Bacterial reduction of alcohol-based liquid and gel products on hands soiled with blood

Evidence-based hand hygiene: Liquid or gel handrub, does it matter?

BACKGROUND

Recent studies put under scrutiny the prevailing hand hygiene guidelines, which incorporate quantitative parameters regarding handrub volume and hand size. Understanding the criticality of complete (i.e., efficient) hand hygiene in healthcare, objectivization of hand hygiene related parameters are paramount, including the formulation of the ABHR. Complete coverage can be achieved with optimal Alcohol-Based Hand Rub (ABHR) provided. The literature is limited regarding ABHR formulation variances to antimicrobial efficiency and healthcare workers' preference, while public data on clinically relevant typical application differences is not available. This study was designed and performed to compare gel and liquid format ABHRs (the two most popular types in Europe) by measuring several parameters, including application time, spillage and coverage.

METHODOLOGY

Senior medical students were invited, and randomly assigned to receive pre-determined ABHR volumes (1.5 or 3 ml). All the 340 participants were given equal amounts of gel and liquid on two separate hand hygiene occasions, which occurred two weeks apart. During the hand hygiene events, by employing a digital, fully automated system paired with fluorescent-traced ABHRs, disinfectant hand coverage was objectively investigated. Furthermore, hand coverage in relation to the participants' hand sizes was also calculated. Additional data collection was performed regarding volume differences and their effect on application time, participants' volume awareness (consciousness) and disinfectant spillage during the hand hygiene events.

RESULTS

The 1.5 ml ABHR volume (commonly applied in healthcare settings) is insufficient in either formulation, as the non-covered areas exceeded significant (5%+) of the total hand surface area. 3 ml, on the contrary, resulted in almost complete coverage (uncovered areas remained below 1.5%). Participants typically underestimated the volume which they needed to apply. While the liquid ABHR spreads better in the lower, 1.5 ml volume compared to the gel, the latter was easier handled at larger volume. Drying times were 30/32 s (gel and liquid formats, respectively) when 1.5 ml handrub was applied, and 40/42 s when 3 ml was used. As the evaporation rates of the ABHR used in the study are similar to those available on the market, one can presume that the results presented in the study apply for most WHO conform ABHRs.

CONCLUSION

The results show that applying 1.5 ml volume was insufficient, as large part of the hand surface remained uncovered (7.0 ± 0.7% and 5.8 ± 1.0% of the hand surface in the case of gel and liquid, respectively) When 3 ml handrub was applied drying times were 40 and 42 s (gel and liquid, respectively), which is a very long time in daily clinical practice. It looks like we cannot find a volume that fits for everyone. Personalized, hand size based ABHR volumes may be the solution to find an optimal balance between maximize coverage and minimise spillage and drying time. 3 ml can be a good volume for those who have medium size hands. Large handed people should use more handrub to reach appropriate coverage, while small-handed ones may apply less to avoid massive spillage and not to take unrealistically long to dry.

[Hand hygiene in hospital environments: use of conformity indicators]

An exploratory descriptive study with a quantitative approach whose objective was to use indicators to evaluate the frequency and infrastructure for hand hygiene, as well as the nursing team's knowledge about the subject. Systematized observation was carried out at hospital in the state of São Paulo, Brazil of the routine activities of 33 participating professionals (nurses and technicians) as well as the application of an individual questionnaire about the subject. 1206 opportunities for hand hygiene were identified, though it was effected in only 481 (39.9%) of them. Alcohol solution was not used at any opportunity. The infrastructure indicatorfor hand hygiene was close to the ideal value (83.30%). The professionals reported a high frequency of hand hygiene, demonstrating knowledge in relation to its importance, yet contradicting the findings of the observation. It was concluded that, despite the adequate infrastructure, hand hygiene was below that expected, requiring actions and strategies to overcomes these barrier and increase the use of alcohol solution.

Revisão sistemática sobre antissepsia cirúrgica das mãos com preparação alcoólica em comparação aos produtos tradicionais

A antissepsia cirúrgica das mãos visa à prevenção de infecções do sítio cirúrgico, importante causa de morbimortalidade pós-operatória e aumento dos custos hospitalares. Este estudo teve como objetivo comparar a eficácia de preparações alcoólicas com os produtos tradicionais na antissepsia cirúrgica das mãos por meio de uma revisão sistemática da literatura. Foram considerados estudos primários ou secundários, tendo como desfecho a contagem microbiana das mãos ou taxas de infecções do sítio cirúrgico. A busca foi realizada no Portal BVS, PubMed, Ask e MEDLINE. Foram selecionados 25 estudos (2 revisões sistemáticas, 19 experimentais e 4 de coorte). As preparações alcoólicas tiveram uma redução microbiana igual e/ou maior aos produtos tradicionais em 17 estudos e inferior em 4; as taxas de infecções do sítio cirúrgico foram similares. Portanto, existem evidências científicas que suportam a segurança das preparações alcoólicas para antissepsia cirúrgica das mãos.