Comparative efficacy of alternative hand-washing agents in reducing nosocomial infections in intensive care units

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Quantification of diurnal variation in “glove hygiene” compliance in COVID ICUs: an exploratory study

Background

Hand hygiene compliance (HHC) monitoring is almost always done in daytime. Documentation of HHC in health care workers (HCWs) is limited during odd hours and nighttime. The objective of the study was to determine diurnal variation in HHC in different categories of health care workers in tertiary care hospital in North India.

Methods

A prospective, observational study was conducted in 3 COVID-19 intensive care units (ICUs) with closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras. Dedicated infection control nurses monitored HHC among various HCWs (doctors, nursing staff, technicians, hospital and sanitary attendants) during day and nighttime, in 20-minute durations. The difference in HHC by-professional category and for each WHO moment was assessed using χ² test and P value.

Results

A total of 705 opportunities were observed over a period of 7 days, with overall compliance of 53%. Day and nighttime compliance was recorded to be 60.7% and 42.1%, respectively (P < .001). HCC was highest amongst resident doctors with little diurnal variation. However, nurses and housekeeping staff exhibited significant diurnal variation. The compliance at “after” moments was much higher than “before” moments in all professional categories.

Conclusion

There was a significant decrease in compliance during nighttime, amongst all HCWs, with maximum variation exhibited by nursing staff. The present study underlines the importance of monitoring HHC at odd hours, to elicit a more accurate picture round the clock. Health care facilities monitoring compliance only during the daytime may substantially overestimate HHC.

Self-Reported Use of Personal Protective Equipment among Emergency Department Nurses, Physicians and Advanced Practice Providers during the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: Emergency departments (EDs) have seen dramatic surges in patients infected with COVID-19 and are high-risk transmission environments. Knowledge, attitudes and practice regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) among ED health care workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic have not been studied, thus this study examines this knowledge gap. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey of 308 HCWs in two urban EDs in Atlanta, Georgia in April and May of 2020. Results: We surveyed 308 HCWs; 137 responded (44% response rate). All HCWs reported adequate knowledge and 96% reported compliance with PPE guidelines. Reported sources of PPE information: 56.7% charge nurse, 67.3% the institutional COVID-19 website. Frequency of training was positively associated with understanding how to protect themselves and patients (OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.0–2.9). Conclusions: Few HCWs are willing to care for patients without PPE, and therefore we should aim for resiliency in the PPE supply chain. EDs should consider multiple communication strategies, including a website with concise information and enhanced training for key personnel, particularly the charge nurse. Attention to frequency in HCW training may be key to improve confidence in protecting themselves and patients. Findings can be leveraged by EDs to implement effective PPE training.

Hand-washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea

BACKGROUND

Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hand-washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Individually-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand-washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, we pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using the generic inverse variance method and a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs: 13 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,471 participants), 15 community-based trials in LMICs (29,347 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with AIDS in a high-income country (148 participants). All the trials and follow-up assessments were of short-term duration. Hand-washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevent around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high-income countries (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 9 trials, 4664 participants, high-certainty evidence) and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs, but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; 2 trials, 45,380 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only four trials reported measures of behaviour change, and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand-washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; 3 trials, 1845 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; 9 trials, 15,950 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, six of these nine trials were from Asian settings, with only one trial from South America and two trials from sub-Saharan Africa. In seven trials, soap was provided free alongside hand-washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75; 7 trials, 12,646 participants; education only: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; 2 trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating or cooking, after visiting the toilet, or cleaning the baby's bottom) and increased compliance with hand-hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups compared with the control in community trials (data not pooled: 4 trials, 3591 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among a high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (mean difference -1.68, 95% CI -1.93 to -1.43; 1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hand-washing frequency increased to seven times a day in the intervention group versus three times a day in the control arm in this hospital trial (1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no trials evaluating the effects of hand-washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hand-washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. The included trials do not provide evidence about the long-term impact of the interventions.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Baseline assessment of hand hygiene knowledge perception: An observational study at a newly set up teaching hospital

Background:

Hand hygiene plays a crucial role in preventing health-care-associated infections (HCAIs) by reducing the spread of antimicrobial resistance. But, its compliance with optimal practices usually remains low at most of our health-care settings.

Aim:

This study focused on one of the primordial, basic and low-cost practice of infection control.

Materials and Methods:

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted among medical faculty, senior residents, postgraduates, nursing faculty, ward sisters/matron, and staff nurses at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh, Uttarakhand. Data were collected on a pretested structured questionnaire distributed among the participants, which consisted of questions to assess the knowledge and perception toward hand hygiene.

Results:

A total of 171 health-care workers (HCWs) were assessed in this study. Overall response rate observed was 87.8% ± 11.6%. Majority of the participants were staff nurses. Approximately 55% of them had received formal hand hygiene training in the last 3 years. Overall correct knowledge seen among participants was 66.4% ± 27.5%. It was observed that in situations requiring hand hygiene, it was performed in approximately 70%–80% of the times. Alcohol-based hand rub was not available at every point of care, whereas single-use towel was not present at every sink. When monitored whether the HCW started hand hygiene activity or not, compliance was seen in only 32% of the total.

Conclusion:

It is now essential for developing countries to formulate the policies for implementation of basic infection control practices. As we are facing an era of multidrug-resistant pathogens that are rapidly increasing globally, and paucity of availability of new antimicrobials, it is been essential to look at the role of basic infection control practices at health-care settings and implement them at priority level.

The effectiveness of alcohol-based gel for hand sanitising in infection control

This article aims to evaluate the evidence relating to the effectiveness of alcohol-based gel for hand sanitising, or 'handrub', in infection control in healthcare settings with particular reference to renal nursing, as this has become pertinent due to the increasing reliance on evidence-based practice. There is a need to implement better infection control strategies and education, to reinforce knowledge among the public, health professionals and those at high risk of infection not only in renal nursing, but also in other areas of practice. Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) put patients' safety at risk, increase morbidity and mortality, extend the length of hospital admission and increase the cost to the NHS. There is evidence that the prevalence of HCAIs in England can be minimised through the use of different infection control measures. For example, alcohol-based handrub has been found to be associated with minimising the spread of gastrointestinal infections not only in hospital settings, but also in childcare centres. In addition, the UK national guidelines recommend regular handwashing (implementing the right technique) when hands are visibly dirty and hand disinfection with alcohol-based handrub when they are not visibly dirty. This should be before, in between and after different healthcare activities are performed.

Bacterial contamination of medical providers' white coats and surgical scrubs: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Horizontal transmission of bacteria, especially multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), remains an important concern in hospitals worldwide. Some studies have implicated provider attire in the transmission of organisms within hospitals, whereas others have suggested that evidence supporting this notion is limited.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for publications between 1990 and 2018 to identify studies of bacterial contamination of, or dissemination of, bacteria from physician, nursing, or trainee attire, with a specific focus on white coats and surgical scrubs. A total of 214 articles were identified. Of these, 169 were excluded after abstract review and 33 were excluded after in-depth full manuscript review.

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles were included: 16 (73%) cross-sectional studies, 4 (18%) randomized controlled trials, and 2 (9%) cohort studies. Results are organized by microbial contaminants, antibiotic resistance, types of providers, fabric type, antimicrobial coating, and laundering practices. Provider attire was commonly colonized by MDROs, with white coats laundered less frequently than scrubs. Studies revealed considerable differences among fabrics used and laundering practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that provider attire is a potential source of pathogenic bacterial transmission in health care settings. However, data confirming a direct link between provider attire and health care-associated infections remain limited. Suggestions outlined in this article may serve as a guideline to reduce the spread of bacterial pathogens, including MDROs, that have the potential to precipitate hospital-acquired infections.

Risks and benefits of using chlorhexidine gluconate in handwashing: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial soaps containing chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) are indicated for hand hygiene (HH) in specific situations. This study aimed to identify whether the continuous use of CHG for HH affects the reduction of healthcare-associated infections (HAI), the selection of microorganisms resistant to CHG, or hands skin damage.

METHODS

Systematic review was performed using the protocol of the Joanna Briggs Institute, including clinical trials and observational comparative studies. Search was conducted via PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, LILACS, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and gray literature. To evaluate outcomes, 3 independent reviews were conducted: HAI rates, presence of resistance genes or higher minimum inhibitory or bactericidal concentration, and damage to skin integrity.

RESULTS

Studies showed no significant difference in HAI rates when using CHG for HH. Among 13 studies, 10 suggested an association with use of and tolerance to CHG. The use of CHG was associated with skin reaction events.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong evidence regarding the risks and benefits of CHG for HH is still lacking. Due to potential risk of selecting mutants carrying genes for cross-resistance to CHG and antibiotics, it is advisable to reserve the use of CHG for purposes other than HH.

Validity of hand hygiene compliance measurement by observation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene is monitored by direct observation to improve practice, but this approach can potentially cause information, selection, and confounding bias, threatening the validity of findings. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the potential biases in hand hygiene compliance monitoring by direct observation; develop a typology of biases and propose improvements to reduce bias; and increase the validity of compliance measurements.

METHODS

This systematic review of hospital-based intervention studies used direct observation to monitor health care workers' hand hygiene compliance.

RESULTS

Seventy-one publications were eligible for review. None was free of bias. Selection bias was present in all studies through lack of data collection on the weekends (n = 61, 86%) and at night (n = 46, 65%) and observations undertaken in single-specialty settings (n = 35, 49%). We observed inconsistency of terminology, definitions of hand hygiene opportunity, criteria, tools, and descriptions of the data collection. Frequency of observation, duration, or both were not described or were unclear in 58 (82%) publications. Observers were trained in 56 (79%) studies. Inter-rater reliability was measured in 26 (37%) studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Published research of hand hygiene compliance measured by direct observation lacks validity. Hand hygiene should be measured using methods that produce a valid indication of performance and quality. Standardization of methodology would expedite comparison of hand hygiene compliance between clinical settings and organizations.

Hand Washing Before and After Applying Different Hand Hygiene Techniques in Places of Public Concern in Tripoli-Libya

Background:

Hand hygiene has being considered as one of the primary measures to improve standards and practice for hospital care and to minimize the transmission of nosocomial pathogens. There is substantial evidence that incidence of hospital acquired infections is reduced by applying hand antisepsis. Regarding hand hygiene and public concern, hand washing has revealed that 85% of the observed adults wash their hands after using public toilets.

Objective:

To compare the efficacy of hand rubbing with an alcohol based solution versus conventional hand washing with antiseptic and non-antiseptic soaps in reducing bacterial counts using different hand hygiene techniques.

Methods:

Ninety-three volunteers took part in this study; 57 from Tripoli Medical Center (TMC); 16 from school; 11 from bank; and 9 from office. All volunteers performed six hand hygiene techniques, immediately before and after a volunteer practice activity: hand washing with non-antiseptic soap for 10 and 30 second (s); hand washing with antiseptic soap for 10, 30 or 60 s; and alcohol-based hand rub. A total of 864 specimens were taken: 432 before and 432 after volunteer's hand hygiene. The fingertips of the dominant hand for each volunteer were pressed on to agar for culture before and after each hand hygiene technique. Plates were incubated at 37oC, and colony-forming units were counted after 48 hours and pathogenic bacteria were identified.

Results:

Results showed that 617 specimens (71.41%) were positive for bacterial growth. 301 (48.78%) were from TMC, 118 (19.12%) were from office; 107 (14.34%) were from school and 91 (14.75%) were from bank.

Conclusion:

Both antiseptic and non–antiseptic soaps did not work properly in reducing bacterial counts of worker’s hands at all places of study, but significantly improved by an application of alcohol based gel.

Antiseptic efficacies of waterless hand rub, chlorhexidine scrub, and povidone-iodine scrub in surgical settings: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Presurgical hand washing is crucial for preventing surgical site infections (SSIs). Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and povidone-iodine (PI) products have been conventionally used as hand scrubs for presurgical hand preparation. However, waterless hand rub (WHR) products have been developed for operating room staff.

AIM

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the antiseptic efficacies of WHR, CHG, and PI in surgical settings.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases as well as the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for studies published before October 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes of the use of WHRs, CHG, or PI for presurgical hand washing were included. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Colony-forming unit (cfu) counts, SSI rates, and preference and compliance were determined to measure efficacies.

FINDINGS

Eleven RCTs involving 5135 participants were included. Residual cfu counts were significantly lower in the WHR and CHG groups than in the PI group. The differences in cfu counts between the WHR and CHG groups were non-significant. No significant differences were observed in the SSI rates between the WHR and traditional hand scrub groups. Moreover, WHRs were considered most favourable and were associated with higher compliance rates than the other products.

CONCLUSION

WHRs and CHG exhibited higher antiseptic efficacies than PI. However, additional studies with consistent outcome measurements and accurate grouping are required to obtain comprehensive results. Moreover, preference, compliance, and the cost determine the selection of hand wash products.

Update on infection control practices in cancer hospitals

Therapies in oncology have evolved rapidly over the last years. At the same pace, supportive care for patients receiving cancer therapy has also evolved, allowing patients to safely receive the newest advances in treatment in both an inpatient and outpatient basis. The recognition of the role of infection control and prevention (ICP) in the outcomes of patients living with cancer has been such that it is now a requirement for hospitals and involves multidisciplinary groups. Some unique aspects of ICP for patients with cancer that have gained momentum over the past few decades include catheter-related infections, multidrug-resistant organisms, community-acquired viral infections, and the impact of the health care environment on the horizontal transmission of organisms. Furthermore, as the potential for infections to cross international borders has increased, alertness for outbreaks or new infections that occur outside the area have become constant. As the future approaches, ICP in immunocompromised hosts will continue to integrate emerging disciplines, such as antibiotic stewardship and the microbiome, and new techniques for environmental cleaning and for controlling the spread of infections, such as whole-genome sequencing. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;000:000-000. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods in investigating risk factors for lost to follow-up for tuberculosis treatment in Japan - Are physicians and nurses at a particular risk?

Background

The treatment success rate of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) patients aged 64 years and below in Japan, a tuberculosis (TB) middle-burden country with a notification of 13.9 per 100,000 populations in 2016, has been fluctuating around 70% for some years. In order to improve treatment outcome, it is critical to address those lost to follow-up (LTFU). The objective of the study therefore was to describe the characteristics of, and analyze the risk factors for those LTFU among pulmonary TB patients aged between 15 and 64, and discuss policy implications.

Methods

The study used a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative approach, and was conducted in two phases. The first involved analysis of cohort data from the national TB surveillance of PTB patients newly notified between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2015. The second phase involved focus group (FGD) discussions with public health nurses, who are responsible for supporting TB patients’ adherence to medication, on the possible reasons why some patients become lost to follow-up.

Results

Analysis of the surveillance data suggested that among all patients, positive sputum smear (adjusted odds ratio, [aOR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47–0.58) and cavitary lesion on chest x-ray (aOR 0.79, 95%CI 0.72–0.85) decreased the risk, while not requiring hospitalization increased the risk of LTFU (aOR 1.46, 95%CI 1.33–1.60). Among females, being a physician (aOR 2.07 95%CI 1.23–3.48) and nurse (aOR 1.18, 95%CI 1.91–1.37) were identified as additional risk factors for LTFU. The analysis of focus group discussions revealed three possible themes which may be useful in understanding why nurses and physicians were at a higher risk of becoming LTFU–firstly, the possibility that physicians and nurses were finding it difficult to make medication taking a routine, secondly, their low risk perception towards TB is affecting their adherence behavior, and thirdly, their unwillingness to accept DOTS was increasing their risk of becoming LTFU.

Conclusions

The analysis of surveillance data and FGD transcripts indicated that patient education for those starting their treatment as an outpatient, and establishing DOTS that is both acceptable and realistic to physicians and nurses, may be two issues which need to be addressed urgently.

Iterative co-creation for improved hand hygiene and aseptic techniques in the operating room: experiences from the safe hands study

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene and aseptic techniques are essential preventives in combating hospital-acquired infections. However, implementation of these strategies in the operating room remains suboptimal. There is a paucity of intervention studies providing detailed information on effective methods for change. This study aimed to evaluate the process of implementing a theory-driven knowledge translation program for improved use of hand hygiene and aseptic techniques in the operating room.

METHODS

The study was set in an operating department of a university hospital. The intervention was underpinned by theories on organizational learning, culture and person centeredness. Qualitative process data were collected via participant observations and analyzed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Doubts that hand-hygiene practices are effective in preventing hospital acquired infections, strong boundaries and distrust between professional groups and a lack of psychological safety were identified as barriers towards change. Facilitated interprofessional dialogue and learning in "safe spaces" worked as mechanisms for motivation and engagement. Allowing for the free expression of different opinions, doubts and viewing resistance as a natural part of any change was effective in engaging all professional categories in co-creation of clinical relevant solutions to improve hand hygiene.

CONCLUSION

Enabling nurses and physicians to think and talk differently about hospital acquired infections and hand hygiene requires a shift from the concept of one-way directed compliance towards change and learning as the result of a participatory and meaning-making process. The present study is a part of the Safe Hands project, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02983136 ). Date of registration 2016/11/28, retrospectively registered.

Desiccation and ethanol resistances of multidrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii embedded in biofilm: The favorable antiseptic efficacy of combination chlorhexidine gluconate and ethanol

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Globally, multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (MDRAB) has emerged as an important pathogen in nosocomial outbreaks. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between the biofilm formation and survival of MDRABs, and to investigate the antiseptic efficacy of hand sanitizers for the MDRABs, embedded with biofilm (MDRAB-Bs).

METHODS

The MDRABs were selected randomly after pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and their biofilm formation was analyzed. Desiccation and ethanol tolerances were assayed to test the bacterial survival. The antiseptic efficacy of combined chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and 70% ethanol agents against MDRAB-Bs were compared with the 70% ethanol cleanser.

RESULTS

Eleven MDRABs, which varied in biofilm formation (MRDAB-B) and planktonic type (MDRAB-P), were tested. In desiccation survival, the mean survival time for the MDRAB-Bs was 49.0 days which was significantly higher than that of their planktonic type (17.3 days) (P < 0.005). The MDRAB-Ps could be eliminated after a 10 min contact with a 30% ethanol agent, however, it took 10 min of 70% ethanol to eliminate the MDRAB-Bs. On the other hand, a 2% CHG in 70% ethanol solution completely eliminated all MDRAB-Bs after 1 min contacted time. The 2% CHG in 70% ethanol agent provided a significantly superior efficacy than the 70% ethanol solution at eliminating the MDRAB-Bs (P < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

MDRAB with biofilm-formation presented significantly higher desiccation and ethanol resistances than their planktonic type. Moreover, the 2% CHG in 70% ethanol agent provided a superior antiseptic efficacy for MDRAB-Bs than that of the 70% ethanol agent.

Infection control guidelines for optometrists 2016

BACKGROUND

This paper provides an updated version of the paper: Infection control guidelines for optometrists 2007.

METHODS

Information from peer-reviewed journal articles, guidelines from professional societies, and government health department and other websites and instructions from equipment manufacturers were considered in determining infection risk factors in optometric practice. They were used to revise the recommendations on disinfection, sterilisation and reprocessing procedures for instrumentation and other equipment used in optometric practice as well as personal infection control measures to be undertaken by staff.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Optometrists and optometric practice staff should adopt measures to minimise the risk of transmission of infection. These include appropriate hand-washing, staff vaccinations, single use instruments/equipment, appropriate disposal of waste, appropriate methods of reprocessing where items are reused, routine employment of standard infection control precautions and application of more rigorous procedures for individuals who are known to be infected or immuno-suppressed. Information provided to patients regarding infection control procedures in topical drug administration, contact lens wear and use of eye make-up are additional considerations for optometrists.

Optimal hand washing technique to minimize bacterial contamination before neuraxial anesthesia: a randomized control trial

INTRODUCTION

Infectious complications related to neuraxial anesthesia may result in adverse outcomes. There are no best practice guidelines regarding hand-sanitizing measures specifically for these procedures. The objective of this study was to compare the growth of microbial organisms on the operator's forearm between five common techniques of hand washing for labor epidurals.

METHODS

In this single blind randomized controlled trial, all anesthesiologists performing labor epidurals in a tertiary care hospital were randomized into five study groups: hand washing with alcohol gel only up to elbows (Group A); hand washing with soap up to elbows, sterile towel to dry, followed by alcohol gel (Group B); hand washing with soap up to elbows, non-sterile towel to dry, followed by alcohol gel (Group C); hand washing with soap up to elbows, non-sterile towel to dry (Group D) or hand washing with soap up to elbows, sterile towel to dry (Group E). The number of colonies for each specimen/rate per 100 specimens on one or both arms per group was measured.

RESULTS

The incidence of colonization was 2.5, 23.0, 18.5, 114.5, and 53.0 in Groups A, B, C, D and E, respectively. Compared to Group A, the odds ratio of bacterial growth for Group B was 1.52 (P=0.519), Group C 5.44 (P=0.003), Group D 13.82 (P<0.001), and Group E 8.65 (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Alcohol-based antiseptic solutions are superior in terms of reducing the incidence of colonization. The results will enable us to develop guidelines to standardize and improve hand-sanitizing practices among epidural practitioners.

Evidence-based Practices in Infection Control

Abstract Evidence can be obtained from clinical trials and bacteriological studies. The latter consist mainly of measuring reductions in colonization, or reductions in bacterial counts on naturally or artificially contaminated surfaces, following the introduction of the measure to be tested. Controlled clinical trials usually provide the best evidence, but are infrequently carried out due to the large number of subjects required, low initial infection rates and a multiplicity of associated factors. Bacteriological studies can be carried out more easily and can often provide statistically significant results not readily available in clinical studies, but they require care in interpretation. Studies involving bacterial counts in the inanimate environment are particularly likely to give misleading results, but have often provided useful confirmatory evidence in eliminating rituals.

The Cutaneous Microbiome and Aspects of Skin Antimicrobial Defense System Resist Acute Treatment with Topical Skin Cleansers

The human skin microbiome has been suggested to play an essential role in maintaining health by contributing to innate defense of the skin. These observations have inspired speculation that the use of common skin washing techniques may be detrimental to the epidermal antibacterial defense system by altering the microbiome. In this study, several common skin cleansers were used to wash human forearms and the short-term effect on the abundance of the antimicrobial peptide LL-37 and the abundance and diversity of bacterial DNA was measured. Despite small but significant decreases in the amount of LL-37 on the skin surface shortly after washing, no significant change in the bacterial community was detected. Furthermore, Group A Streptococcus did not survive better on the skin after washing. In contrast, the addition of antimicrobial compounds such as benzalkonium chloride or triclocarban to soap before washing decreased the growth of Group A Streptococcus applied after rinse. These results support prior studies that hand washing techniques in the health care setting are beneficial and should be continued. Additional research is necessary to better understand the effects of chronic washing and the potential impact of skin care products on the development of dysbiosis in some individuals.

Impact of Alcohol-Based, Waterless Hand Antiseptic on the Incidence of Infection and Colonization With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

Objective:

Colonized and infected inpatients are major reservoirs for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and transient carriage of these pathogens on the hands of healthcare workers remains the most common mechanism of patient-to-patient transmission. We hypothesized that use of alcohol-based, waterless hand antiseptic would lower the incidence of colonization and/or infection with MRSA and VRE.

Methods.

On June 19, 2001, alcohol hand antiseptic was introduced at the University campus and not the nearby Memorial campus of the University of Massachusetts Medical School (Worcester, MA), allowing us to evaluate the impact of this antiseptic on the incidence of MRSA and VRE colonization and infection. From January 1 through December 31, 2001, the incidence of MRSA colonization or infection was compared between the 2 campuses before and after the hand antiseptic was introduced. Its effect on VRE colonization and infection was only studied in the medical intensive care unit at the University campus.

Results.

At the University campus, the incidence of MRSA colonization or infection decreased from 1.26 cases/1,000 patient-days before the intervention to 0.75 cases/1,000 patient-days after the intervention, for a 1.46-fold decrease (95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.58; P = .037). At the Memorial campus, the incidence of MRSA colonization or infection remained virtually unchanged, from 0.34 cases/1,000 patient-days to 0.49 cases/1,000 patient-days during the same period. However, a separate analysis of the University campus data that controlled for proximity to prevalent cases did not show a significant improvement in the rates of infection or colonization. The incidence of nosocomial VRE colonization or infection before and after the hand antiseptic decreased from 12.0 cases/1,000 patient-days to 3.0 cases/1,000 patient-days, a 2.25-fold decrease (P = .018). Compliance with rectal surveillance for detection of VRE was 86% before and 84% after implementation of the hand antiseptic intervention. The prevalences of VRE cases during these 2 periods were 25% and 29%, respectively (P = .017).

Conclusions.

Alcohol hand antiseptic appears to be effective in controlling the transmission of VRE. However, after controlling for proximity to prevalent cases (ie, for clustering), it does not appear to be more effective than standard methods for controlling MRSA. Further controlled studies are needed to evaluate its effectiveness.

Reduction in Nosocomial Transmission of Drug-Resistant Bacteria After Introduction of an Alcohol-Based Handrub

Objective:

To assess quantitatively the clinical impact of using an alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) in the hospital environment, measuring impact as the incidence of new, nosocomial isolates of drug-resistant organisms.

Design:

An observational survey from 1998 to 2003 comparing the first 3 years of no ABHR use with the 3 years following, when an ABHR was provided for hand hygiene.

Setting:

An inner-city, tertiary-care medical center.

Intervention:

At baseline, an antimicrobial soap with 0.3% triclosan was provided for staff hand hygiene. The intervention was placement in all inpatient and all outpatient clinic rooms of wall-mounted dispensers of an ABHR with 62.5% ethyl alcohol. Data were collected on change in the incidence of three drug-resistant bacteria.

Results:

During the 6 years of the survey, all new, nosocomially acquired isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea were recorded. On comparison of the first 3 years with the final 3 years, there was a 21% decrease in new, nosocomially acquired MRSA (90 to 71 isolates per year; P = .01) and a 41% decrease in VRE (41 to 24 isolates per year; P < .001). The incidence of new isolates of C. difficile was essentially unchanged.

Conclusion:

In the 3 years following implementation of an ABHR, this hospital experienced the value of reductions in the incidence of nosocomially acquired drug-resistant bacteria. These reductions provide clinical validation of the recent CDC recommendation that ABHRs be the primary choice for hand decontamination. (Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:650-653)

Evidence-based practices to increase hand hygiene compliance in health care facilities: An integrated review

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene (HH) in health care facilities is a key component to reduce pathogen transmission and nosocomial infections. However, most HH interventions (HHI) have not been sustainable.

AIMS

This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of recently published evidence-based HHI designed to improve HH compliance (HHC) that will enable health care providers to make informed choices when allocating limited resources to improve HHC and patient safety.

METHODS

The Medline electronic database (using PubMed) was used to identify relevant studies. English language articles that included hand hygiene interventions and related terms combined with health care environments or related terms were included.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies that met the inclusion criteria were summarized. Interventions were categorized as improving awareness with education, facility design, and planning, unit-level protocols and procedures, hospital-wide programs, and multimodal interventions. Past successful HHIs may not be as effective when applied to other health care environments. HH education should be interactive and engaging. Electronic monitoring and reminders should be implemented in phases to ensure cost-effectiveness. To create hospitalwide programs that engage end users, policy makers should draw expertise from interdisciplinary fields. Before implementing the various components of multimodal interventions, health care practitioners should identify and examine HH difficulties unique to their organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should seek to achieve the following: replicate successful HHI in other health care environments, develop reliable HHC monitoring tools, understand caregiver-patient-family interactions, examine ways (eg, hospital leadership, financial support, and strategies from public health and infection prevention initiatives) to sustain HHC, and use simulated lab environments to refine study designs.

Hand washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea

BACKGROUND

Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hand washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (27 May 2015); CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5); MEDLINE (1966 to 27 May 2015); EMBASE (1974 to 27 May 2015); LILACS (1982 to 27 May 2015); PsycINFO (1967 to 27 May 2015); Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index (1981 to 27 May 2015); ERIC (1966 to 27 May 2015); SPECTR (2000 to 27 May 2015); Bibliomap (1990 to 27 May 2015); RoRe, The Grey Literature (2002 to 27 May 2015); World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), and reference lists of articles up to 27 May 2015. We also contacted researchers and organizations in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Individually randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, incidence rate ratios (IRR) were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs: 12 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,006 participants), nine community-based trials in LMICs (15,303 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) (148 participants).Hand washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevents around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high income countries (rate ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; nine trials, 4664 participants, high quality evidence), and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; two trials, 45,380 participants, low quality evidence). Only three trials reported measures of behaviour change and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; three trials, 1845 participants, low quality evidence).Hand washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83; eight trials, 14,726 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, six of these eight trials were from Asian settings, with only single trials from South America and sub-Saharan Africa. In six trials, soap was provided free alongside hand washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78; six trials, 11,422 participants; education only: rate ratio: 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; two trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating/cooking, after visiting the toilet or cleaning the baby's bottom), and increased compliance to hand hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups than the control in community trials (data not pooled: three trials, 3490 participants, high quality evidence).Hand washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (Mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 1.93 to 1.43; one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence). There was increase in hand washing frequency, seven times per day in the intervention group versus three times in the control in this hospital trial (one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence).We found no trials evaluating or reporting the effects of hand washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths, all-cause-under five mortality, or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hand washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. However, less is known about how to help people maintain hand washing habits in the longer term.

Eliminating Infections in the ICU: CLABSI

Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) are one of the leading causes of death in the USA and around the world. As a preventable healthcare-associated infection, they are associated with significant morbidity and excess costs to the healthcare system. Effective and long-term CLABSI prevention requires a multifaceted approach, involving evidence-based best practices coupled with effective implementation strategies. Currently recommended practices are supported by evidence and are simple, such as appropriate hand hygiene, use of full barrier precautions, avoidance of femoral lines, skin antisepsis, and removal of unnecessary lines. The most successful and sustained improvements in CLABSI rates further utilize an adaptive component to align provider behaviors with consistent and reliable use of evidence-based practices. Great success has been achieved in reducing CLABSI rates in the USA and elsewhere over the past decade, but more is needed. This article aims to review the initiatives undertaken to reduce CLABSI and summarizes the sentinel and recent literature regarding CLABSI and its prevention.

Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Therapy of Fungal Infections in Surgery

Over the past decade, the incidence of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections caused byCandidastrains has risen, while the implicated species have changed.Candida tropicalis, Candida parapsilosis, andCandida glabrataall have increased in incidence. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that, between 1980 and 1990,Candidaemerged as the sixth most common nosocomial pathogen (7.2.%) and was the fourth most common pathogen in nosocomial bloodstream infections, surpassed only by coagulase-negative staphylococci,Staphylococcus aureus, and enterococci. The incidence of candidemia is dramatically higher in high-risk critical-care units: 25% of cases occur in surgical intensive-care units (ICUs) versus 25% in bone marrow transplantation units, 20% in medical ICUs, 20% in general medical wards, and 10% in oncology-hematology units. Burns and gastrointestinal surgery predispose to nosocomial candidemia. Independent risk factors include prior therapy with multiple antibiotics, isolation ofCandidafrom sites other than blood, and prior hemodialysis. Crude mortality exceeds 55% and is associated with older age and concomitant renal failure, hepatic failure, acute respiratory diseases, or postoperative shock. In addition to extreme vigilance for early recognition ofCandidasepsis in critically ill surgical patients, the high risk for candidemia probably necessitates fungal surveillance cultures and initiation of preemptive antifungal therapy in high-risk surgical patients.

Systematic Review of Studies on Compliance with Hand Hygiene Guidelines in Hospital Care

Objectives.

To assess the prevalence and correlates of compliance and noncompliance with hand hygiene guidelines in hospital care.

Design.

A systematic review of studies published before January 1, 2009, on observed or self-reported compliance rates.

Methods.

Articles on empirical studies written in English and conducted on general patient populations in industrialized countries were included. The results were grouped by type of healthcare worker before and after patient contact. Correlates contributing to compliance were grouped and listed.

Results.

We included 96 empirical studies, the majority (n= 65) in intensive care units. In general, the study methods were not very robust and often ill reported. We found an overall median compliance rate of 40%. Unadjusted compliance rates were lower in intensive care units (30%–40%) than in other settings (50%–60%), lower among physicians (32%) than among nurses (48%), and before (21%) rather than after (47%) patient contact. The majority of the time, the situations that were associated with a lower compliance rate were those with a high activity level and/or those in which a physician was involved. The majority of the time, the situations that were associated with a higher compliance rate were those having to do with dirty tasks, the introduction of alcohol-based hand rub or gel, performance feedback, and accessibility of materials. A minority of studies (n= 12) have investigated the behavioral determinants of hand hygiene, of which only 7 report the use of a theoretical framework with inconclusive results.

Conclusions.

Noncompliance with hand hygiene guidelines is a universal problem, which calls for standardized measures for research and monitoring. Theoretical models from the behavioral sciences should be used internationally and should be adapted to better explain the complexities of hand hygiene.

Infection Prevention Promotion Program Based on the PRECEDE Model: Improving Hand Hygiene Behaviors among Healthcare Personnel

Background.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) result in significant morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene remains a cornerstone intervention for preventing HAIs. Unfortunately, adherence to hand hygiene guidelines among healthcare personnel is poor.

Objective.

To assess short- and long-term effects of an infection prevention promotion program on healthcare personnel hand hygiene behaviors.

Design.

Time series design.

Setting

Our study was conducted at a tertiary care academic center.

Participants.

Hospital healthcare personnel.

Methods.

We developed a multimodal program that included a multimedia communications campaign, education, leadership engagement, environment modification, team performance measurement, and feedback. Healthcare personnel hand hygiene practices were measured via direct observations over a 3-year period by “undercover” observers.

Results.

Overall hand hygiene compliance increased by 2-fold after full program implementation (P<.001), and this increase was sustained over a 20-month follow-up period (P< .001). The odds for compliance with hand hygiene increased by 3.8-fold in the 6 months after full program implementation (95% confidence interval, 3.53–4.23; P< .001), and this increase was sustained. There was even a modest increase at 20 months of follow up. Hand hygiene compliance increased among all disciplines and hospital units. Hand hygiene compliance increased from 35% in the first 6 months after program initiation to 77% in the last 6 months of the study period among nursing providers (P<.001), from 38% to 62% among medical providers (P<.001), and from 27% to 75% among environmental services staff (P<.001).

Conclusions.

Implementation of the infection prevention promotion program was associated with a significant and sustained increase in hand hygiene practices among healthcare personnel of various disciplines.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(2):144-151

Introducing Alcohol-Based Hand Rub for Hand Hygiene The Critical Need for Training

Background.

Use of an alcohol-based hand rub for hand hygiene has recently been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, the proper technique for using hand rub has not been well described and is not routinely taught in hospitals.

Objective.

To evaluate the impact of training on proper technique as outlined by the European Standard for testing alcohol-based hand rubs (European Norm 1500) in a clinical study.

Design, Setting, and Patients.

Prospective study including 180 healthcare workers (HCWs) in a 450-bed, university-affiliated geriatric hospital where alcohol-based hand rub was introduced in the late 1970s.

Intervention.

Structured training program in hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand rub. Technique for using hand rub was tested by the addition of a fluorescent dye to the disinfectant and the number of areas missed was quantified by a validated visual assessment method. In addition, the number of bacteria eradicated was estimated by calculating the difference between the log10 number of colony-forming units (cfu) of bacteria on the fingertips before and after the procedure, and reported as reduction factor (RF).

Main Outcome Measure.

Log10 cfu bacterial counts on fingertips before and after training in the appropriate technique for using hand rub.

Results.

At baseline, only 31% of HCWs used proper technique, yielding a low RF of 1.4 log10 cfu bacterial count. Training improved HCW compliance to 74% and increased the RF to 2.2 log10 cfu bacterial count, an increase of almost 50% (P < .001). Several factors, such as applying the proper amount of hand rub, were significantly associated with the increased RF.

Conclusion.

These results demonstrate that education on the proper technique for using hand rub, as outlined in EN 1500, can significantly increase the degree of bacterial killing.

Nosocomial Infection Caused by Antibiotic-Resistant Organisms in the Intensive-Care Unit

Resistance to antimicrobial agents is an evolving process, driven by the selective pressure of heavy antibiotic use in individuals living in close proximity to others. The intensive care unit (ICU), crowded with debilitated patients who are receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics and being cared for by busy physicians, nurses, and technicians, serves as an ideal environment for the emergence of antibiotic resistance. Problem pathogens presently include multiply resistant gram-negative bacilli, methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus, and the recently emerged vancomycin-resistant enterococci. The prevention of antimicrobial resistance in ICUs should focus on recognition via routine unit-based sur veillance, improved compliance with handwashing and barrier precautions, and antibiotic-use policies tailored to individual units within hospitals.

Handwashing Program for the Prevention of Nosocomial Infections in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Objective:

To evaluate the effects of a hand hygiene program on compliance with hand hygiene and the rate of nosocomial infections in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Design:

Open trial.

Setting:

A level-III NICU in a teaching hospital.

Participants:

Nurses, physicians, and other healthcare workers in the NICU.

Interventions:

A multimodal campaign for hand hygiene promotion was conducted beginning in September 1998. This program consisted of formal lectures, written instructions and posted reminders regarding hand hygiene and proper handwashing techniques, covert observation, financial incentives, and regular group feedback on compliance. Surveillance of handwashing compliance and nosocomial infections before and during the program was analyzed.

Results:

Overall compliance with hand hygiene improved from 43% at baseline to 80% during the promotion program. The rate of nosocomial infections decreased from 15.13 to 10.69 per 1,000 patient-days (P= .003) with improved handwashing compliance. In particular, respiratory tract infections decreased from 3.35 to 1.06 per 1,000 patient-days during the handwashing campaign (P= .002). Furthermore, the correlation between nosocomial infection of the respiratory tract and handwashing compliance also reached statistical significance (r= -0.385;P= .014).

Conclusions:

Improved compliance with handwashing was associated with a significant decrease in overall rates of nosocomial infection and respiratory infections in particular. Washing hands is a simple, economical, and effective method for preventing nosocomial infections in the NICU

Prolongation of Hospital Stay and Additional Costs Due to Nosocomial Bloodstream Infection in an Algerian Neonatal Care Unit

Background.

Previous studies from developed countries reported that nosocomial bloodstream infection (BSI) in neonatal care units (NCUs) increases length of stay and costs. However, no such information is available for Algerian NCUs.

Objective.

To evaluate the influence of BSI in neonates on additional charges and length of hospital stay.

Design.

Prospective, nested case-control study.

Setting.

The 47-bed NCU of the University Hospital of Blida, Algeria.

Patients and Methods.

A total of 83 neonates with BSIs (case patients) and 166 neonates without BSIs (control patients), admitted to the NCU during the study period (April 2004 through December 2007), were matched for sex, birth weight, length of NCU stay, and year of hospital admission. Each patient's length of stay in the NCU was obtained prospectively on daily rounds. The estimated cost of each NCU-day was provided by the hospital's finance department. The cost of antibiotics prescribed was provided by the hospital's pharmacy department.

Results.

The mean additional length of NCU stay for case patients, compared with control patients, was 9.2 days (24.3 vs 15.1 days). The mean additional cost of antibiotics was $546. The mean cumulative additional cost was $1,315.

Conclusion.

This study highlights the effect of BSI on extra costs for NCU patients, especially costs due to prolongation of hospital stay and increased antibiotic use, and suggests that NCUs in Algeria have a financial interest in reducing the rate of BSI.

Universal precautions in Central Asia: the need for multiple strategies in this window of opportunity

BACKGROUND

Adoption of universal precautions remains a global concern. In low- and middle-income countries, the problem is exacerbated by a shortage of protective supplies, lack of training among clinicians, and an expanding human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic.

AIM

To describe the perceptions of medical students about the risk of HIV and use of universal precautions, and to identify recent exposures to blood or bodily fluids.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among Kazakh medical students taking a newly-implemented infection control course in 2013. Participants completed a survey to investigate the use of precautions and exposures to blood or bodily fluids. Attitudes towards HIV were explored. Bivariate analyses identified factors related to attitudes about universal precautions, and self-reported behaviours and exposures.

FINDINGS

Half (49.6%) of the 785 participants expressed 'a lot of concern' about contracting HIV while caring for patients, and 40.5% of students thought that physicians sometimes refuse to treat HIV-positive patients due to a fear of contracting HIV. Regarding precautions, only half (51.5%) of the students reported that they always use gloves, and even fewer reported that they always use masks or eye protection. Exposure to contaminated blood or bodily fluids was reported by 10.1% of respondents.

CONCLUSION

The findings underscore the urgent need for interventions to improve universal precautions and reduce the fear of infectious diseases. Perhaps even more concerning, these data may underestimate the true magnitude of the problem given cultural impediments to transparency.

Prototype electronic stethoscope vs. conventional stethoscope for auscultation of heart sounds

In an effort to decrease the spread of hospital-acquired infections, many hospitals currently use disposable plastic stethoscopes in patient rooms. As an alternative, this study examines a prototype electronic stethoscope that does not break the isolation barrier between clinician and patient and may also improve the diagnostic accuracy of the stethoscope exam. This study aimed to investigate whether the new prototype electronic stethoscope improved auscultation of heart sounds compared to the standard conventional isolation stethoscope. In a controlled, non-blinded, cross-over study, clinicians were randomized to identify heart sounds with both the prototype electronic stethoscope and a conventional stethoscope. The primary outcome was the score on a 10-question heart sound identification test. In total, 41 clinicians completed the study. Subjects performed significantly better in the identification of heart sounds when using the prototype electronic stethoscope (median = 9 [7-10] vs. 8 [6-9] points, p value <0.0001). Subjects also significantly preferred the prototype electronic stethoscope. Clinicians using a new prototype electronic stethoscope achieved greater accuracy in identification of heart sounds and also universally favoured the new device, compared to the conventional stethoscope.

Infection control in the intensive care unit

Nosocomial infections are common in many hospital departments, but particularly so on the intensive care unit, where they affect some 20 to 30% of patients. While early diagnosis and appropriate treatment are, of course, important, perhaps the greatest challenge is in the application of techniques to limit the development of such infections. This review will briefly discuss some of the background pathophysiology and epidemiology of nosocomial infection, and then focus on general and infection-specific preventative strategies individually and as part of broader infection-control programs with infection surveillance.

Acceptability and tolerability of liquid versus gel and standard versus virucidal alcohol-based hand rub formulations among dental students

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene is effective to prevent the transmission of microorganisms in health care settings, but compliance remains low, even when easy access to hand cleaning agents is provided.

OBJECTIVE

Formulation of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHRs) may influence staff compliance to hand hygiene. The aim of this prospective longitudinal study (1 week) was to investigate possible differences of 4 different gel or liquid ABHR formulations, with or without virucidal claim among dental students.

METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned to dental treatment cubicles, equipped with either a gel or a liquid based ABHRs, with our without a virucidal claim. Participants assessed the subjective acceptability and the tolerability of test formulations on their hands over a period of 1 week using the 14 item, 7-point Lickert scale World Health Organization questionnaire.

RESULTS

All tested ABHRs passed the subjective acceptability criteria of ≥50% above 4 for the items "color and fragrance" and for all other items of >75% above 4 and may be regarded as "good." Significant differences were observed between the 2 gels but not between the 2 liquid ABHRs. For subjective skin tolerability, no significant difference was observed between the liquid formulations after 1 consecutive week of application. However, the difference between the 2 gels was highly significant.

CONCLUSION

Virucidal ABHR formulations may be better accepted and tolerated over prolonged periods by dental students than anticipated. The user acceptability of ABHRs depend more on the specific product's formula than its general category.

Combating infections at Maine Medical Center: Insights into complexity-informed leadership from positive deviance

A case study of how the organizational change process known as Positive Deviance was used to fight healthcare-associated infections at Maine Medical Center highlights the human and social aspects of leadership in a complex adaptive system. It illustrates that leadership can shape self-organization in a manner that facilitates creative, productive, desirable outcomes. We found influential roles of anxiety, attachment, and relationships in facilitating organizational leadership. We describe how the process of leadership permeated the Medical Center’s hierarchies and networks and reflected emergent power dynamics, which included contemporizing some aspects of traditional managerial authority. The study contributes to the management literature by clarifying the dynamics and qualities associated with change in complex human systems and illuminating what constitutes complexity-informed leadership and how it can be practiced.

'Cosmeceuticals'. Of men, science and laws…

Through the hybrid term 'Cosmeceuticals', the present paper aims at reviewing some scientific and legal sources of ambiguities or uncertainties that, in many regulatory cases, added confusions to the respective roles of drugs and cosmetics. The origins of such questions, likely arose from new anti-ageing claims from the cosmetic industry in the late 80s which faced a rather old regulatory backdrop. Based on the analysis of some legal statements and scientific facts from a 2012 vision, this review tentatively aims at re-defining the respective roles of these two branches that both fill the two vital needs of humans, 'being' and 'well-being'.

Low compliance to handwashing program and high nosocomial infection in a brazilian hospital

Background. It is a fact that hand hygiene prevents nosocomial infection, but compliance with recommended instructions is commonly poor. The purpose of this study was to implement a hand hygiene program for increase compliance with hand hygiene and its relationship with nosocomial infection (NI) and MRSA infection/colonization rates. Methods. Compliance to hand hygiene was evaluated in a hospital by direct observation and measured of health care-associated infections, including methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, before and after an educational intervention, using visual poster, colorful stamps, and feedback of the results. Results. Overall compliance did not increase during intervention, only handwashing before and after patient contact has improved from 40% to 76% (P = 0.01) for HCWs, but NI and MRSA rates remained high and stable. Conclusion. In a combination of high prevalence of NI and low compliance to hand hygiene, the programme of measure does not motivate the HCW hand hygiene. Future interventions should employ incremental evaluation to develop effective hand hygiene initiatives.

The World Health Organization '5 moments of hand hygiene': the scientific foundation

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the first Global Patient Safety Challenge in 2005 and introduced the '5 moments of hand hygiene' in 2009 in an attempt to reduce the burden of health care associated infections. Many NHS trusts in England adopted this model of hand hygiene, which prompts health care workers to clean their hands at five distinct stages of caring for the patient. Our review analyses the scientific foundation for the five moments of hand hygiene and explores the evidence, as referenced by WHO, to support these recommendations. We found no strong scientific support for this regime of hand hygiene as a means of reducing health care associated infections. Consensus-based guidelines based on weak scientific foundations should be assessed carefully to prevent shifting the clinical focus from more important issues and to direct limited resources more effectively. We recommend caution in the universal adoption of the WHO '5 moments of hand hygiene' by orthopaedic surgeons and other health care workers and emphasise the need for evidence-based principles when adopting hospital guidelines aimed at promoting excellence in clinical practice.

Patient-centered hand hygiene: the next step in infection prevention

Hand hygiene has been recognized as the most important means of preventing the transmission of infection, and great emphasis has been placed on ways to improve hand hygiene compliance by health care workers (HCWs). Despite increasing evidence that patients' flora and the hospital environment are the primary source of many infections, little effort has been directed toward involving patients in their own hand hygiene. Most previous work involving patients has included patients as monitors or auditors of hand hygiene practices by their HCWs. This article reviews the evidence on the benefits of including patients more directly in hand hygiene initiatives, and uses the framework of patient-centered safety initiatives to provide recommendations for the timing and implementation of patient hand hygiene protocols. It also addresses key areas for further research, practice guideline development, and implications for training of HCWs.

Pro/con debate: are barrier precautions cost-effective in improving patient outcomes in the intensive care unit?

You are responsible for a large medical surgical ICU. Your hospital administration has been very focused on reducing rates of hospital-acquired infections particularly in the wake of increasing public attention. However, it is time for budget preparation and your financial officer is concerned about the escalating costs associated with patient isolation and barrier precautions/personal protective equipment. Having become aware of the high costs associated with these interventions, you start to wonder about the wisdom of spending so much in this area. Your hospital administration wants your direction on next year's expenditures. You are debating whether the expense is worthwhile and advise your hospital administration accordingly.

Back to the future: rising to the Semmelweis challenge in hand hygiene

Hand hygiene is the single most important intervention for reducing healthcare associated infections and preventing the spread of antimicrobial resistance. This sentence begins most publications regarding hand hygiene in the medical literature. But why - as we mark 150 years since the publication of Ignaz Semmelweis' landmark monograph on the subject - do we continue to repeat it? One might be tempted to regard it as a truism. However, while tremendous progress has certainly been made in this field, a significant amount of work is yet to be done in both strengthening the evidence regarding the impact of hand hygiene and maximizing its implementation. Hand hygiene cannot yet be taken for granted. This article summarizes historical perspectives, dynamics of microbial colonization and efficacy of hand cleansing methods and agents, elements and impacts of successful hand hygiene promotion, as well as scale-up and sustainability. We also explore hand hygiene myths and current challenges such as monitoring, behavior change, patient participation and research priorities.

A meta-analysis of the published literature on the effectiveness of antimicrobial soaps

The goal of this research was to conduct a systematic quantitative analysis of the existing data in the literature in order to determine if there is a difference between antimicrobial and nonantimicrobial soaps and to identify the methodological factors that might affect this difference. Data on hand washing efficacy and experimental conditions (sample size, wash duration, soap quantity, challenge organism, inoculum size, and neutralization method) from published studies were compiled and transferred to a relational database. A total of 25 publications, containing 374 observations, met the study selection criteria. The majority of the studies included fewer than 15 observations with each treatment and included a direct comparison between nonantimicrobial soap and antimicrobial soap. Although differences in efficacy between antimicrobial and nonantimicrobial soap were small (∼0.5-log CFU reduction difference), antimicrobial soap produced consistently statistically significantly greater reductions. This difference was true for any of the antimicrobial compounds investigated where n was >20 (chlorhexidine gluconate, iodophor, triclosan, or povidone). Average log reductions were statistically significantly greater (∼2 log CFU) when either gram-positive or gram-negative transient organisms were deliberately added to hands compared with experiments done with resident hand flora (∼0.5 log CFU). Our findings support the importance of using a high initial inoculum on the hands, well above the detection limit. The inherent variability in hand washing seen in the published literature underscores the importance of using a sufficiently large sample size to detect differences when they occur.