Removal of nail polish and finger rings to prevent surgical infection

Main Operating Room Versus Field Sterility in Hand Surgery: A Review of the Evidence

Introduction: Many of the guidelines that are generally accepted as main operating room best practices are not evidence based. They are based on the concept that if some sterility is good, more must be better. They are not derived from evidence-based sterility. Evidence-based sterility is the study of which of our various sterility practices increase or decrease our infection rates, as opposed to guidelines based on how many bacteria are in the operating room. Methods: This article adds the most important evidence we could find that is not included in the first paper on evidence-based sterility in hand surgery published in 2019. In this review, we also balance the evidence with common sense opinion. Results: The 21st century has seen a rapid rise in the number and reports of hand surgery procedures performed with field sterility outside the main operating room. There is now an abundance of good evidence to support that the rate of infection is not higher when many hand operations are performed with field sterility in minor procedure rooms. Conclusion: Moving hand surgery out of the main operating room to minor procedure rooms should be supported by healthcare providers. The higher cost, increased solid waste, and inconvenience of main operating room surgery are not justifiable for many procedures because it does not reduce the risk of postoperative infection.

SHEA/IDSA/APIC Practice Recommendation: Strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections through hand hygiene: 2022 Update

The purpose of this document is to highlight practical recommendations to assist acute-care hospitals in prioritization and implementation of strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections through hand hygiene. This document updates the Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals through Hand Hygiene, published in 2014. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology (SHEA). It is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, the American Hospital Association, and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise.

Surgical handwashing practices of operating room staff: An observational study

OBJECTIVE

This descriptive and cross-sectional study aims to assess the surgical handwashing practices of operating room staff.

DESIGN

Single-blind study.

METHODS

The study was conducted with 66 staff (surgeons and operating room nurses) employed in the surgery department of a university hospital in Turkey. Data were collected using a Staff Information Form prepared in light of the literature to collect the participants' sociodemographic data and the Surgical Hand Washing Procedure Checklist developed according to the guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO) and Association of Surgical Technologists (AST). The staff assigned to operating rooms were identified, and then, their surgical handwashing practices were observed by one of the researchers.

FINDINGS

Of the participants, 77.3% were dressed suitable to the operating room field, 56.1% appropriately wet both of their hands and forearms, and 72.7% used a sufficient amount of antiseptic solution (3-5 ml) in their palms. More than half of them (51.5%) inappropriately performed the procedure of surgical handwashing (applying an antiseptic solution to hands and arms with circular motions, starting from the fingertips up to 3-5 cm above their elbows for a minute), and 47% incorrectly performed the procedure of rinsing hands and arms while keeping the hands above the elbows under running water and passing arms through the water in one direction during this process.

CONCLUSION

In the study, it was determined that none of the team members completed the preparation, application and drying steps of the surgical handwashing procedure. Therefore, it is necessary to make arrangements that will facilitate the handwashing procedures of the personnel. Personnel-related problems, such as the duration of washing and drying methods, are possible to be avoided with periodic in-service training and with posters demonstrating the washing stages, which might lead to behavioural changes.

Hand hygiene in surgery in Benin: opportunities and challenges

Background

Hand Hygiene (HH) has been described as the cornerstone and starting point in all infection control. Compliance to HH is a fundamental quality indicator. The aim of this study was to investigate the HH compliance among Health-care Workers (HCWs) in Benin surgical care units.

Methods

A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted for two months. The World Health Organization (WHO) Hand Hygiene Observation Tool was used in obstetric and gastrointestinal surgery through six public hospitals in Benin. HH compliance was calculated by dividing the number of times HH was performed by the total number of opportunities. HH technique and duration were also observed.

Results

A total of 1315 HH opportunities were identified during observation period. Overall, the compliance rate was 33.3% (438/1315), without significant difference between professional categories (nurses =34.2%; auxiliaries =32.7%; and physicians =32.4%; p = 0.705). However, compliance rates differed (p < 0.001) between obstetric (49.4%) and gastrointestinal surgery (24.3%). Generally, HCWs were more compliant after body fluid exposure (54.5%) and after touching patient (37.5%), but less before patient contact (25.9%) and after touching patient surroundings (29.1%).

HCWs were more likely to use soap and water (72.1%) compared to the alcohol based hand rub solution (27.9%). For all of the WHO five moments, hand washing was the most preferred action. For instance, hand rub only was observed 3.9% after body fluid exposure and 16.3% before aseptic action compared to hand washing at 50.6 and 16.7% respectively. Duration of HH performance was not correctly adhered to 94% of alcohol hand rub cases (mean duration 9 ± 6 s instead of 20 to 30 s) and 99.5% of hand washing cases (10 ± 7 s instead of the recommended 40 to 60 s). Of the 432 HCWs observed, 77.3% followed HH prerequisites (i.e. no artificial fingernails, no jewellery). We also noted a lack of permanent hand hygiene infrastructures such as sink, soap, towels and clean water.

Conclusion

Compliance in surgery was found to be low in Benin hospitals. They missed two opportunities out of three to apply HH and when HH was applied, technique and duration were not appropriate. HH practices should be a priority to improve patient safety in Benin.

Effectiveness of a Behavioral Approach to Improve Healthcare Worker Compliance With Hospital Dress Code

BACKGROUND The VU University Medical Center, a tertiary-care hospital in the Netherlands, has adopted a dress code based on national guidelines. It includes uniforms provided by the hospital and a 'bare-below-the-elbow' policy for all healthcare workers (HCWs) in direct patient care. Because compliance was poor, we sought to improve adherence by interventions targeted at the main causes of noncompliance. OBJECTIVE To measure compliance with the dress code, to assess causes of noncompliance and to assess whether a behavioral approach (combing a nominal group technique with participatory action) is effective in improving compliance METHODS Between March 2014 and June 2016, a total of 1,920 HCWs were observed in hospital hallways for adherence to the policy, at baseline, and at follow-up measurements. Based on the outcome of the baseline measurement, a nominal group technique was applied to assess causes of noncompliance. The causes revealed served as input for interventions that were developed, prioritized, and tailored to specific groups of HCWs and specific departments through participatory action. RESULTS We identified lack of knowledge, lack of facilities, and negative attitudes as the main causes of noncompliance. The importance of each cause varied for different groups of HCWs. Tailored interventions targeted at these causes increased overall compliance by 39.6% (95% CI, 31.7-47.5). CONCLUSION The combination of a nominal group technique and participatory action approach is an effective method to increase and sustain compliance with hospital dress code. This combined approach may also be useful to improve adherence to other guidelines. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1435-1440.

Alternatives to antibiotics for prevention of surgical infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical-site infection (SSI) is still the second most common healthcare-associated infection, after respiratory tract infection. SSIs are associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates, and result in enormous healthcare costs. In the past decade, several guidelines have been developed that aim to reduce the incidence of SSI. Unfortunately, there is no consensus amongst the guidelines, and some are already outdated. This review discusses the recent literature regarding alternatives to antibiotics for prevention of SSI.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE was performed to retrieve data on the prevention of SSI. The focus was on literature published in the past decade.

RESULTS

Prevention of SSI can be divided into preoperative, perioperative and postoperative measures. Preoperative measures consist of showering, surgical scrubbing and cleansing of the operation area with antiseptics. Perioperative factors can be subdivided as: environmental factors, such as surgical attire; patient-related factors, such as plasma glucose control; and surgical factors, such as the duration and invasiveness of surgery. Postoperative measures consist mainly of wound care.

CONCLUSION

There is a general lack of evidence on the preventive effectiveness of perioperative measures to reduce the incidence of SSI. Most measures are based on common practice and perceived effectiveness. The lack of clinical evidence, together with the stability of the high incidence of SSI (10 per cent for colorectal procedures) in recent decades, highlights the need for future research.

Prevention and treatment of neonatal nosocomial infections

Nosocomial or hospital acquired infections threaten the survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes of infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, and increase cost of care. Premature infants are particularly vulnerable since they often undergo invasive procedures and are dependent on central catheters to deliver nutrition and on ventilators for respiratory support. Prevention of nosocomial infection is a critical patient safety imperative, and invariably requires a multidisciplinary approach. There are no short cuts. Hand hygiene before and after patient contact is the most important measure, and yet, compliance with this simple measure can be unsatisfactory. Alcohol based hand sanitizer is effective against many microorganisms and is efficient, compared to plain or antiseptic containing soaps. The use of maternal breast milk is another inexpensive and simple measure to reduce infection rates. Efforts to replicate the anti-infectious properties of maternal breast milk by the use of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics have met with variable success, and there are ongoing trials of lactoferrin, an iron binding whey protein present in large quantities in colostrum. Attempts to boost the immunoglobulin levels of preterm infants with exogenous immunoglobulins have not been shown to reduce nosocomial infections significantly. Over the last decade, improvements in the incidence of catheter-related infections have been achieved, with meticulous attention to every detail from insertion to maintenance, with some centers reporting zero rates for such infections. Other nosocomial infections like ventilator acquired pneumonia and staphylococcus aureus infection remain problematic, and outbreaks with multidrug resistant organisms continue to have disastrous consequences. Management of infections is based on the profile of microorganisms in the neonatal unit and community and targeted therapy is required to control the disease without leading to the development of more resistant strains.

A joint, multilateral approach to improve compliance with hand hygiene in 4 countries within the Baltic region using the World Health Organization's SAVE LIVES: Clean Your Hands model

BACKGROUND

The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to explore the usefulness of a modified World Health Organization (WHO) hand hygiene program to increase compliance with hand hygiene among health care workers (HCWs) in Latvia, Lithuania, Saint Petersburg (Russia), and Sweden and to provide a basis for continuing promotion of hand hygiene in these countries. The study was carried out in 2012. Thirteen hospitals participated, including 38 wards.

METHODS

Outcome data were handrub consumption, compliance with hand hygiene measured with a modified WHO method, and assessment of knowledge among HCWs. Interventions were education of the nursing staff, posters and reminders in strategic places in the wards, and feedback of the results to nursing staff in ward meetings.

RESULTS

Feedback of results was an effective tool for education at the ward level. The most useful outcome measurement was handrub consumption, which increased by at least 50% in 30% of the wards. In spite of this, handrub consumption remained at a low level in many of the wards.

CONCLUSIONS

There are several reasons for this, and the most important were self-reported nursing staff shortage and fear of adverse effects from using alcoholic handrub and verified skin irritation.

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients treated in any setting. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony-forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2015 for this update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations) and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included in the updated review. Four trials reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, while 10 trials reported number of CFUs but not SSI rates. In general studies were small, and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence. SSIsOne study randomised 3317 participants to basic hand hygiene (soap and water) versus an alcohol rub plus additional hydrogen peroxide. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence downgraded for imprecision).One study (500 participants) compared alcohol-only rub versus an aqueous scrub and found no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.34, very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (4387 participants) compared alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients versus aqueous scrubs and found no clear evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.48, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (100 participants) compared an alcohol rub with an additional ingredient versus an aqueous scrub with a brush and found no evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.34, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision). CFUsThe review presents results for a number of comparisons; key findings include the following.Four studies compared different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands.Three studies found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs resulted in fewer CFUs than povidone iodine scrubs immediately after scrubbing, 2 hours after the initial scrub and 2 hours after subsequent scrubbing. All evidence was low or very low quality, with downgrading typically for imprecision and indirectness of outcome. One trial comparing a chlorhexidine gluconate scrub versus a povidone iodine plus triclosan scrub found no clear evidence of a difference-this was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness of outcome).Four studies compared aqueous scrubs versus alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients and reported CFUs. In three comparisons there was evidence of fewer CFUs after using alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients (moderate or very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Evidence from one study suggested that an aqueous scrub was more effective in reducing CFUs than an alcohol rub containing additional ingredients, but this was very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome.Evidence for the effectiveness of different scrub durations varied. Four studies compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the number of CFUs on hands. There was evidence that a 3 minute scrub reduced the number of CFUs compared with a 2 minute scrub (very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Data on other comparisons were not consistent, and interpretation was difficult. All further evidence was low or very low quality (typically downgraded for imprecision and indirectness).One study compared the effectiveness of using nail brushes and nail picks under running water prior to a chlorhexidine scrub on the number of CFUs on hands. It was unclear whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of these different techniques in terms of the number of CFUs remaining on hands (very low quality evidence downgraded due to imprecision and indirectness).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no firm evidence that one type of hand antisepsis is better than another in reducing SSIs. Chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs may reduce the number of CFUs on hands compared with povidone iodine scrubs; however, the clinical relevance of this surrogate outcome is unclear. Alcohol rubs with additional antiseptic ingredients may reduce CFUs compared with aqueous scrubs. With regard to duration of hand antisepsis, a 3 minute initial scrub reduced CFUs on the hand compared with a 2 minute scrub, but this was very low quality evidence, and findings about a longer initial scrub and subsequent scrub durations are not consistent. It is unclear whether nail picks and brushes have a differential impact on the number of CFUs remaining on the hand. Generally, almost all evidence available to inform decisions about hand antisepsis approaches that were explored here were informed by low or very low quality evidence.