A risk assessment approach to use of antimicrobials in the home to prevent spread of infection

Reducing antibiotic prescribing and addressing the global problem of antibiotic resistance by targeted hygiene in the home and everyday life settings: A position paper

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) continues to threaten global health. Although global and national AMR action plans are in place, infection prevention and control is primarily discussed in the context of health care facilities with home and everyday life settings barely addressed. As seen with the recent global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, everyday hygiene measures can play an important role in containing the threat from infectious microorganisms. This position paper has been developed following a meeting of global experts in London, 2019. It presents evidence that home and community settings are important for infection transmission and also the acquisition and spread of AMR. It also demonstrates that the targeted hygiene approach offers a framework for maximizing protection against colonization and infections, thereby reducing antibiotic prescribing and minimizing selection pressure for the development of antibiotic resistance. If combined with the provision of clean water and sanitation, targeted hygiene can reduce the circulation of resistant bacteria in homes and communities, regardless of a country's Human Development Index (overall social and economic development). Achieving a reduction of AMR strains in health care settings requires a mirrored reduction in the community. The authors call upon national and international policy makers, health agencies, and health care professionals to further recognize the importance of targeted hygiene in the home and everyday life settings for preventing and controlling infection, in a unified quest to tackle AMR.

Developing an Evidence-Based Approach to Domestic Hygiene Which Protects Against Infection Whilst Also Addressing Sustainability Issues

Changes in recent years mean that preventing infection through hygiene in home and everyday life has become increasingly important. In developing and promoting home and everyday life hygiene, a number of issues which represent a barrier to change need to be addressed and balanced against the need for effective hygiene. These include environmental and toxicity issues, and concerns about antibiotic resistance and whether we have become “too clean”. Education of the public is key, but this can only be achieved if hygiene practice is based on a simple, plausible approach to hygiene, which health professionals and the public can relate to. This in turn needs to be underpinned by an evidence base which demonstrates to health professionals and other hygiene stakeholders who communicate with the public that the procedures and products which they advise are capable of reducing infection risks to an acceptable level, with sustainable use of resource necessary to deliver hygiene such as water, heat, microbiocides etc. The purpose of this paper is to outline a multimodal targeted approach to home and everyday life hygiene based on risk management. This includes a framework for developing effective and sustainable hygiene practices, including hand hygiene, surface hygiene and laundering practices.

Time to abandon the hygiene hypothesis: new perspectives on allergic disease, the human microbiome, infectious disease prevention and the role of targeted hygiene

Aims:

To review the burden of allergic and infectious diseases and the evidence for a link to microbial exposure, the human microbiome and immune system, and to assess whether we could develop lifestyles which reconnect us with exposures which could reduce the risk of allergic disease while also protecting against infectious disease.

Methods:

Using methodology based on the Delphi technique, six experts in infectious and allergic disease were surveyed to allow for elicitation of group judgement and consensus view on issues pertinent to the aim.

Results:

Key themes emerged where evidence shows that interaction with microbes that inhabit the natural environment and human microbiome plays an essential role in immune regulation. Changes in lifestyle and environmental exposure, rapid urbanisation, altered diet and antibiotic use have had profound effects on the human microbiome, leading to failure of immunotolerance and increased risk of allergic disease. Although evidence supports the concept of immune regulation driven by microbe–host interactions, the term ‘hygiene hypothesis’ is a misleading misnomer. There is no good evidence that hygiene, as the public understands, is responsible for the clinically relevant changes to microbial exposures.

Conclusion:

Evidence suggests a combination of strategies, including natural childbirth, breast feeding, increased social exposure through sport, other outdoor activities, less time spent indoors, diet and appropriate antibiotic use, may help restore the microbiome and perhaps reduce risks of allergic disease. Preventive efforts must focus on early life. The term ‘hygiene hypothesis’ must be abandoned. Promotion of a risk assessment approach (targeted hygiene) provides a framework for maximising protection against pathogen exposure while allowing spread of essential microbes between family members. To build on these findings, we must change public, public health and professional perceptions about the microbiome and about hygiene. We need to restore public understanding of hygiene as a means to prevent infectious disease.

A unified framework for developing effective hygiene procedures for hands, environmental surfaces and laundry in healthcare, domestic, food handling and other settings

Hygiene procedures for hands, surfaces and fabrics are central to preventing spread of infection in settings including healthcare, food production, catering, agriculture, public settings, and home and everyday life. They are used in situations including hand hygiene, clinical procedures, decontamination of environmental surfaces, respiratory hygiene, food handling, laundry hygiene, toilet hygiene and so on. Although the principles are common to all, approaches currently used in different settings are inconsistent. A concern is the use of inconsistent terminology which is misleading, especially to people we need to communicate with such as the public or cleaning professionals. This paper reviews the data on current approaches, alongside new insights to developing hygiene procedures. Using this data, we propose a more scientifically-grounded framework for developing procedures that maximize protection against infection, based on consistent principles and terminology, and applicable across all settings. A key feature is use of test models which assess the state of surfaces after treatment rather than product performance alone. This allows procedures that rely on removal of microbes to be compared with those employing chemical or thermal inactivation. This makes it possible to ensure that a consistent "safety target level" is achieved regardless of the type of procedure used, and allows us deliver maximum health benefit whilst ensuring prudent usage of antimicrobial agents, detergents, water and energy.

Efficacy of Instant Hand Sanitizers against Foodborne Pathogens Compared with Hand Washing with Soap and Water in Food Preparation Settings: A Systematic Review

Hands can be a vector for transmitting pathogenic microorganisms to foodstuffs and drinks, and to the mouths of susceptible hosts. Hand washing is the primary barrier to prevent transmission of enteric pathogens via cross-contamination from infected persons. Conventional hand washing involves the use of water, soap, and friction to remove dirt and microorganisms. The availability of hand sanitizing products for use when water and soap are unavailable has increased in recent years. The aim of this systematic review was to collate scientific information on the efficacy of hand sanitizers compared with washing hands with soap and water for the removal of foodborne pathogens from the hands of food handlers. An extensive literature search was carried out using three electronic databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. Twenty-eight scientific publications were ultimately included in the review. Analysis of this literature revealed various limitations in the scientific information owing to the absence of a standardized protocol for evaluating the efficacy of hand products and variation in experimental conditions. However, despite conflicting results, scientific evidence seems to support the historical skepticism about the use of waterless hand sanitizers in food preparation settings. Water and soap appear to be more effective than waterless products for removal of soil and microorganisms from hands. Alcohol-based products achieve rapid and effective inactivation of various bacteria, but their efficacy is generally lower against nonenveloped viruses. The presence of food debris significantly affects the microbial inactivation rate of hand sanitizers.