Combining detergent/disinfectant with microfibre material provides a better control of microbial contaminants on surfaces than the use of water alone

How biofilm changes our understanding of cleaning and disinfection

Biofilms are ubiquitous in healthcare settings. By nature, biofilms are less susceptible to antimicrobials and are associated with healthcare-associated infections (HAI). Resistance of biofilm to antimicrobials is multifactorial with the presence of a matrix composed of extracellular polymeric substances and eDNA, being a major contributing factor. The usual multispecies composition of environmental biofilms can also impact on antimicrobial efficacy. In healthcare settings, two main types of biofilms are present: hydrated biofilms, for example, in drains and parts of some medical devices and equipment, and environmental dry biofilms (DSB) on surfaces and possibly in medical devices. Biofilms act as a reservoir for pathogens including multi-drug resistant organisms and their elimination requires different approaches. The control of hydrated (drain) biofilms should be informed by a reduction or elimination of microbial bioburden together with measuring biofilm regrowth time. The control of DSB should be measured by a combination of a reduction or elimination in microbial bioburden on surfaces together with a decrease in bacterial transfer post-intervention. Failure to control biofilms increases the risk for HAI, but biofilms are not solely responsible for disinfection failure or shortcoming. The limited number of standardised biofilm efficacy tests is a hindrance for end users and manufacturers, whilst in Europe there are no approved standard protocols. Education of stakeholders about biofilms and ad hoc efficacy tests, often academic in nature, is thus paramount, to achieve a better control of biofilms in healthcare settings.

Contact time has limited impact on the efficacy of disinfectant towelettes when tested under conditions reflective of realistic use

BACKGROUND

Disinfectant towelettes are increasingly being used as a means to prevent transmission of clinically important pathogens which could lead to healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). However, the efficacy of disinfectant towelette products when tested under realistic use conditions is understudied. A test model was designed to replicate realistic wiping conditions. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of varied contact time on disinfectant towelette efficacy under these conditions.

METHODS

Five product types were tested against Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 15,442) at five contact times (30 s, one min, two min, three min, and 10 min) on hard, non-porous laminate templates to determine the impact of contact time on disinfectant towelette efficacy when tested under realistic use.

RESULTS

Product type had a significant impact on the efficacy of disinfectant towelettes when tested under conditions reflective of realistic use. The effect of contact time was limited and no differences in efficacy were seen at a contact time of one min compared with the other contact times tested. Only one disinfectant towelette product achieved a mean 5-log reduction under the tested conditions.

CONCLUSION

Efficacy of disinfectant towelettes was primarily impacted by product type when applied in a model designed to replicate realistic use in which only a limited effect of contact time was observed. There is a need for further investigation into which factors have the greatest impact on disinfectant towelette efficacy when applied in clinical settings.

Dual species dry surface biofilms; Bacillus species impact on Staphylococcus aureus survival and surface disinfection

Aims

Dry surface biofilms (DSB) survive on environmental surfaces throughout hospitals, able to resist cleaning and disinfection interventions. This study aimed to produce a dual species DSB and explore the ability of commercially available wipe products to eliminate pathogens within a dual species DSB and prevent their transfer.

Methods and Results

Staphylococcus aureus was grown with two different species of Bacillus on stainless steel discs, over 12 days using sequential hydration and dehydration phases. A modified version of ASTM 2967–15 was used to test six wipe products including one water control with the Fitaflex Wiperator. Staphylococcus aureus growth was inhibited when combined with Bacillus subtilis. Recovery of S. aureus on agar from a dual DSB was not always consistent. Our results did not provide evidence that Bacillus licheniformis protected S. aureus from wipe action. There was no significant difference of S. aureus elimination by antimicrobial wipes between single and dual species DSB. B. licheniformis was easily transferred by the wipe itself and to new surfaces both in a single and dual species DSB, whilst several wipe products inhibited the transfer of S. aureus from wipe. However, S. aureus direct transfer to new surfaces was not inhibited post‐wiping.

Conclusions

Although we observed that the dual DSB did not confer protection of S. aureus, we demonstrated that environmental species can persist on surfaces after disinfection treatment. Industries should test DSB against future products and hospitals should consider carefully the products they choose.

Significance and Impact of the Study

To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting on the production of a dual species DSB. Multispecies DSB have been identified throughout the world on hospital surfaces, but many studies focus on single species biofilms. This study has shown that DSB behave differently to hydrated biofilms.

Environmental cleaning and disinfection of hospital rooms: A nationwide survey

BACKGROUND

As an important reservoir for hospital-acquired infections, environmental surfaces have long been targeted by interventions to improve cleaning and disinfection. Differences in disinfection practices across US hospitals, however, are still unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide survey of environmental services (EVS) personnel in the United States regarding their environmental surface disinfection practices from January 2019 to June 2019. We developed and pilot tested the survey in conjunction with EVS specialists. Survey questions inquired about choices of disinfectants and cleaning equipment during daily and terminal disinfection of both contact isolation and non-contact isolation rooms. We contacted 273 EVS personnel by phone and email to participate in the survey.

RESULTS

Fourty-seven EVS personnel representing different hospitals from 26 US states were included in the analysis. Hypochlorite (bleach) and quaternary ammonium compounds were the most frequently used disinfectants. Most respondents reported using microfiber-based cloths and mops to carry out disinfection. High-touch surfaces in contact isolation rooms were frequently disinfected using bleach (81%, n = 38); floors, however, were not disinfected as frequently in patient rooms. The vast majority of respondents reported use of sporicidal disinfectants for contact isolation rooms but not regular rooms.

CONCLUSIONS

While frequently used to disinfectant contact isolation rooms, sporicidal agents are rarely used to disinfect regular rooms. Patient room floors are inconsistently disinfected compared to high-touch surfaces.