Universal Protocol

The 2009 JC standards include more specific language on Universal Protocol and site marking for percutaneous procedures. Are there any EP labs that have adopted site marking as a pre-procedure standard for ablation and device implants?

— Lee Anne Hockey, RCIS, RCES

image description image description


Anonymoussays: October 14.2009 at 13:49 pm

Our Universal Protocol states that diagnostic/interventional catheter insertion sites (groins,IJ,SC) do not need to be marked prior to percutaneous procedures. The protocol states that the number and size of sheaths/catheters inserted, and their placement, varies from patient to patient and physician to physician. It is my understanding that this satisfies TJC requirements.

For device procedures (implants, revisions, lead repos/additions, etc) we do mark the intended incision site. We use a sterile surgical marker (not a regular "magic marker"). The mark frequently washes off during the surgical prep, but can be reapplied by qualified personnel using a new sterile marker (the hospital has trialed numerous markers and so far we have not found any that does not wash off). The site markinig is done by the implanting physician prior to the patient entering the procedure room and is to be visible after draping the patient for the procedure.

TJC guidelines further state that the site mark must be removed following the procedure (to avoid confusion if further interventions are needed), so that complicates the issue further("sharpie" markers do not wash off with the prep, but are also difficult to remove after the procedure).

Interestingly, a recent study showed that the only marker that did not encourage bacterial growth was "sharpie" markers. However, experts fear that permanent markers could "tattoo" the skin, especially in infants/young children or the elderly.

Reply to this comment »
Anonymoussays: July 29.2009 at 17:30 pm

Our labs have not "weighed" in on marking the site for percutanous procedures. We perform the "time out" procedure and of course the site is one of the mandated items that needs to be addressed. With so much concern over implant infections, magic marker over the incision site could be a risk factor. I have not seen any data supporting this though. You have to be careful using a pair of clippers not to cut or damage the skin so scubbing off marker on patients with very friable skin could damage the skin.

As an aside, any suggestions on the RCES? I am interested in taking it and could appreciate any input.
dana.stjohn@leememorial.org

Reply to this comment »

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.