Comparison of 3 in vivo methods for assessment of alcohol-based hand rubs

Rinse, gel, and foam - is there any evidence for a difference in their effectiveness in preventing infections?

BACKGROUND

Following publication of the 2009 World Health Organizations Guidelines for Hand Hygiene in Health Care, a debate has emerged regarding the relative antimicrobial efficacy of the different formats (rinse, gel, foam) of ABHRs and their ability to contribute to reduction of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs).

METHODS

Data regarding the in-vivo antimicrobial efficacy of ABHRs and other factors that likely affect their effectiveness in reducing HAIs were reviewed, and a comprehensive review of studies that reported the effectiveness of each of the three ABHR formats to improve hand hygiene compliance and reduce HAIs was conducted.

RESULTS

The amount of rubbing time it takes for hands to feel dry (dry time) is the major driver of ABHR antimicrobial efficacy. ABHR format is not a major factor, and several studies found that rinse, gel, and foam ABHRs have comparable in-vivo antimicrobial efficacy. Other factors that likely impact the ability of ABHRs to reduce transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens and HAIs include ABHR formulation, the volume applied to hands, aesthetic characteristics, skin tolerance, acceptance by healthcare personnel, and hand hygiene compliance rates. When accompanied by complementary strategies, promoting the use of each of the three ABHR formats has been associated with improvements in hand hygiene compliance rates. A review of 67 studies failed to identify an ABHR format that was significantly more effective in yielding statistically significant reductions in transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens or HAIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is insufficient to definitively determine if one ABHR format is more effective in reducing transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens and HAIs. More rigorous studies such as multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing the different formats are needed to establish if one format is significantly more effective in reducing HAIs.

Hand Sanitizer Gels: Classification, Challenges, and the Future of Multipurpose Hand Hygiene Products

Hand hygiene is a crucial measure in the prevention and control of infections, and there is a growing awareness among individuals who are making a conscious effort to maintain hand cleanliness. With the advent of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, the demand for hand hygiene products has also gradually shifted towards those with antimicrobial properties. Among these products, hand sanitizer gels (HSGs) have gained considerable popularity as an efficient method of hand cleaning, due to their rapid drying and sustained antimicrobial efficacy. Concurrently, there has been a growing interest in novel HSGs that offer additional functions such as skin whitening, moisturizing, and anti-inflammatory effects. These novel HSGs effectively address concerns associated with the ingestion of antimicrobial ingredients and demonstrate reduced skin irritation, thereby alleviating hand dermatological issues. This review provides an extensive overview of the application scenarios, classification, and challenges associated with HSGs while emphasizing the emergence of novel components with biological functions, aiming to contribute to the advancement of hand hygiene practices and offer novel insights for the development of novel HSGs with outstanding antimicrobial properties with other multiple biological functions and desirable biosafety profiles.

Impact of a simulation-based training in hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand rub in emergency departments

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene is the primary measure for reducing nosocomial infections based on 7 steps recommended by the WHO. The aim of this study was to assess the duration and the quality of hand hygiene before and after simulation-based training (SBT).

METHODS

The study took place in a University Hospital Pediatric Department among its residents and nurses. In assessment A, 10 hand-rubbing procedures per participant during a work day were scored by observers using a validated, anatomically based assessment scale. Two weeks later, all participants received a didactic course and SBT, followed 1 month later by assessment B, observation of 10 hand-rubbing procedures. Assessments were performed by 2 independent observers. Before-and-after testing was used to evaluate the demonstration of theoretical knowledge.

RESULTS

In total, 22 participants were included, for whom 438 hand hygiene procedures were assessed: 218 for assessment A and 220 for assessment B. The duration of hand rubbing increased from 31.16 seconds in assessment A to 35.75 seconds in assessment B (P=.04). In assessment A, participants averaged 6.33 steps, and in assessment B, participants averaged 6.03 steps (difference not significant). Significant improvement in scores was observed between assessments A and B, except for the dorsal side of the right hand. The wrist and interdigital areas were the least-cleaned zones. A difference between assessments A and B was observed for nail varnish (P=.003) but not for long nails or jewelry. Theoretical scores increased from 2.83 to 4.29 (scale of 0-5; P<.001).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that an optimal number of steps were performed during hand-rubbing procedures and that SBT improved the duration and quality of hand hygiene, except for the dorsal right side. Emphasis should be placed on the specific hand areas that remained unclean after regular hand-rubbing procedures.

Design and validation of an anatomically based assessment scale for handwashing with alcohol-based hand rub

An anatomically based assessment scale of handwashing quality with alcohol-based hand rub was designed. Contents of the scale divided each hand into 40 zones. Psychometric measurements were studied in 30 participants (120 hand sides). The scale was both valid (Cronbach α: 0·83 dorsal side and 0·73 palmar side) and reproducible (linear regression R2, 0·91; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0·99).

Evaluation of ozonated water using ASTM E1174 for standardized testing of handwash formulations for healthcare personnel

Removal of bacteria by handwashing with ozonated water was evaluated using the ASTM E1174 standard test method. Thirty healthy volunteers were assigned randomly to three groups: ozonated water, antimicrobial soap and water, and non-antimicrobial soap and water. A 3 log₁₀ cfu reduction was achieved by washing hands with ozonated water or antimicrobial soap and water. However, ozonated water was not significantly superior to non-antimicrobial soap and water. Ozonated water may remove bacteria from the hands to at least a similar extent as that by non-antimicrobial soap and water in the absence of visible dirt or body fluid contamination.