An evaluation of antiseptics used for hand disinfection in wards

Research on Handwashing Techniques of Peritoneal Dialysis Patients From Yiwu, Southeast China

The aim of the present study was to evaluate handwashing technique, bacteriology, and factors influencing handwashing technique of 86 stable chronic peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients from Yiwu City in Southeast China. Based on the "Hygienic standard for disinfection in the hospital", we also performed sampling for bacteriology from PD operators after they washed their hands. We compared their clinical features including the pathogenic bacteria of their previous peritonitis episodes and their handwashing evaluation results according to their bacteriologic sampling results. 65% of patients turned off the tap by bare hand, and 74% did not follow the six-step handwashing method. Dialysis duration longer than 6 months (P = 0.04) and lower income (P = 0.05) were independent risk factors for higher handwashing error scores. The overall rate of appropriate handwashing, according to the "hygienic standard for disinfection in the hospital" was 26%. The bacteriologic sampling results showed that the most common pathogenic bacterium was Staphylococcus aureus (92%). PD operators whose hand bacteria culture was qualified contained a lower proportion of participants with advanced age (P = 0.07). Patients with repeated peritonitis occurrence had a significantly higher score on handwashing error (P < 0.01) and were more likely to develop Staphylococcus infection. We found that in Yiwu city patients on dialysis for more than 6 months, were of low income and had multiple prior episodes of PD peritonitis had poor handwashing compliance. Elderly patients had higher rates of positive bacterial culture (Staphylococcus) from their hands.

Chlorhexidine is a better antiseptic than povidone iodine and sodium hypochlorite because of its substantive effect

BACKGROUND

The present study compared both the antiseptic efficacy of sodium hypochlorite against that of chlorhexidine gluconate in isopropyl alcohol and the substantive effect of chlorhexidine, povidone iodine, and sodium hypochlorite.

METHODS

This was a 2-step study that included volunteers. In step 1, 4 skin areas were tested for bacteria in colony-forming units (CFU): 2 were controls to determine baseline bacteria or the effect of scrubbing, and 2 were treated with 10% hypochlorite or 2% chlorhexidine in isopropyl alcohol. Every subject was tested 4 times. The second step tested the substantive effect of 10% povidone-iodine and the aforementioned antiseptics.

RESULTS

For the first step, 30 volunteers were studied, resulting in 120 determinations for each control and antiseptic. No differences between chlorhexidine gluconate (median 115 CFU/cm(2)) and sodium hypochlorite (median 115 CFU/cm(2)) were found. Both antiseptics were significantly different from rubbing control (317 CFU/cm(2)) and basal control (606 CFU/cm(2)). Only chlorhexidine showed a substantive effect.

CONCLUSION

We consider that chlorhexidine gluconate in isopropyl alcohol, sodium hypochlorite, and povidone-iodine is equally effective for procedures that do not require a long action. However, chlorhexidine is desirable for procedures such as catheter insertion, skin preparation for surgery, or handwashing prior to surgery.

Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 9. Washing and drying of hands to reduce microbial contamination

During various daily activities at home and work, hands quickly become contaminated. Some activities increase the risk of finger contamination by pathogens more than others, such as the use of toilet paper to clean up following a diarrheal episode, changing the diaper of a sick infant, blowing a nose, or touching raw food materials. Many foodborne outbreak investigation reports have identified the hands of food workers as the source of pathogens in the implicated food. The most convenient and efficient way of removing pathogens from hands is through hand washing. Important components of hand washing are potable water for rinsing and soaps to loosen microbes from the skin. Hand washing should occur after any activity that soils hands and certainly before preparing, serving, or eating food. Antimicrobial soaps are marginally more effective than plain soaps, but constant use results in a buildup of the antimicrobial compound on the skin. The time taken to wash hands and the degree of friction generated during lathering are more important than water temperature for removing soil and microorganisms. However, excessive washing and scrubbing can cause skin damage and infections. Drying hands with a towel removes pathogens first by friction during rubbing with the drying material and then by wicking away the moisture into that material. Paper rather than cloth towels should be encouraged, although single-use cloth towels are present in the washrooms of higher class hotels and restaurants. Warm air dryers remove moisture and any surface microorganisms loosened by washing from hands by evaporation while the hands are rubbed together vigorously; however, these dryers take too long for efficient use. The newer dryers with high-speed air blades can achieve dryness in 10 to 15 s without hand rubbing.

Influence of rub-in technique on required application time and hand coverage in hygienic hand disinfection

BACKGROUND

Recent data indicate that full efficacy of a hand rub preparation for hygienic hand disinfection can be achieved within 15 seconds (s). However, the efficacy test used for the European Norm (EN) 1500 samples only the fingertips. Therefore, we investigated hand coverage using sixteen different application variations. The hand rub was supplemented with a fluorescent dye, and hands were assessed under UV light by a blind test, before and after application. Fifteen non-healthcare workers were used as subjects for each application variation apart from one test which was done with a group of twenty healthcare workers. All tests apart from the reference procedure were performed using 3 mL of hand rub. The EN 1500 reference procedure, which consists of 6 specific rub-in steps performed twice with an aliquot of 3 ml each time, served as a control. In one part of this study, each of the six steps was performed from one to five times before proceeding to the next step. In another part of the study, the entire sequence of six steps was performed from one to five times. Finally, all subjects were instructed to cover both hands completely, irrespective of any specific steps ("responsible application"). Each rub-in technique was evaluated for untreated skin areas.

RESULTS

The reference procedure lasted on average 75 s and resulted in 53% of subjects with at least one untreated area on the hands. Five repetitions of the rub-in steps lasted on average 37 s with 67% of subjects having incompletely treated hands. One repetition lasted on average 17 s, and all subjects had at least one untreated area. Repeating the sequence of steps lasted longer, but did not yield a better result. "Responsible application" was quite fast, lasting 25 s among non-healthcare worker subjects and 28 s among healthcare workers. It was also effective, with 53% and 55% of hands being incompletely treated. New techniques were as fast and effective as "responsible application". Large untreated areas were found only with short applications. Fingertips and palms were often covered completely.

CONCLUSION

In clinical practice, hand disinfection is apparently better than practitioners of infection control often anticipate. Based on our data, a high-quality hygienic hand disinfection is not possible within 15 s. A 30 s application time can, however, be recommended for clinical practice. The currently recommended six steps of EN 1500 are not really suitable for clinical practice, because they yield comparably poor results. The most appropriate application procedure may be "responsible application", or one of the other new techniques.

Skin protection in nursing work: promoting the use of gloves and hand alcohol

Nursing has been identified as a wet-work occupation, with a high prevalence of occupational irritant contact dermatitis. Reduction of exposure to skin irritants contributes to the prevention of occupational skin disease in nurses. The role of the use of soap and water, hand alcohol and gloves in prevention programmes is discussed. 2 additional measures for reducing exposure to skin irritants are postulated: use of hand alcohol instead of soap and water in disinfection procedures when the hands are not visibly dirty; use of gloves in wet activities such as patient washing to prevent the hands from becoming wet and visibly dirty. We investigated the effectiveness of these recommendations in a model. Mean daily wet-work exposure during nursing work was modelled: regular model. We also modelled exposure to skin irritants in combination with the implementation of these recommendations: prevention model. The hands of healthy volunteers were exposed to the regular or the prevention model over 3 weeks for 5 days a week. The change in transepidermal water loss (TEWL) on the back of the hands was measured after 3 weeks of exposure to these wet-work simulations. An increase in TEWL occurred with the regular model, while mean TEWL decreased in the prevention model. Skin irritation from occlusion by gloves appeared to be more pronounced in the regular model compared to the prevention model. The results of this study justify the conclusion that in nursing work, hand alcohol is the preferred disinfectant. Although the prevention model implies increased occlusive exposure, this has no additional irritant effect, probably because of the absence of soap exposure.

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.

A comparison of soap, alcohol and glove use during the nappy-changing procedure in a special care baby unit

This study was conducted in a special care baby unit (SCBU) in a district general hospital and concentrated on hand decontamination and glove-wearing during the nappy-changing procedure. The aims were to determine whether or not nurses were adhering to existing infection control policies and guidelines, and to determine the most appropriate product to be used for hand decontamination.

Nurses were observed carrying out nappy changes to determine their existing hand-washing and glove-wearing practices. A microbiological analysis of nurses' hands during the nappy change was performed in order to compare the effectiveness of soap, alcohol, and glove use in eliminating bacteria from the hands.

The observation study demonstrated that not all nurses were adhering to existing infection control policies and guidelines. The microbiological analysis found that on the majority of occasions, alcohol was better than soap at removing bacteria from the hands but that gloves provided the best protection overall for both babies and nurses by preventing the acquisition of bacteria.

Together these findings suggest that nurses' hands may be providing a route for the transmission of hospital-acquired infection in the SCBU. Ideally, nurses should be wearing gloves during the nappy-changing process and using alcohol to decontaminate their hands.

Instrument sterilization, skin preparation, and wound management

Recent advances in instrument sterilization include the introduction of gas plasma sterilization and the increased use of glutaraldehyde. Gas plasma sterilization has the advantages of no toxic residue effects, reduced turnover time, and applicability for sterilization of heat- and moisture-sensitive instruments. Chlorhexidine gluconate (4%) appears to be a superior preoperative surgical scrub for both the surgeon and the patient because of its increased antimicrobial efficacy, residual activity, and minimal tissue reactions. There are many new wound dressings and topical medications for treatment of wounds, but the efficacy of most of these preparations has been evaluated only in humans, dogs, and cats. The ideal topical wound preparation and dressing for equine wounds, particularly wounds affecting the distal limb, have not yet been found.

Comparative evaluation of two surgical scrub preparations in cattle

One hundred seventeen cattle that had undergone surgery were assigned randomly to two preoperative skin preparation protocols. Group 1 (60 animals) skin preparation was with povidoneiodine soap and isopropyl alcohol, whereas group 2 (57 animals) had skin preparation with chlorhexidine gluconate and isopropyl alcohol. Quantitative microbial culture plates were used to estimate the number of colony forming units (CFUs) before skin preparation (prescrub), after skin preparation (postscrub), after surgery (postoperative), and in room air (environment). A significant decrease in CFU occurred postscrub for both skin preparations (P < .05). Chlorhexidine and alcohol preparation resulted in significantly fewer CFUs (LSMean +/- SE = 2.79 CFU +/- 1.74) and a greater percentage reduction in CFUs (98.64% +/- 2.01) postscrub than providone and alcohol (LSMean +/- SE = 10.27 CFUs +/- 1.51, 93.29% +/- 1.85); (P < .005). Group 2 had a significantly higher frequency of negative cultures postscrub (49.1%) compared with group 1 (18.3%) (P < .001). The number of postoperative CFUs were not significantly different between the two treatment groups. Wound infection frequency for clean surgical procedures was not significantly different between the two skin preparation protocols (group 1 = 9.8%, group 2 = 10.7%), however, infection frequency was significantly higher for surgical procedures with a ventral abdominal approach (5 of 14, 35.7%,) compared with a flank approach (1 of 41, 2.4%) or other approaches (orthopedic procedures) (1 of 16, 6.3%) (P < .05). Both skin preparation protocols were effective and safe in decreasing the skin microflora population of cattle before surgery and although preparation with chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol resulted in less CFUs immediately postscrub, the frequency of surgical wound infection was similar for both protocols.

Risk factors for surgical infection

In the last century remarkable advances have been made in surgery, associated with the lowest recorded rates of infection or sepsis. Many surgical practices are time honoured but have little scientific basis to prevent postoperative infection whereas some local and systemic factors are well recognized and can be modified to lower infection risks. Surgical skill is not easily measurable but shorter operations in experienced hands leaving the minimum of tissue damage, haematoma or dead space have the lowest infection rates in general surgery: < 2% in clean and < 10% in contaminated operations. Adequate surgical scrub, appropriate suture materials and antibiotic prophylaxis, perioperative correction of dehydration and poor nutrition are examples of effective therapy which can be conformed to by all surgeons. Other factors, such as the use of wound guards, drains and surgical dressings are less easy to estimate for effectiveness or be sure that they could be changed or left out of surgical ritual.

Elimination of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from a neonatal intensive care unit after hand washing with triclosan

Evaluating hand wash products in terms of user acceptability and effectiveness against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been part of a long-term strategy to eliminate endemic MRSA from the neonatal intensive care unit at the Royal Women's Hospital (Brisbane). Following the introduction of a new hand wash disinfectant (triclosan 1% wt/vol), new cases of MRSA colonization were monitored for 12 months. In addition, the use of antibiotics, the incidence of multi-resistant Gram-negative cultures and neonatal infections were noted. No changes were made to any procedures or protocols during the trial. All babies colonized with MRSA had been discharged from the nursery within 7 months of the introduction of triclosan and in the subsequent 9 months no new MRSA isolates had been reported. Reduction in the use of vancomycin has resulted in a cost saving of approximately $A17,000. The total number of Gram-negative isolates has not increased, although Pseudomonas aeruginosa is now reported more often. Compared with the previous 12 months, fewer antibiotics were prescribed and fewer nosocomial infections recorded (P < 0.05).

Hygienic hand disinfection: a comparative study with chlorhexidine detergents and soap

The efficacy of two chlorhexidine hand-wash detergents and liquid soap was compared in a laboratory trial using artificial contamination of fingers with Micrococcus and Serratia. Agents were assessed for both a rapid and sustained effect after a single contact, and for a cumulative persistent effect after multiple contact over four days. Disinfectant activities were compared by statistical analysis of log reduction factors and log count time gradients (decimal reduction times). The latter analysis attempted to accommodate significant subject variation in response to both agent and organism. All handwashing methods significantly reduced contamination levels. Both chlorhexidine formulations were significantly better than soap in their activity against Micrococcus, but were not more effective than soap in removing contamination with Serratia. Both chlorhexidine preparations showed significant skin persistence and were generally acceptable to subjects after prolonged use. Some effect of the formulation of the hand-wash on chlorhexidine activity was demonstrated.

Comparison of three skin preparation techniques in the dog. Part 1: Experimental trial

Premeasured, clipped areas of skin on both sides of 30 adult dogs were prepared with povidone-iodine (PI), chlorhexidine gluconate (CG) with a saline rinse, or 4% CG with a 70% isopropyl alcohol rinse. Skin bacteria were quantified with Replicating Organism Detection and Counting (RODAC) plates and cultured for identification before, immediately after, and 1 hour after skin preparation. The percentages of bacterial reduction immediately and at hour 1 and the percentages of negative cultures, cultures with more than five colony-forming units (CFUs), and skin reactions were analyzed by analysis of variance and chi-square. The percentage of reduction in skin bacteria for all techniques was significant and comparable with that reported in humans. There were no significant differences between PI and CG results except that acute contact dermatitis was observed more frequently after skin preparation with PI. The authors conclude that for similar application times, PI and 4% CG rinsed with saline or 70% isopropyl alcohol are equally effective for up to 1 hour in the preoperative skin preparation of dogs.

Handwashing practices in an intensive care unit: the effects of an educational program and its relationship to infection rates

Handwashing is the single most important procedure in the prevention of nosocomial infections and yet it remains the most violated of all infection control procedures. With a sequential intervention study in an intensive care unit we have demonstrated that poor handwashing practices are associated with a high nosocomial infection rate, whereas good handwashing practices are associated with a low nosocomial infection rate. An educational and enforcement program designed to improve handwashing procedures can significantly reduce endemic nosocomial infection rates.

An in-use comparison of chlorhexidine gluconate 4% w/v, glycol-poly-siloxane plus methylcellulose and a liquid soap in a special care baby unit

The effectiveness and harshness of three hand-wash agents, chlorhexidine gluconate 4%, glycol-poly-siloxane gel and a bland liquid soap were studied in-use in a Special Care Baby Unit (SCBU). Each product was used for consecutive 2-week periods by the same groups of 8 health care workers among the 56 in the SCBU. The first group had normal skin, the second had 'sensitive skin' and the third group were known MRSA nasal carriers. Blood agar and methicillin mannitol salt agar were inoculated before and after hand washing and differences in colony counts calculated. Nursing activities before washing were graded from clean to dirty on an eight-point scale and correlated with before-wash colony counts. Product acceptability was assessed with a self-reporting questionnaire. Chlorhexidine was the most effective product in reducing skin microflora but users preferred to wash with the gel preparation. The sensitive-skin group achieved the best effects from washing, irrespective of the product used. Nasal carriers of MRSA recorded the lowest reduction levels of methicillin-resistant organisms but achieved the same reduction levels as the normal-skin group for other microflora. No relationship could be established between the pre-wash activity and the pre-wash colony count. The weekly MRSA colonization rate in neonates on the SCBU remained unaffected by any of the products tested.

Guideline for use of topical antimicrobial agents

This Guideline is based on published data available at the time of writing. The ideal means for comparing performance of various antimicrobial agents is through the conduct of carefully designed, large-scale clinical trials. Recommendations contained in this Guideline are subject to modification as additional data become available. It particularly should be noted that the implementation of universal precautions or body substance isolation has resulted in marked increase in the use of gloves for direct patient contact. Whether there is an additional cost-benefit rationale for handwashing with an antimicrobial agent remains to be studied.

An approach for selection of health care personnel handwashing agents

Given the wide range of available health care personnel handwashing agents, selection of an appropriate product may be difficult. This decision may be made on the basis of user preference, cost, or other factors unrelated to product effectiveness. Four criteria--efficacy, safety, cost, and acceptability--are appropriate for systematic evaluation of handwashing products. These criteria are applied to para-chloro-meta-xylenol (PCMX), a compound used with increasing frequency in health care personnel handwashing agents. Published data regarding the biochemical properties, efficacy, and safety of PCMX are summarized. We conclude that the substance appears to be safe and efficacious. However, the activity of PCMX is highly formula-dependent and many of the studies available in scientific literature have been conducted in Europe using a variety of testing conditions and formulations different from those currently available in the US. Clinical studies of marketed formulations are beginning to appear in the literature. Such studies will provide the data needed for adequate product evaluation.

Efficacy of low-concentration iodophors for germicidal hand washing

The efficacy of iodophor germicides containing different concentrations of available iodine against transient (inoculated) bacteria and the natural hand microflora was compared with chlorhexidine gluconate (2 and 4%) liquid detergent (Hibitane), non-germicidal soap and a tap water rinse. The tap water rinse was ineffective compared with all other treatments. Only 4% chlorhexidine gluconate liquid detergent and iodophor containing 0.75% available iodine were significantly better than the non-germicidal soap for reduction of transient bacteria, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas fluorescens, that had been inoculated onto hands. These agents also caused a significant reduction in the number of 'natural' microorganisms released from hands after a standard 15 s hand wash. The low-concentration iodophor products and the product containing 2% chlorhexidine gluconate failed to give results significantly better than the non-germicidal control soap. Baird-Parker medium and standard aerobic plate counts were highly correlated (r = 0.82), so that for studies of Gram-negative bacteria inoculated onto hands as a transient microflora, counts on Baird-Parker medium give a reasonable indication of the natural (residual) hand microflora.

Failure of hand disinfection with frequent hand washing: a need for prolonged field studies

In a prolonged field trial a 4% chlorhexidine digluconate detergent scrub (Hibiscrub(R)), that had earlier proved to be an effective hand disinfectant, was studied in hospital wards. Finger tips were found to harbour more bacteria than the hand dorsum and the samples collected from them yielded more information on the bacteriological and dermatological effects of hand disinfectants in practice.In wards with a relatively low hand-washing frequency (less than 20 times in 8 hours) the bacteriological results resembled those obtained by in-use tests with volunteers. In the neonatal unit where the hand washing frequency was remarkably high, even occasionally over 100 times/8 h shift, an increase in the bacterial colony counts of the majority of the staff was recorded both before and after hand washing already after using the preparation for 1 week. Age, occupation and hand-washing frequency all correlated with the bacteriological results. Twenty-seven out of 37 persons complained of side effects such as wounds of finger tips and redness or heavy drying of the skin. Wounds, particularly on finger tips, resulted in the failure of disinfection. An increase in bacterial counts was sometimes noted without any dermatological or subjective changes. Drying of the skin was complained of less often when no increase in skin bacteria occurred.After the changeover of washing practice to a detergent followed by a rinse with spirit solution containing chlorhexidine and glycerol a decrease was recorded in the bacterial counts. It is concluded that more attention should be paid to long-term testing of hand washing and disinfection methods to ensure optimum final results in practice. It is obvious that the knowledge obtained from short time in-use testing cannot be applied to all conditions of use.