Using the same T-safe technology that is trusted to deliver safe water in over 350 hospitals in the UK and Ireland, the new 31 day Medical Shower Filter offers a disposable sterilising grade, high-performance filter for shorter term use in high-risk healthcare environments.
With ‘best in class’ flow performance and independent product validation as standard in a T-safe water filter, we have also achieved the seemingly impossible by designing a compact, ergonomic shower filter that looks just like a regular shower!
- Modern, ergonomic, and lightweight design
- Sterilising grade 0.2 µm rate hollow fiber membrane filter
- Constant flow technology ensures optimal performance over life cycle
- Antibacterial additive protection reduces risk of retrograde contamination
- Internal check valve prevents contamination upstream
- Traceability with GS1 Datamatrix, enabling electronic tracking of filters
A Pioneering approach to Water Filtration
As the pioneer of the first validated 92-day point of use filter solution for healthcare, we recognise that in some instances, a shorter life cycle filter may be preferred. This may depend on the microorganism of concern, the extent of the contamination and the risk profile of the patient. Therefore, a site-specific risk assessment should always be used to determine the most appropriate filter life cycle to be deployed to ensure optimised patient safety.
31 or 92 Day Life Cycle Filter?
All T-safe water filters offer the same level of protection from exposure to harmful waterborne pathogens, irrespective of the filter life cycle. This is demonstrated through independently validated microbiological retention efficacy in accordance with ASTM F838, laboratory life cycle studies and infield product trials. However, other factors may be taken into consideration when deciding whether to deploy a 31 or 92-day life cycle filter.
- Localised or isolated contamination
When the extent of microbiological contamination is initially identified or found to be prevalent in isolated areas then the deployment of a shorter life cycle filter may be appropriate. Here the installation of a filter will immediately reduce the risk of infection, whilst investigatory works are undertaken to determine the extent of the issue and identify root cause. Urgent remedial works, such as local disinfection of the outlet may resolve the issue in a matter of days enabling control to be restored, and the filter to be removed with the outlet returned to normal usage.
- Widespread or colonised contamination
Conversely, when the extent of the microbiological contamination is determined to be more widespread or colonised within the water system, a longer life cycle filter may be more appropriate. In such instances, the identification of root cause and implementation of remedial works may be more extensive, requiring several months or more to remedy. Here a longer life cycle filter will offer end user protection whilst a safe engineering control is devised and implemented to restore control of the water system. In this case, a longer life cycle filter will reduce the cost and labour burden on Estates teams, as few filter exchanges will be required compared to a shorter life cycle filter.
- Nature of the microorganism
As described, T-safe water filters will offer the same level of microbiological retention efficacy, regardless of the filter life cycle. However, it is known that filters like any other surface, or apparatus in a clinical setting are at risk of retrograde contamination from environmental bacteria after point of water delivery. In Augmented Care settings this is mainly caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which can contaminate the outer surface of a filter through handling, splash back from drains or poor cleaning practices. Consequently, bacteria may contaminate the outer surface of the filter housing and be transported in the filtrate water, exposing the end user. In such circumstances the efficacy of control is high dependant on effective routine cleaning, that minimises the risk of retrograde contamination. Where cleaning practices are unreliable or retrograde contamination cannot be adequately controlled, then a shorter life cycle filter may be more appropriate.
- Patient risk profile
Assessment of the patient risk profile, goes hand in hand with the nature of the microorganism that needs to be controlled. Therefore, the susceptibility of the patient to infection and the transmission and exposure routes for the microorganism should be considered as part of the risk assessment. Specifically, the risk assessment should consider how this may impact point of use filters. As per the example above, in the case of Pseudomonas aeruginosa there are several potential sources of retrograde contamination and multiple routes of transmission for the patient. Whilst the risk of environmental retrograde contamination from Pseudomonas species is well known, there are additional waterborne microbial hazards in healthcare that may have similar routes of transmissibility. This has been highlighted in the recently published BS 8580-2, which identified a further 12 bacteria of concern including Serratia marcescens, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Cupriavidus pauculus, Elizabethkingia meningoseptica and Burkholderia cepacia complex, which may be treated in the same regard as Pseudomonas aeruginosa.