The influence of cosmetic additives on the acceptability of alcohol-based hand disinfectants

S2k-Guideline hand antisepsis and hand hygiene

The consensus-based guideline "hand antisepsis and hand hygiene" for Germany has the following sections: Prevention of nosocomial infections by hygienic hand antisepsis, prevention of surgical site infections by surgical hand antisepsis, infection prevention in the community by hand antisepsis in epidemic or pandemic situations, hand washing, selection of alcohol-based hand rubs and wash lotions, medical gloves and protective gloves, preconditions for hand hygiene, skin protection and skin care, quality assurance of the implementation of hand hygiene measures and legal aspects. The guideline was developed by the German Society for Hospital Hygiene in cooperation with 22 professional societies, 2 professional organizations, the German Care Council, the Federal Working Group for Self-Help of People with Disabilities and Chronic Illness and their Family Members, the General Accident Insurance Institution Austria and the German-speaking Interest Group of Infection Prevention Experts and Hospital Hygiene Consultants.

Thermodynamic and Thermal Analyze of N,N-Dimethylformamide + 1-Butanol Mixture Properties Based on Density, Sound Velocity and Heat Capacity Data

The present paper contains data on the density (ρ), sound velocity (u), and specific heat capacity cp of the mixture of N,N-dimethylformamide + 1-butanol (DMF + BuOH) determined in the entire concentration range of solution and in the temperature range (293.15-318.15) K. The analysis of thermodynamic functions such as isobaric molar expansion, isentropic and isothermal molar compression, isobaric and isochoric molar heat capacity, as well as their excess functions (Ep,mE,KS,mE,KT,mE,Cp, mE,CV, mE) and also VmE was undertaken. The analysis of changes in the physicochemical quantities was based on consideration of the system in terms of intermolecular interactions and resulting changes in the mixture structure. The results available in the literature were confusing during the analysis and became the reason for our decision to thoroughly examine the system. What is more, for a system whose components are widely used, there is very scarce information in the literature regarding the heat capacity of the tested mixture, which was also achieved and presented in this publication. The conclusions drawn from so many data points allow us to approximate and understand the changes that occur in the structure of the system due to the repeatability and consistency of the obtained results.

How irritant are n-propanol and isopropanol? - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of alcoholic-based hand rubs (ABHRs) is an important tool for hand hygiene, especially in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Possible irritant effects of ABHR may prevent their use by persons at risk of infection.

METHODS

This systematic review is based on a PubMed search of articles published between January 2000 and September 2019 in English and German, and a manual search, related to the irritation potential of alcohol-based disinfectants restricted to n-propanol (1-propanol) and its structural isomer isopropanol (isopropyl alcohol, 2-propanol).

RESULTS

The majority of the included studies show a low irritation potential of n-propanol alone. However, recent studies provide evidence for significant barrier damage effects of repeated exposure to 60% n-propanol in healthy, as well as atopic skin in vivo. The synergistic response of combined irritants, (ie, a combination of n-propanol or isopropanol with detergents such as sodium lauryl sulfate) is greater, compared with a quantitatively identical application of the same irritant alone.

CONCLUSION

While recent studies indicate a higher risk of skin irritation for n-propanol and isopropanol than reported in the past, this risk still seems to be lower than that for frequent handwashing with detergents, as recommended by some to prevent COVID-19 infections.

Impact of hand sanitizer format (gel/foam/liquid) and dose amount on its sensory properties and acceptability for improving hand hygiene compliance

BACKGROUND

Effective alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs) and healthcare worker compliance with hand hygiene guidelines are important in the prevention of infection transmission in healthcare settings. Compliance to hand hygiene guidelines is affected by many factors including education, ABHR availability, time pressure, skin health, and user acceptance of the sensory properties of ABHRs during and after application.

AIM

To examine the effect of ABHR format (gel/foam/liquid) and dose (0.7 mL, 1.5 mL, 3 mL) on its sensory properties and acceptability, and to consider how this might affect healthcare workers' hand hygiene compliance.

METHODS

Sensory descriptive analysis established key sensory differences between ten market-leading ABHRs (three gels, four foams, two liquids, one aerosol foam). Focus groups reinforced these differences.

FINDINGS

All formats were less desirable at the highest dose as they were more difficult to handle than the lower doses. Foams and gels became stickier, less clean-feeling and slower to dry at higher doses. Liquids gave a cleaner, smoother, more moisturized feel, but the increased difficulty in handling and applying the product negated these benefits. Overall, the gel and foam formats were more desirable than the liquid. The key desirable properties include: fast absorption, soft/moisturized hand feel, not sticky, clean feel, and low smell.

CONCLUSION

The 1.5 mL dose yielded the most acceptable properties with no extreme negative consequences. The foam provided the benefits of both the liquid and gel and combined them into a more widely acceptable format that may lead to greater hand hygiene compliance.

Effect of hand lotion on the effectiveness of hygienic hand antisepsis: Implications for practicing hand hygiene

BACKGROUND

Skin protection products should be used after washing hands with soap, during breaks, after work, and during leisure time. Aside from their beneficial effects, skin care products may also interact with alcohol-based hand disinfectants by reducing their efficacy. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a hand lotion on the effectiveness of hygienic hand antisepsis using an alcohol-based handrub.

METHODS

The effect of a protective hand lotion against an isopropyl alcohol-based handrub was investigated in 20 healthy volunteers according to the European standard test procedure EN 1500 in the following combinations: handwashing and application of hand lotion, only application of hand lotion, and no washing and no hand lotion (control), each for 5 minutes or 1 hour before hand antisepsis. The difference in microbiologic before-and-after values were expressed as log reduction factor.

RESULTS

The effectiveness of hand antisepsis was not significantly affected in any of the groups using the tested hand lotion.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand antisepsis may be delayed for 5 minutes after hand lotion application. Shorter time intervals might be possible but were not tested.

Health Care Workers’ Hand Decontamination Practices

The primary purpose of this quasi-experimental research is to observe health care workers’ compliance with hand-hygiene guidelines during patient care in an intensive care unit in Ireland before (pretest) and after (posttest) implementation of a multifaceted hand-hygiene program. Health care workers’ attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge in relation to compliance with handwashing guidelines were also investigated. A convenience sample of nurses, doctors, physiotherapists, and care assistants ( n = 73 observational participants, n = 62 questionnaire respondents) was used. Data ( N = 314 observations, 62 questionnaires) were analyzed descriptively and cross-tabulated using chi-square (Pearson’s) and Mann-Whitney statistical tests. Results revealed that a significant shift (32%) occurred in health care workers’ compliance with handwashing guidelines (pretest 51%, posttest 83%, p < .001) following the interventional hand-hygiene program. Significant changes were also found in relation to health care workers’ attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge ( p < .05).

Infection control in the pulmonary function test laboratory

Pulmonary function testing plays a crucial role in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with lung diseases. Cases of cross infection acquired from the pulmonary function laboratory, although rare, have been reported from various countries. It is therefore imperative to identify the risks and potential organisms implicated in cross infections in a pulmonary function test (PFT) laboratory and implement better and more effective infection control procedures, which will help in preventing cross infections. The infrastructure, the daily patient flow, and the prevalent disinfection techniques used in a PFT laboratory, all play a significant role in transmission of infections. Simple measures to tackle the cross infection potential in a PFT laboratory can help reduce this risk to a bare minimum. Use of specialized techniques and equipment can also be of much use in a set up that has a high turnover of patients. This review aims at creating awareness about the possible pathogens and situations commonly encountered in a PFT laboratory. We have attempted to suggest some relevant and useful infection control measures with regard to disinfection, sterilization, and patient planning and segregation to help minimize the risk of cross infections in a PFT laboratory. The review also highlights the lacuna in the current scenario of PFT laboratories in India and the need to develop newer and better methods of infection control, which will be more user-friendly and cost effective. Further studies to study the possible pathogens in a PFT laboratory and evaluate the prevalent infection control strategies will be needed to enable us to draw more precious conclusions, which can lead to more relevant, contextual recommendations for cross infections control in PFT lab in India.

Factors influencing field testing of alcohol-based hand rubs

BACKGROUND

According to the World Health Organization guidelines, field tests, in the context of a bid for the supply of alcohol-based hand rubs, should take into account climatic region, test period, products already in use, and type of use (hygienic or surgical) when assessing tolerance. This laborious method is often contested.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a post hoc analysis of the data of a large bid, including 5 factors, to validate the relevance of their inclusion.

METHODS

For the purposes of the bid, products were compared in terms of the 4 World Health Organization tolerance criteria (appearance, intactness, moisture content, sensation) during product testing and were separated into groups on the basis of the studied factors. The post hoc analysis method included (1) comparison of the mean before-and-after difference based on the self-evaluation of the skin with the 4 World Health Organization tolerance criteria, between climatic regions, periods, products in use, test product, and the type of use; (2) generalized linear models, taking into account all studied factors.

RESULTS

The analysis included data for 1,925 pairs of professionals. The means of the differences observed were independently and significantly associated with the test period (P<.001), the hygienic or surgical use (P=.010 to .041, not significant for appearance), the product already in use (significant for appearance P=.021), and the test product (P<.001). The association with climatic region was found to be significant only in the nonadjusted analysis.

CONCLUSION

The type of use, the test period, and the product in use should be taken into account when designing field tests of alcohol-based hand rubs.

Hand hygiene and treatment table sanitizing in chiropractic teaching institutions: results of an education intervention to increase compliance

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to test an educational intervention designed to increase hand and treatment table sanitizing on 3 chiropractic college campuses using a theory-based intervention. The second purpose is to see if an increase in observed hand hygiene would be noted as a result of the intervention.

METHODS

Students at 3 campuses were surveyed, and their attitudes and practices of hand and table sanitizing were observed. The education intervention was developed using ecological theory of health promotion and involved educating staff and students along with a focus on modeling proper behaviors. The surveys were analyzed and generated frequencies. chi(2) analysis and logistic regression models were used to explore effects.

RESULTS

The education campaign was associated with increases in desired behaviors regarding both hand hygiene and table sanitizing. Good hand hygiene practices increased 35% (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.77), and observed practices increased more than 2-fold (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.90-3.52). A 30% increase in table sanitizing was noted as well (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04-1.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Educational interventions after a theory-based model can have an initial impact on increasing hand hygiene and table sanitizing. Further studies should look at a policy component as an effect modifier and whether long-term effects will be seen from such an intervention.

Improving adherence to surgical hand preparation

At present, no universal agreement on detailed practice for surgical hand preparation exists. In order to fill this gap, in 2002 a Franco-German recommendation for surgical hand preparation was published as a first step towards a generally accepted European recommendation. Based on an assessment of the actual literature, a protocol for surgical hand preparation is discussed with the aim to recommend evidence-based standard procedures including prerequisites, washing and disinfection phase, and its practical implementation. In contrast to hygienic hand disinfection, for surgical hand preparation compliance is not an issue, since it mostly is regarded as a ceremony which is carried out without exception. Nevertheless, the following factors influence acceptance and efficacy: skin tolerance, ease of use, duration of procedure, and recommended time), potential for impaired efficacy due to incorrect performance of the procedure, possibility of systemic risks and irritating potential by applied preparations, religious restrictions, ecological aspects, costs and safety. Here, we report our experience with the introduction of a new hand preparation regime in all surgical disciplines in our university hospital based on the above factors. The following statements were evaluated: 1) The immediate efficacy of an alcohol-based hand disinfectant is impaired by a preceding hand wash for up to 10 minutes. Therefore hands should not be routinely washed before the disinfection period unless there is a good reason for it such as visible soiling. 2) A shortened application time (1.5 minutes) is equal to 3 min in terms of efficacy. 3) Hands should be air dried before gloves are put on, otherwise the perforation rate of gloves will increase. 4) The efficacy of alcohol-based disinfectants is significantly higher when hands are allowed to dry for 1 minute after the washing phase and before the disinfection phase. To clarify the above questions before the establishment of the modified technique, the surgical team was invited to a meeting. As a result, the heads of surgical departments supported the new technique and decided to change their practice.

Nurses' perceptions of the benefits and adverse effects of hand disinfection: alcohol-based hand rubs vs. hygienic handwashing: a multicentre questionnaire study with additional patch testing by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group

BACKGROUND

Nurses have a high risk of developing hand eczema due to hand disinfection procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the perception of nurses regarding the adverse effects of hand washing (HW) and alcoholic disinfection (ADI), and to obtain data on the prevalence of hand dermatitis and sensitization to alcohols and alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs).

METHODS

A self-administered questionnaire survey, carried out as a pilot study (PS), followed by a modified multicentre study (MC) in five hospitals. Patch tests to ethanol (80%), 1-propanol (60%), 2-propanol (70%) and ABHRs were performed in a subsample.

RESULTS

The majority (PS 60.1%; MC 69.5%) of nurses considered ADI to be more damaging than HW. Mostly, ADI and HW were suspected to have irritant effects (ADI 79.2%/52.1%; HW 65.5%/36.2%) compared with an allergenic potential (ADI 10.4%/5.8%; HW 7.8%/3.9%). The prevalence of hand dermatitis in the MC was 13.4% by self-diagnosis and 22.4% by symptom-based questions. In 50 tested individuals no sensitization and only two irritant reactions to alcohols and three single-positive reactions to ABHRs were observed, none of the latter related to alcohols.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ADI is known to cause less skin irritation than HW, nurses perceive ADI as more damaging, resulting in: (i) a low compliance with ADI and (ii) a higher prevalence of hand dermatitis because the more deleterious HW is preferred. This may result in an increase in occupational disease and nosocomial infections. Educational programmes should promote ADI as a procedure with good efficiency and skin tolerability to reduce the prevalence of hand eczema in nurses and to enhance compliance with hand hygiene standards.

Field test comparison of two dermal tolerance assessment methods of hand hygiene products

This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and workload requirement of two dermal tolerance assessment methods of hand hygiene products, in order to select a suitable pilot testing method for field tests. An observer-rating method and a self-assessment method were compared in 12 voluntary hospital departments (autumn/winter of 2005-2006). Three test-periods of three weeks were separated by two-week intervals during which the routine products were reintroduced. The observer rating method scored dryness and irritation on four-point scales. In the self-assessment method, the user rated appearance, intactness, moisture content, and sensation on a visual analogue scale which was converted into a 10-point numerical scale. Eleven products (soaps) were tested (223/250 complete reports for observer rating, 131/251 for self-assessment). Two products were significantly less well tolerated than the routine product according to the observers, four products according to the self-assessments. There was no significant difference between the two methods when products were classified according to tolerance (Fisher's test: P=0.491). For the symptom common to both assessment methods (dryness), there is a good correlation between the two methods (Spearman's Rho: P=0.032). The workload was higher for observer rating method (288 h of observer time plus 122 h of prevention team and pharmacist time compared with 15 h of prevention team and pharmacist time for self-assessment). In conclusion, the self-assessment method was considered more suitable for pilot testing, although further time should be allocated for educational measures as the return rate of complete self-assessment forms was poor.

Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis among health care workers by using evidence-based hand hygiene practices: a review

Irritant contact dermatitis is often found on the hands of healthcare workers and is generally caused by frequent hand washing, gloves, aggressive disinfectants or detergents. Alcohols have only a marginal irritation potential, although they may cause a burning sensation on pre-irritated skin. A burning sensation when using alcohols therefore, suggests that the skin barrier is already damaged. Two options for hand hygiene are generally available in clinical practice: (1) hand washing with some type of soap and water or (2) hand disinfection with alcohol-based hand rubs. Most clinical situations require the use of an alcohol-based hand rub for decontamination, which is especially useful for reducing the nosocomial transmission of various infectious agents. Washing one's hands should be the exception, to be performed only when they are visibly soiled or contaminated with proteinaceous material, or visibly soiled with blood or other body fluids. The overall compliance rate in hand hygiene is around 50%, which is far too low. In addition, healthcare workers quite often wash their hands with soap and water, when they should use an alcohol-based hand rub. This not only adds to the degree of skin irritation, but is also potentially dangerous for patients, due to the low efficacy of hand washing when compared to hand disinfection with alcohol rubs. Adhering to evidence-based hand hygiene protocols and following international guidelines on hand hygiene practices therefore, can help prevent irritant contact dermatitis among healthcare workers.

How irritant is alcohol?

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-based hand rubs are used worldwide to prevent transmission of nosocomial pathogens.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate skin irritation caused by alcohols alone and in combination with detergent washing.

METHODS

Single and repetitive patch testing with 60-100% alcohols [ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-propanol (synonyms: isopropyl alcohol, isopropanol)], a positive control [0.5% sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS)] and negative controls (empty chamber and water) were performed. Wash tests were performed with 80% ethanol and 0.5% SLS on the forearms with each agent alone and with both agents in a tandem design. Skin hydration, erythema and barrier disruption [measured as transepidermal water loss (TEWL)] were evaluated (always 15 volunteers).

RESULTS

We found no significant change in skin barrier or erythema induced by the alcohols in the patch tests, whereas skin hydration decreased significantly. Application of alcohols to previously irritated skin did not show a stronger skin barrier disruption than application of SLS alone. Wash tests demonstrated that alcohol application caused significantly less skin irritation than washing with a detergent (TEWL, P < 0.001; skin hydration, P < 0.05; erythema, P < 0.05). Even on previously irritated skin, ethanol did not enhance irritation. By contrast, a protective effect of ethanol used after skin washing was observed (TEWL, P < 0.05; skin hydration, P < 0.05; erythema, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol-based hand rubs cause less skin irritation than hand washing and are therefore preferred for hand hygiene from the dermatological point of view. An alcohol-based hand rub may even decrease rather than increase skin irritation after a hand wash due to a mechanical partial elimination of the detergent.

Liquid versus gel handrub formulation: a prospective intervention study

INTRODUCTION

Hand hygiene is one of the cornerstones of the prevention of health care-associated infection, but health care worker (HCW) compliance with good practices remains low. Alcohol-based handrub is the new standard for hand hygiene action worldwide and usually requires a system change for its successful introduction in routine care. Product acceptability by HCWs is a crucial step in this process.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective intervention study to compare the impact on HCW compliance of a liquid (study phase I) versus a gel (phase II) handrub formulation of the same product during daily patient care. All staff (102 HCWs) of the medical intensive care unit participated. Compliance with hand hygiene was monitored by a single observer. Skin tolerance and product acceptability were assessed using subjective and objective scoring systems, self-report questionnaires, and biometric measurements. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between predictors and compliance with the handrub formulation as the main explanatory variable and to adjust for potential risk factors.

RESULTS

Overall compliance (phases I and II) with hand hygiene practices among nurses, physicians, nursing assistants, and other HCWs was 39.1%, 27.1%, 31.1%, and 13.9%, respectively (p = 0.027). Easy access to handrub improved compliance (35.3% versus 50.6%, p = 0.035). Nurse status, working on morning shifts, use of the gel formulation, and availability of the alcohol-based handrub in the HCW's pocket were independently associated with higher compliance. Immediate accessibility was the strongest predictor. Based on self-assessment, observer assessment, and the measurement of epidermal water content, the gel performed significantly better than the liquid formulation.

CONCLUSION

Facilitated access to an alcohol-based gel formulation leads to improved compliance with hand hygiene and better skin condition in HCWs.

Skin reactions related to hand hygiene and selection of hand hygiene products

BACKGROUND

In October 2004, The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the World Alliance for Patient Safety. Within the alliance, the first priority of the Global Patient Safety Challenge is to reduce health care-associated infection. A key action within the challenge is to promote hand hygiene in health care globally as well as at the country level through the campaign "Clean Care is Safer Care." As a result, the WHO is developing Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care, designed to be applicable throughout the world.

METHODS

This paper summarizes one component of the global WHO guidelines related to the impact of hand hygiene on the skin of health care personnel, including a discussion of types of skin reactions associated with hand hygiene, methods to reduce adverse reactions, and factors to consider when selecting hand hygiene products.

RESULTS

Health care professionals have a higher prevalence of skin irritation than seen in the general population because of the necessity for frequent hand hygiene during patient care.

CONCLUSION

Ways to minimize adverse effects of hand hygiene include selecting less irritating products, using skin moisturizers, and modifying certain hand hygiene practices such as unnecessary washing. Institutions need to consider several factors when selecting hand hygiene products: dermal tolerance and aesthetic preferences of users as well as practical considerations such as convenience, storage, and costs.

Skin condition associated with intensive use of alcoholic gels for hand disinfection: a combination of biophysical and sensorial data

Although hand hygiene is an important and inexpensive measure to prevent nosocomial infections in clinical settings, the compliance of healthcare workers remains low. In Europe, alcoholic hand disinfection is first choice, but there exists a limited user acceptability due to estimated adverse effects on skin condition. This study was designed to investigate skin tolerance to alcohol-based disinfecting gels and changes in skin condition depending on humectant concentration, alcohol grades, as well as type of alcohol used. A comparison of 6 alcohol-based gels was made based on a randomized double-blind study under in use conditions for 1 day. Skin condition was evaluated by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum hydration, apparent skin pH, redness and degree of scaliness. With respect to user acceptability, all gels were sensorially evaluated using a questionnaire. We saw that none of the alcohol-based gels, applied under in use conditions, altered TEWL or caused irritation. All gels hydrated the skin, proportionally to their glycerine content, and decreased skin pH. Elevated ethanol concentrations resulted in increased scaliness. Sensorial assessment revealed less appreciation for isopropanol. From this study, it was concluded that gels containing an elevated glycerine concentration and 70% (v/v) ethanol are preferred.

Tolerance and acceptability of 14 surgical and hygienic alcohol-based hand rubs

Tests were performed under working practice conditions to measure the tolerance and acceptability of commercially available hand rubs with proven efficacy. The products were compared with those in current use at the Hospices Civils de Lyon for surgical hand disinfection (Sterillium) and hygienic hand disinfection (Purell) to obtain information for public sector purchases. The 12 test products were Alcogel H, Assanis Pro, Clinogel, Dermalcool, Manugel Plus, Manugel Plus NPC, Manurub Liquid, Manurub Gel, Purell 85, Spitacid, Spitagel and Sterillium Gel. They were tested from mid-November to mid-April over four periods of three weeks, separated by two-week intervals during which the customary product was re-introduced. Participation of hospital wards and theatres was voluntary. Skin dryness and irritation were scored before and after each test period. Acceptability and ease of use were assessed by means of a questionnaire. Among the eight surgical hand rubs, only Manurub Liquid, Manurub Gel and Manugel Plus NPC did not cause significantly more dryness and irritation than Sterillium. For the 10 hygienic hand rubs, differences were noted depending upon the test period. Overall, Assanis Pro, Clinogel, Purell 85 and Sterillium Gel did not cause significantly more dryness and irritation than Purell. However, over the (colder) first three test periods, Assanis Pro and Sterillium Gel caused more irritation and Purell 85 caused more dryness than Purell. Responses to the questionnaires on acceptability indicated that users preferred their customary hand rubs (Sterillium and Purell). As these field tests involving many participants did not identify any superior products, previous purchase orders were renewed.

Emollients in a propanol-based hand rub can significantly decrease irritant contact dermatitis

The objective of this study is to determine the effect of emollients in a propanol-based hand rub on skin dryness and erythema. In this prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 35 subjects participated; of them approximately half were atopic (modified Erlanger atopy score > or =8). 2 propanol-based formulations were tested in a repeated open application test, 1 contained a mixture of emollients (0.81%, w/w). 2 aliquots of 0.7 ml of each formulation were applied twice per day over 2 weeks to the cubital fossa of each subject after random assignment of the preparations. Treatment areas were assessed before each application and 3 days postfinal application by visual inspection for erythema and dryness according to a standard scale. The sum score over all assessment time-points served as primary parameter. The mean sum score for erythema and dryness was significantly lower for the hand rub with emollients (0.8 +/- 2.4) in comparison with that for the hand rub without emollients (1.5 +/- 3.5; P = 0.022; Wilcoxon signed rank test). A comparison of the atopic and non-atopic subjects revealed no significant difference for any of the products (P > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). It is concluded that the addition of emollients to a propanol-based hand rub can significantly decrease irritant contact dermatitis under frequent-use conditions.

One plunge or two?—hand disinfection with alcohol gel

OBJECTIVE

To compare health care workers' hand surface coverage using two different volumes of alcohol gel for hand disinfection.

PARTICIPANTS

and methods. A total of 84 members of staff in our hospital were studied. Subjects were asked to disinfect their hands with alcohol gel containing a clear fluorescent substance. Performance was assessed by using UV light to identify areas which had been missed, and the total surface area missed was calculated. A total of 42 subjects received 3.5 ml of alcohol gel, and 42 age-, sex-, and job-matched subjects received 1.75 ml of alcohol gel.

RESULTS

Significantly less area was missed when hand disinfecting with double the volume of alcohol gel; 1.23 versus 6.35% surface area was missed (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Doubling the volume of alcohol gel used for hand disinfection significantly improves the efficiency of coverage of the hands with alcohol gel. This may result in lower bacterial count on the hands and may reduce the spread of nosocomial infections including that of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

[Hygienic and dermatologic aspects of hand disinfection and prophylactic skin antisepsis]

Hygienic hand disinfection must be carried out after all patient-care activities associated with contamination risks, as well as when moving from contaminated to clean body sites, after contact with environmental surfaces in the immediate vicinity of patients, after glove removal and before aseptic procedures. Preparatory handwashing (for about 10 seconds) to mechanically remove soil and bacterial spores should be performed at least 10 minutes before surgical hand disinfection. This allows time for the normalization of increased skin hydration, a prerequisite for effective hand disinfection. Depending on the manufacturer's instructions, application times of 1.5, 3 or 5 minutes can be observed. The regular use of skin care and skin protection products can help to prevent toxic skin irritation. For skin antisepsis the recommended exposure times are > or =15 seconds before subcutaneous injections, > or =1 minute before puncture of joints and body cavities as well as preoperatively, and > or =10 minutes on skin areas rich in sebaceous glands. For all 3 indications, alcohol-based formulations are the agents of choice.

The six golden rules to improve compliance in hand hygiene

Improvement of compliance in hand hygiene is probably the most effective step in reducing the incidence of nosocomial infections (NI). But improvement of compliance is known to be complex. Six possibilities for improving compliance are available although some of them may be difficult to carry out. Rule 1: Select an alcohol-based hand rub which has a good skin tolerance and is acceptable to health care workers to use. This has been shown to improve compliance. Rule 2: The hand rub shall be easily available. Wall dispensers near the patient and pocket bottles may well help. Other possibilities should be assessed locally. Rule 3: Implement teaching and promotion of hand hygiene, which has been shown to be very effective. This is may be the most effective tool but will cost time and money. If money is a problem, rule 4 may be the solution. Rule 4: Create a hospital budget which covers all costs involved with preventable nosocomial infection. Combine it with the budget for hand hygiene products. Even a small number of prevented NI largely outweighs the cost of effective hand hygiene products. Rule 5: Get senior staff to set a good example in order to motivate junior staff, because negligence in hand hygiene appears to correlate with the number of professional years. Rule 6: Have the patient-staff ratio well balanced. It has been shown that staff shortage decreases hand hygiene compliance. Other factors may be important as well, but implementation of these 6 golden rules could be an effective step into the right direction.

Low frequency of fires from alcohol-based hand rub dispensers in healthcare facilities

We administered a web-based questionnaire to SHEA, APIC, and EIN members to assess the frequency of fires associated with alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) dispensers in healthcare settings. None of the 798 responding facilities using ABHRs reported a dispenser-related fire; 766 facilities had accrued an estimated 1,430 hospital-years of ABHR use.

Comparison of waterless hand antisepsis agents at short application times: raising the flag of concern

OBJECTIVE

Although alcohol-based hand rinses and gels have recommended application times of 30 to 60 seconds, healthcare workers usually take much less time for hand hygiene. We compared the efficacies of four alcohol-based hand rubs produced in Europe (hand rinses A, B, and C and one gel formulation) with the efficacy of the European Norm 1500 (EN 1500) reference waterless hand antisepsis agent (60% 2-propanol) at short application times.

DESIGN

Comparative crossover study.

SETTING

Infection Control Program laboratory of a large tertiary-care teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve healthy volunteers.

INTERVENTION

Measurement of residual bacterial counts and log reduction factors following inoculation of fingertips with Staphylococcus aurens American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) 6538, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442, and a clinical isolate of Enterococcus faecalis.

RESULTS

All hand rinses satisfied EN 1500 standards following a single application for 15 and 30 seconds, but reduction factors for the gel formulation were significantly lower for all tested organisms (all P < .025).

CONCLUSIONS

Under stringent conditions similar to clinical practice, all three hand rinses proved to be more efficacious than the marketed alcohol-based gel in reducing bacterial counts on hands. Further studies are necessary to determine the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based gels and whether they are as efficacious as alcohol-based rinses in reducing the transmission of nosocomial infections.

State-of-the-art hand hygiene in community medicine

Hand hygiene becomes more important in community medicine not only since antibiotic resistant bacteria such as MRSA spread within the community. Hands may be colonized with transient microorganism in up to 75%. Among those transient pathogens S. aureus, C. difficile or the hepatitis C virus may be found. During patient care the number of microorganisms on the hands steadily increases. In addition hands may be contaminated with different kinds of germs even if only "clean" activities are carried out. Gloves may be worn but do not provide complete protection from contamination due to leaks. Therefore hands should always be treated after gloves are taken off. State-of-the-art treatment of hands is the hygienic hand disinfection with alcohol-based hand rubs. They are more effective, quicker to carry out, better tolerated by the skin, with a positive effect on compliance, and cost effective in comparison to antiseptic soaps based on chlorhexidine or triclosan and in comparison to normal non-medicated soaps. Healthy skin easily tolerates alcohol-based products from the beginning on. Only health care workers with an underlying irritative contact dermatitis which is often caused by bar or liquid antiseptic soaps may have difficulties to use alcohol-based products initially. In such a case treatment of the underlying skin condition is the way to go and not staying with a preparation which has caused the dermatitis. All this knowledge is now reflected in current guidelines on hand hygiene. Beside liquids alcohol-based gels can be used if they have an antimicrobial activity equal to alcohol-based liquid preparations. Hand hygiene remains the single most important tool to avoid cross transmission of microorganisms between patients. This state-of-the-art hand hygiene should also be emphasized more in community medicine. This review may help to go the first step into this direction.

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.

The importance of evaluating product dispensers when selecting alcohol-based handrubs

BACKGROUND

To promote improved hand hygiene among personnel, a hospital installed dispensers for an alcohol-based hand rinse throughout the facility. Soon after installation, dispensers began to malfunction and continued to do so despite efforts to rectify the problem.

METHODS

Sixteen months after installation, dispensers in all patient rooms were examined, and surveyors recorded the condition of dispensers, the number of times the dispenser lever was pressed to obtain product, how the product was delivered onto the hand, and a qualitative estimate of the volume delivered.

RESULTS

Of 166 dispensers, 2% were broken, 7% had no product container, 5% had an empty product container, 9% contained product but were totally obstructed, and 77% were functional. Of the 128 functional dispensers, 65% delivered product after a single stroke of the lever, 13% after 2 strokes, 9% after 3 strokes, and 13% after 4 or more strokes. Seventeen percent delivered a small volume onto the hand, and 16% squirted the product onto the wall or floor.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of alcohol-based handrubs should consider not only product characteristics, user acceptability, skin tolerance, and cost but also the design and function of the dispensers that will ultimately be installed.

Clinical double-blind trial on the dermal tolerance and user acceptability of six alcohol-based hand disinfectants for hygienic hand disinfection

Six commercially available alcohol-based hand rubs [AHD 2000, Desderman, Mucasept A, Manorapid (Poly-Alkohol, Spitacid, and Sterillium] were investigated in a clinical double-blind trial involving 10 participants who had no previous experience of using hand rubs (Group 1), and seven who had substantial professional experience of using hand rubs (Group 2; virology laboratory staff). Group 1 was studied for one week with 20 applications on day 1 and then five applications per day for six days. Transepidermal water loss, dermal water content and superficial sebum content of the skin were measured before and after the seven-day application of the products, as well as user acceptability (self-assessment of smell, speed of drying, emolliant effect, skin dryness). Group 2 used each preparation twice for two weeks in a random sequence, and carried out self assessment at the end of each fortnight. Transepidermal water loss (mean baseline: 18.7 g/m(2)h), dermal water content (mean baseline dorsum: 75.6) and superficial sebum content (mean baseline dorsum: 4.8 microg/cm(2)) did not change significantly. In both groups assessments of the smell and the speed of drying did not reveal any significant differences between the six products. Sterillium had the best emollient effect of all products (P<0.05; Wilcoxon test and Mann-Whitney-U test) and was significantly better than Desderman, AHD 2000, and Mucasept A, causing less skin dryness after seven days use in Group 1 (P<0.05; Mann-Whitney-U test). Manorapid caused significantly less dryness than Spitacid, AHD 2000, and Mucasept A in Group 2 after the first use, but no significant difference was observed after the second use. Thus alcohol-based hand rubs that contain emolliants, irrespective of the type of alcohol (n-propanol, iso-propanol or ethanol), are well tolerated and do not dry out or irritate the skin. Personal assessments showed significant differences for the emolliant effect and the extent of dryness. Both factors are very important, as user acceptability has an impact on compliance. Sterillium is the only hand disinfectant containing mecetronium etilsulphate which has been shown to have an emolliant effect. Future research should focus on user acceptability in order to improve compliance.

Arguments for alcoholic hand disinfection

The non-aqueous use of ethanol or propanols offers various advantages over washing hands with either unmedicated or medicated soap in both hygienic and surgical hand disinfection. Alcohols exert the strongest and fastest activity against a wide spectrum of bacteria and fungi (but not bacterial spores) as well as enveloped (but less so against non-enveloped) viruses, being little influenced by interfering substances. They are of low toxicity and offer acceptable skin tolerability when made up with suitable emollients. The mode of their application is simple and three to four times more economical of time than wash procedures, features which help to increase the compliance with the rules of hand hygiene.

Better compliance and better tolerance in relation to a well-conducted introduction to rub-in hand disinfection

The aim of the study was to demonstrate that the introduction of rub-in hand disinfection (RHD) in hospital units, with the implementation of suitable equipment, drafting of specific protocols, and training users, improved compliance of hand disinfection and tolerance of user's hands. In four hospital units not previously using RHD an external investigator conducted two identical studies in order to measure the rate of compliance with, and the quality of, disinfection practices, [rate of adapted (i.e., appropriate) procedures, rate of correct (i.e., properly performed) procedures, rate of adapted and correct procedures carried out] and to assess the state of hands (clinical scores of dryness and irritation, measuring hydration with a corneometer). Between the two studies, the units were equipped with dispensers for RHD products and staff were trained. Compliance improved from 62.2 to 66.5%, quality was improved (rate of adapted procedures from 66.8% to 84.3%, P > or = 10(-6), rate of correct procedures from 11.1% to 28.9%, P > or = 10(-8), rate of adapted and correct procedures from 6.0 to 17.8%, P > or = 10(-8)). The tolerance was improved significantly (P > or = 10(-2)) for clinical dryness and irritation scores, although not significantly for measurements using a corneometer. This study shows the benefit of introducing RHD with a technical and educational accompaniment.

Antiseptic technology: access, affordability, and acceptance

Factors other than antimicrobial activity of soaps and antiseptic agents used for hand hygiene by health personnel play a role in compliance with recommendations. Hand hygiene products differ considerably in acceptance by hospital personnel. If switching from a nonmedicated soap to an antiseptic agent or increased use of an existing antiseptic agent for hand hygiene prevented a few more infections per year, additional expenditures for antiseptic agents would be offset by cost savings.

Skin irritation and dryness associated with two hand-hygiene regimens: soap-and-water hand washing versus hand antisepsis with an alcoholic hand gel

OBJECTIVE

To compare the frequency of skin irritation and dryness associated with using an alcoholic-hand-gel regimen for hand antisepsis versus using soap and water for hand washing.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized trial with crossover design. Irritation and dryness of nurses' hands were evaluated by self-assessment and by visual assessment by a study nurse. Epidermal water content of the dorsal surface of nurses' hands was estimated by measuring electrical capacitance of the skin.

SETTING

Miriam Hospital, a 200-bed university-affiliated teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-two nurses working on three hospital wards participated in the trial, which lasted 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Self-assessment scores of skin irritation and dryness decreased slightly during the 2 weeks when nurses used the alcoholic-hand-gel regimen (mean baseline score, 2.72; mean final score, 2.0; P=.08) but increased substantially during the 2 weeks when nurses used soap and water (mean baseline score, 2.0; mean final score, 4.8; P<.0001). Visual assessment scores by the study nurse of skin irritation and dryness did not change significantly when the alcoholic-hand-gel regimen was used (mean baseline and final scores were both 0.55), but scores increased substantially when nurses used soap and water (baseline score, 0.59; mean final score, 1.21; P=.05). Epidermal water content of the dorsal surface of nurses' hands changed little when the alcoholic-hand-gel regimen was used (mean+/-standard deviation baseline electrical capacitance reading, 24.8+/-6.8; mean final reading, 25.7+/-7.3), but decreased significantly (skin became dryer) with soap-and-water hand washing (mean baseline, 25.9+/-7.5; mean final reading, 20.5+/-5.4; P=.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Hand antisepsis with an alcoholic-hand-gel regimen was well tolerated and did not result in skin irritation and dryness of nurses' hands. In contrast, skin irritation and dryness increased significantly when nurses washed their hands with the unmedicated soap product available in the hospital. Newer alcoholic hand gels that are tolerated better than soap may be more acceptable to staff and may lead to improved hand-hygiene practices.

Comparison of in-vivo antibacterial activity of two skin disinfection procedures for insertion of peripheral catheters: povidone iodine versus chlorhexidine

Skin disinfection is a key step in the prevention of nosocomial infections especially prior to invasive procedures such as the insertion of peripheral catheters. Alcohol-based antiseptics improve bactericidal activity and decrease the time needed for skin disinfection in emergencies. A randomized study was performed in two groups of 22 volunteers to compare the in vivo bactericidal effect of two rapid disinfection procedures using povidone iodine (PVP-I) in scrub formulation followed by alcoholic PVP-I, or chlorhexidine in scrub formulation followed by alcoholic chlorhexidine. Bacteria were recovered using the cylinder scrub method. Comparison of reductions in the aerobic and anaerobic flora from baseline levels to each of the three sampling times (30 sec, 3 min, 2 h) showed no significant difference between the two procedures Log(10)reduction after 30 seconds was around 1.5 for the aerobic flora and 1.1 for the anaerobic flora. After 3 minutes the corresponding values were 2.1 and 1.8, and after 2 hours 2.0 and 1.3. The products were well tolerated in both groups. The two procedures had comparable rapid bactericidal activity in vivo.