ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Application of the quality control circle model to reduce non-conforming surgical instrument packaging and hospital-acquired infection risk: a pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), particularly postoperative infections, remain a major global concern, and deficiencies in surgical instrument packaging represent an important and preventable risk factor. The Central Sterile Supply Department (CSSD) plays a critical role in maintaining sterile assurance; however, process-related packaging non-conformance can compromise patient safety. This pilot study aimed to apply the Quality Control Circle (QCC) model to reduce non-conforming surgical instrument packaging and strengthen infection prevention capability in a tertiary hospital CSSD. Methods: This prospective quality improvement study was conducted in the CSSD of a tertiary hospital. Baseline performance was assessed using routine quality monitoring data, with non-conforming packaging defined as missing instruments, incorrect instrument type, nonfunctional instruments, improper sealing, wet packs, labeling errors, or chemical indicator defects. QCC methodology was applied, incorporating Pareto analysis, root cause analysis, structured training, workflow optimization, equipment maintenance reinforcement, and strengthened verification systems. The primary outcome was the non-conforming packaging rate before and after intervention. Results: Baseline analysis identified missing instruments, incorrect instrument types, and incomplete or nonfunctional instruments as dominant contributors to packaging defects, with an overall baseline non-conformance rate of 0.213%. Following QCC implementation, the rate decreased to 0.199% during the initial assessment (May 2024; 19,060 packs inspected, 38 defective) and further declined to 0.106% during extended follow-up (June-October 2024; 82,182 packs inspected, 87 defective), achieving the predefined improvement target of a 50% reduction. Post-intervention Pareto analysis demonstrated a marked decrease in dominant defect categories, accompanied by strengthened process standardization and stability. Conclusion: Application of the QCC model significantly improved surgical instrument packaging quality, reduced non-conforming events, and enhanced operational reliability in the CSSD. These findings demonstrate that structured, team-based quality management is feasible, sustainable, and potentially beneficial for supporting infection risk reduction and perioperative safety. The model provides a replicable framework for broader implementation and future outcome-linked research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.