak J, Klempien I, et al. Endoscope-associated outbreak of OXA-181-carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and its implications for hygiene management. J Hosp Infect. 2025;158:19-28. PMID: 39924117.
  35. Kovaleva J. Infectious complications in gastrointestinal endoscopy and their prevention. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;30(5):689-704. doi:10.1016/j.bpg.2016.09.008
  36. Panta G, Richardson AK, Shaw IC. Effectiveness of autoclaving in sterilizing reusable medical devices in healthcare facilities. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2019;13(10):858-864. Published 2019 Oct 31. doi:10.3855/jidc.11433
  37. Victoria McCreanor, Nicholas Graves. An economic analysis of the benefits of sterilizing medical instruments in low-temperature systems instead of steam. American Journal of Infection Control. 2017.
  38. Said Ait Taleb, Nicole Francois, Badr Eddine Tehhani, Thomas Perez. Reusable vs single-use cystoscope: economic and environmental assessment. World Journal of Urology. 2025.
  39. Chantelle Rizan, Rob Lillywhite, Malcolm Reed, Mahmood F. Bhutta. Minimising carbon and financial costs of steam sterilisation and packaging of reusable surgical instruments. British Journal of Surgery. 2022.
  40. Pichler, P., Jaccard, I.S., Weisz, U., & Weisz, H. (2019). International comparison of health care carbon footprints. Environmental Research Letters, 14. DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ab19e1
  41. Health Care Without Harm, Arup. Health care’s climate footprint. Health Care Without Harm; 2019. https://noharm-global.org/documents/health-care-climate-footprint-report.
  42. McCreanor, V., & Graves, N. (2017). An economic analysis of the benefits of sterilizing medical instruments in low-temperature systems instead of steam. American journal of infection control, 45(7), 756–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2017.02.026.
  43. Schafer B. Decreased number of repairs of rigid scopes as a result of low-temperature sterilization with H2O2 gas plasma. A field report form the Barmherzige Bruder Hospital in Trier, Germany. Central Serv 2009;17:194-6.
  44. Skogas J, Marvik R. Measures taken to reduce damage and repair costs of rigid endoscopes during their handling and processing in surgical practice. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2003;12:76-81.
  45. Woodruff, K. S., Pollitt, K., & Katten, T. M. S. of. (2025). Joint Commission Unveils Accreditation 360 Overhaul. National Law Review. https://natlawreview.com/article/joint-commissions-2025-accreditation-overhaul-what-healthcare-organizations-need