The use of alcoholic paper wipes for routine hand cleansing: results of trials in two hospitals

Wiping Is Inferior to Rubbing: A Note of Caution for Hand Hygiene With Alcohol-Based Solutions

We evaluated whether hand wiping is noninferior to hand rubbing in reducing the bacterial concentration on hands. In 20 healthy volunteers, hand wiping with or without an alcohol-based solution was inferior to hand rubbing with an alcohol-based solution. This finding warrants a note of caution for the application of wipes in health care.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:332–335

Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 10. Alcohol-based antiseptics for hand disinfection and a comparison of their effectiveness with soaps

Alcohol compounds are increasingly used as a substitute for hand washing in health care environments and some public places because these compounds are easy to use and do not require water or hand drying materials. However, the effectiveness of these compounds depends on how much soil (bioburden) is present on the hands. Workers in health care environments and other public places must wash their hands before using antiseptics and/or wearing gloves. However, alcohol-based antiseptics, also called rubs and sanitizers, can be very effective for rapidly destroying some pathogens by the action of the aqueous alcohol solution without the need for water or drying with towels. Alcohol-based compounds seem to be the most effective treatment against gram-negative bacteria on lightly soiled hands, but antimicrobial soaps are as good or better when hands are more heavily contaminated. Instant sanitizers have no residual effect, unlike some antimicrobial soaps that retain antimicrobial activity after the hygienic action has been completed, e.g., after hand washing. Many alcohol-based hand rubs have antimicrobial agents added to them, but each formulation must be evaluated against the target pathogens in the environment of concern before being considered for use. Wipes also are widely used for quick cleanups of hands, other body parts, and surfaces. These wipes often contain alcohol and/or antimicrobial compounds and are used for personal hygiene where water is limited. However, antiseptics and wipes are not panaceas for every situation and are less effective in the presence of more than a light soil load and against most enteric viruses.

Impact of ring wearing on hand contamination and comparison of hand hygiene agents in a hospital

We determined risk factors for hand contamination and compared the efficacy of 3 randomly allocated hand hygiene agents in a group of surgical intensive care unit nurses. We cultured samples of one of the subjects' hands before and samples of the other hand after hand hygiene was performed. Ring wearing was associated with 10-fold higher median skin organism counts; contamination with Staphylococcus aureus, gram-negative bacilli, or Candida species; and a stepwise increased risk of contamination with any transient organism as the number of rings worn increased (odds ratio [OR] for 1 ring worn, 2.6; OR for >1 ring worn, 4.6). Compared with use of plain soap and water, hand contamination with any transient organism was significantly less likely after use of an alcohol-based hand rub (OR, 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-0.8) but not after use of a medicated hand wipe (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.6). Ring wearing increased the frequency of hand contamination with potential nosocomial pathogens. Use of an alcohol-based hand rub resulted in significantly less frequent hand contamination.

Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force

The Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings provides health-care workers (HCWs) with a review of data regarding handwashing and hand antisepsis in health-care settings. In addition, it provides specific recommendations to promote improved hand-hygiene practices and reduce transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to patients and personnel in health-care settings. This report reviews studies published since the 1985 CDC guideline (Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:231-43) and the 1995 APIC guideline (Larson EL, APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69) were issued and provides an in-depth review of hand-hygiene practices of HCWs, levels of adherence of personnel to recommended handwashing practices, and factors adversely affecting adherence. New studies of the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs and the low incidence of dermatitis associated with their use are reviewed. Recent studies demonstrating the value of multidisciplinary hand-hygiene promotion programs and the potential role of alcohol-based hand rubs in improving hand-hygiene practices are summarized. Recommendations concerning related issues (e.g., the use of surgical hand antiseptics, hand lotions or creams, and wearing of artificial fingernails) are also included.

Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force

The Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings provides health-care workers (HCWs) with a review of data regarding handwashing and hand antisepsis in health-care settings. In addition, it provides specific recommendations to promote improved hand-hygiene practices and reduce transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to patients and personnel in health-care settings. This report reviews studies published since the 1985 CDC guideline (Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:231-43) and the 1995 APIC guideline (Larson EL, APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69) were issued and provides an in-depth review of hand-hygiene practices of HCWs, levels of adherence of personnel to recommended handwashing practices, and factors adversely affecting adherence. New studies of the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs and the low incidence of dermatitis associated with their use are reviewed. Recent studies demonstrating the value of multidisciplinary hand-hygiene promotion programs and the potential role of alcohol-based hand rubs in improving hand-hygiene practices are summarized. Recommendations concerning related issues (e.g., the use of surgical hand antiseptics, hand lotions or creams, and wearing of artificial fingernails) are also included.

A new alcohol solution (N-duopropenide) for hygienic (or routine) hand disinfection is more useful than classic handwashing: in vitro and in vivo studies in burn and other intensive care units

INTRODUCTION

Standard handwashing is a key measure for the prevention of crossed nosocomial infection, but this measure is not always observed. We study whether fast disinfection with an alcohol solution is better than handwashing and whether it can enhance observance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The effects of several alcohol solutions on native and acquired microbiota are compared with classic handwashing in 'in vitro' and 'in vivo' (health volunteers) quantitative tests. A field assay was subsequently performed in severely ill patient intensive care units (ICUs) (Burn and other ICUs), using a semiquantitative method to compare the effects of disinfection with standard handwashing (n=102) with N-duopropenide alcohol application (n=264).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In both designs--health volunteers and hospital ward teams--we found significant differences between handwashing and N-duopropenide application. Handwashing barely modified the native or acquired microbiota (only 0.1 to <2 log10 reduction) and did not eliminate Staphylococcus aureus and Gram-negative bacteria (from 34 to 23%: P>0.05). However, N-duopropenide reduced the acquired microbiota by 5 log (10) and the native hand microbiota by more than 2 log10, as well as significantly reducing S. aureus and Gram-negative bacteria (33-1.3%; P<0.01).

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci

After they were first identified in the mid-1980s, vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) spread rapidly and became a major problem in many institutions both in Europe and the United States. Since VRE have intrinsic resistance to most of the commonly used antibiotics and the ability to acquire resistance to most of the current available antibiotics, either by mutation or by receipt of foreign genetic material, they have a selective advantage over other microorganisms in the intestinal flora and pose a major therapeutic challenge. The possibility of transfer of vancomycin resistance genes to other gram-positive organisms raises significant concerns about the emergence of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. We review VRE, including their history, mechanisms of resistance, epidemiology, control measures, and treatment.

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci

After they were first identified in the mid-1980s, vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) spread rapidly and became a major problem in many institutions both in Europe and the United States. Since VRE have intrinsic resistance to most of the commonly used antibiotics and the ability to acquire resistance to most of the current available antibiotics, either by mutation or by receipt of foreign genetic material, they have a selective advantage over other microorganisms in the intestinal flora and pose a major therapeutic challenge. The possibility of transfer of vancomycin resistance genes to other gram-positive organisms raises significant concerns about the emergence of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. We review VRE, including their history, mechanisms of resistance, epidemiology, control measures, and treatment.

An evaluation of five protocols for surgical handwashing in relation to skin condition and microbial counts

Five protocols for surgical handwashing (scrubbing) were evaluated for their efficiency of removal of micro-organisms and their drying effect on the skin. The scrubbing protocols tested were: (1) an initial scrub of 5 min and consecutive scrubs of 3.5 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% (CHG-5); (2) an initial scrub of 3 min and consecutive scrubs of 2.5 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% (CHG-3); (3) an initial scrub of 3 min and consecutive scrubs of 2.5 min with povidone iodine 5% and triclosan 1% (PI-3); (4) an initial scrub of 2 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% followed by a 30 s application of isopropanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5%, and a 30 s application of isopropanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5% for consecutive scrubs (IPA); and (5) an initial scrub of 2 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% followed by a 30 s application of ethanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5%, and a 30 s application of ethanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5% for consecutive scrubs (EA). A convenience sample of 23 operating theatre nurses completed each scrub protocol for one week in a randomized order. A week of normal work activities intervened between each protocol. Subjects were assessed before commencing and after completing the week of each protocol to determine changes in the microbial counts and skin condition of the hands. Specimens for microbial analysis were collected before, immediately after and 2 h after an initial scrub, and 2 h after a consecutive scrub. The CHG-5, CHG-3 and PI-3 protocols, which used detergent-based antiseptics only, were compared with protocols incorporating an alcohol-based antiseptic (IPA and EA). The protocols incorporating alcohol-based antiseptics and the CHG-5 protocol were generally associated with the lowest post-scrub numbers of colony forming units (cfu). No difference between the CHG-5 protocol and the alcohol-based antiseptics was found at the beginning of the test week, but after exclusive use of the respective protocols for a week, the alcohol-based antiseptics were associated with significantly lower cfu numbers in two out of the three post-scrub samples (P = 0.003, P = 0.035). Although virtually no statistically significant differences in skin condition were found, many subjects reported the alcohol-based antiseptic protocols to be less drying on the skin. The findings of this study support the proposition that a scrub protocol using alcohol-based antiseptics is as effective and no more damaging to skin than more time-consuming, conventional methods using detergent-based antiseptics.

Nurses' hands as vectors of hospital-acquired infection: a review

Hospital-acquired infections (HAI) are notorious for the manner in which they complicate the course of the original illness, increase costs of hospital stay and delay recovery. This review will briefly outline the problems presented by HAI in developed countries and present evidence that Staphylococcus aureus and gram negative bacilli, the main causative agents, reach susceptible patients via the contact rather than airborne route, predominantly on the hands of hospital staff. Good hand hygiene could help reduce the economic burden and patient distress caused by HAI, but there is evidence that it is infrequently and poorly performed by nurses, the health care staff most frequently in continuous contact with patients. Possible reasons are explored in an attempt to identify strategies to improve hand hygiene.

Alcohol-impregnated wipes as an alternative in hand hygiene

The antimicrobial effectiveness of four hand-wash products for health care personnel included three liquid soaps that contained 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, 1% triclosan, or no antiseptic ingredient, respectively, and a 30% w/w ethyl alcohol-impregnated hand wipe. These products were evaluated for reduction in bacterial counts on hands after extended use of 15 handwashes per day for 5 consecutive days. The order of greatest to least log reduction among products at the end of the 5-day test period was chlorhexidine gluconate (2.01), triclosan (1.52), alcohol wipe (0.04), and control soap (0.03). Skin condition before and after handwash was assessed for each treatment group. Subjects reported less skin irritation with alcohol wipes than with the two antiseptic products. Repeated washing with alcohol wipes results in reductions in bacterial colony counts comparable with nonmedicated soap, sufficient to prevent transmission of pathogens by the hands in most situations that arise in nonacute health care settings. This evidence, in addition to increased user acceptability reported by the subjects who used alcohol wipes, suggests that alcohol wipes are an acceptable alternative to soap-and-water handwashing in nonacute health care settings.