Methods for evaluating changes in skin condition due to the effects of antimicrobial hand cleansers: two studies comparing a new waterless chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol-emollient antiseptic preparation with a conventional water-applied product

S2k-Guideline hand antisepsis and hand hygiene

The consensus-based guideline "hand antisepsis and hand hygiene" for Germany has the following sections: Prevention of nosocomial infections by hygienic hand antisepsis, prevention of surgical site infections by surgical hand antisepsis, infection prevention in the community by hand antisepsis in epidemic or pandemic situations, hand washing, selection of alcohol-based hand rubs and wash lotions, medical gloves and protective gloves, preconditions for hand hygiene, skin protection and skin care, quality assurance of the implementation of hand hygiene measures and legal aspects. The guideline was developed by the German Society for Hospital Hygiene in cooperation with 22 professional societies, 2 professional organizations, the German Care Council, the Federal Working Group for Self-Help of People with Disabilities and Chronic Illness and their Family Members, the General Accident Insurance Institution Austria and the German-speaking Interest Group of Infection Prevention Experts and Hospital Hygiene Consultants.

World Health Organization-recommended hand-rub formulations do not meet European efficacy requirements for surgical hand disinfection in five minutes

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended two hand-rub formulations for local production based on 80% ethanol or 75% isopropanol (both v/v). We have looked at their efficacy according to EN 12791. Twenty-six subjects treated their hands with the reference procedure (n-propanol, 60%) for 3 min or with one of the two formulations for 1.5, 3 or 5 min (Latin square design). Post-values (immediate effect) were taken from one hand, the other hand was gloved for 3 h. After the glove had been taken off, the second post-value was taken (3 h effect). The mean log(10) reduction of each hand rub at all three application times was compared to Hodges and Lehmann's reference procedure for non-inferiority. In the first block the reference procedure reduced bacterial load by 2.43 log(10) (immediate effect) and 2.22 log(10) (3 h effect). The efficacy of the ethanol-based formulation (e.g. immediate efficacy of 1.41 log(10) at 5 min) was inferior to the reference procedure at all application times [lower 95% confidence interval (CI): less than -0.75]. In the second block the reference procedure reduced bacterial load by 2.72 log(10) (immediate effect) and 2.26 log(10) (3 h effect). The efficacy of the isopropanol-based formulation (e.g. immediate efficacy of 2.05 log(10) at 5 min) was also inferior to the reference procedure at all application times (lower 95% CI: less than -0.75). Both WHO-recommended hand-rub formulations failed to meet the EN 12791 efficacy requirements for surgical hand disinfection within 5 min. A higher concentration of the active ingredients may improve the efficacy.

Microbiological efficacy and tolerability of a new, non-alcohol-based hand disinfectant

OBJECTIVE

Alcohol-based hand disinfectants are widely used in hospitals. Occasionally, there is a need for non-alcohol-based products, but alternatives have been scarce. We studied the microbiological efficacy and tolerability of a water-based hand disinfectant for healthcare workers.

DESIGN

A water-based hand disinfectant was introduced as the only hand disinfectant in 5 wards in Turku University Hospital, Finland. Ninety-nine healthcare workers participated in fingerprint sampling during the 7-week study period. In another ward, 26 healthcare workers who were using alcohol-based hand disinfectant acted as control subjects for the skin reaction studies. The water-based product was tested in the laboratory according to the European standard EN 12791. We obtained 292 fingerprint samples before disinfection and 302 after disinfection. The opinions of healthcare workers were collected by use of a questionnaire, and skin reactions were assessed subjectively by use of questionnaires and objectively by measuring moisture and transepidermal water loss.

RESULTS

When tested in accordance with the European standard, the product met the requirements for short-term and long-term efficacy. The results of the fingerprint test showed that there was a statistically significant decrease in colonization of the fingertips before and after disinfection (P<.001). The users of the water-based hand disinfectant reported dry skin more often than did control subjects, but visual inspection and the results of the moisture measurement showed no difference between the users of the water-based hand disinfectant and the control subjects. Transepidermal water loss measurement also showed no deterioration of skin condition.

CONCLUSIONS

The water-based hand disinfectant was shown to be an effective hand disinfectant that caused relatively little skin irritation and can serve as a hand hygiene alternative in situations in which alcohol-based disinfectant cannot be used.

Bacterial population kinetics on hands during 2 consecutive surgical hand disinfection procedures

BACKGROUND

Although consecutive surgical hand disinfections is common clinical practice, the effect on the bacterial density on hands has not been studied for all commonly used hand rubs. We studied the effect of 2 consecutive applications of hand rubs on resident bacterial hand flora.

METHODS

A propanol-based hand rub (PBHR; Sterillium) and the reference alcohol (60% n-propanol) were tested in a Latin-square design according to EN 12791. The first application of the PBHR was always for 1.5 minutes; the second application was for 1.5, 1, or 0.5 minutes. The reference alcohol was always applied for 3 minutes. Pre-values and post-values were obtained in accordance with EN 12791.

RESULTS

The first reference disinfection reduced the bacterial density by 2.87 log(10) (immediate efficacy) and 2.27 log(10) (after 3 hours). The PBHR yielded a similar reduction. Immediately after the second reference disinfection, bacterial density was reduced by 0.45 log(10). Application of the PBHR yielded greater reductions of 0.71 log(10) (after 0.5 minute), 0.79 log(10) (after 1 minute), and 1.12 log(10) (after 1.5 minutes). The difference between all treatments was not significant (P = .089; Friedman test). After 3 hours, bacterial density was further decreased by 1.11 log(10) (reference disinfection), 1.89 log(10) (PBHR, 1 minute), 1.67 log(10) (PBHR, 1.5 minutes), and 1.08 log(10) (PBHR, 0.5 minute). The difference between all treatments was significant (P = .005), but none of the short treatments with the PBHR was significantly less effective than the reference treatment (P > .05; Wilcoxon-Wilcox test).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, a simple 1.5-minute application of a well-formulated PBHR for surgical hand disinfection keeps the bacterial density as low as possible ("irreducible minimum") even in 2 consecutive surgical procedures of 3 hours.

[Evaluation of a waterless, scrubless chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol surgical scrub and povidone-iodine for antimicrobial efficacy]

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare 1% chlorhexidine-gluconate/61% ethanol (CHG/Ethanol) emollient and 7.5% povidone-iodine (PVI) scrub for antimicrobial,residual effect, and skin condition.

METHOD

CHG/Ethanol emollient hand hygiene was performed waterless, and brushless by operating doctors and nurses (N=20). PVI hand washing was performed with water and a brush (N=20) for 5 min. The subjects were asked to press their left hand in hand-shaped agar before a surgical scrub, immediately after a surgical scrub and after the operation. The amount of isolated microorganisms were calculated by counting the number of divided areas(1 x 1 cm, 160 cell) which were culture positive in the hand culture plate. The skin condition was evaluated.

RESULT

The antimicrobial count of CHG/Ethanol emollient and PVI immediately post surgical scrub was 0.0 vs. 4.1 (p>.05), and after the operation was 0.1 vs. 37.8 (p>.05)respectively. The Residual effect of CHG/Ethanol emollient immediately post surgical scrub and after the operation were 0.0 vs. 0.1 (p>.05), and PVI were 4.1 vs. 37.8 (p>.05)respectively. The skin condition and satisfaction of CHG/Ethanol emollient was higher than PVI (p<.05).

CONCLUSION

The antimicrobial effect between CHG/Ethanol emollient and PVI were the same. Considering skin condition, satisfaction and allergic reaction CHG/Ethanol emollient for surgical scrub is recommended in Korea.

Double-blind, randomized, crossover trial of 3 hand rub formulations: fast-track evaluation of tolerability and acceptability

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare workers' skin tolerance for and acceptance of 3 alcohol-based hand rub formulations.

DESIGN

Double-blind, randomized, crossover clinical trial.

SETTING

Intensive care unit in a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-eight healthcare workers (HCWs).

INTERVENTION

A total of 3 alcohol-based hand rub formulations (hereafter, formulations A, B, and C) were used in random order for 3-5 consecutive working days during regular nursing shifts. Formulations A and B contained the same emollient, and formulations B and C contained the same alcohol at the same concentration. Use of each test formulation was separated by a "washout" period of at least 2 days. A visual assessment of skin integrity by a blinded observer using a standard 6-item scale was conducted before and after the use of each formulation. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used for the assessment of risk factors for skin alteration, and product acceptability was assessed by use of a customized questionnaire after the use of each formulation.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight HCWs used each of 3 formulations for a median of 3 days (range, 3-5 days). The mean amount of product used daily (+/-SD) was 54.9+/-23.5 mL (median, 50.9 mL). Both subjective and objective evaluation of skin conditions after use showed lower HCW tolerance for product C. Male sex (odds ratio [OR], 3.17 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.1-8.8]), fair or very fair skin (OR, 3.01 [95% CI, 1.1-7.9]), skin alteration before hand rub use (OR, 3.73 [95% CI, 1.7-8.1]), and use of formulation C (OR, 8.79 [95% CI, 2.7-28.4]) were independently associated with skin alteration.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol permits a fast-track comparison of HCWs' skin tolerance for different alcohol-based hand rub formulations that are used in healthcare settings. The emollient in formulation C may account for its inferior performance.

Hand washing: changes in the skin flora

Frequent hand washing may result in skin damage and increase the number of microorganisms that colonize the skin. The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in total flora of healthy and damaged hands that were caused by the use of gloves, soap, and antiseptics. Samples were collected from the healthy and damaged hands of 30 health care professionals before and after washing with water and nonmedicated soap for the technique of sterile polyethylene bag. Fifteen additional volunteers (technicians and students) were asked to wash their hands 20 times with water and soap; those with complaints of irritation were evaluated separately. Damaged or healthy hands did not present statistically significant differences (P > .05) in terms of qualitative analysis of epidemiologically important microorganisms; however, washing with water and soap was effective only for healthy hands. In short, the water and soap washing of damaged hands was not effective in reducing their contamination.

Antimicrobial resistance patterns of colonizing flora on nurses' hands in the neonatal intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the use of an alcohol-based handrub for health care worker hand hygiene. The purpose of this study was to examine effects of hand hygiene product and skin condition on the antimicrobial resistance patterns of colonizing hand flora among nurses.

METHODS

Colonizing hand flora of 119 nurses working in 2 neonatal intensive care units was compared during a 22-month crossover study using alcohol handrub or antiseptic soap.

RESULTS

Altogether, 1442 isolates from 834 hand cultures (mean, 7 cultures/nurse) were obtained. In 3 of 9 regression analyses modeling for resistant staphylococcal flora, the use of antiseptic soap was a significant predictor of resistance, and nurses with damaged skin were 2.79 times more likely to carry Staphylococcus warneri isolates resistant to gentamicin.

CONCLUSION

Hand hygiene product and skin condition may influence resistance patterns of hand flora of care providers.

Comparison of two alcohol-based surgical scrub solutions with an iodine-based scrub brush for presurgical antiseptic effectiveness in a community hospital

The antiseptic effectiveness and acceptability of a commercial alcohol-based waterless (ABWL) and an alcohol-based water-aided (ABWA) scrub solution were compared with a brush-based iodine solution (BBIS) under conditions encountered in community hospital operating rooms. This randomized partially blinded study was based on guidelines from the American Society for Testing and Methods. The three scrub solutions were compared for antimicrobial efficacy, using criteria within the Food and Drug Administration's Tentative Final Monograph for Healthcare Antiseptic Products (FDA-TFM), and for participants' acceptance of the products. Volunteer surgical staff that worked daily in the same operating room for the entire duration of the study were enrolled. In total, 1126 surgical scrub procedures were performed over the duration of the study. Only the ABWL met all of the FDA-TFM criteria. The BBIS performed better than both of the alcohol-based solutions at the end of Day 1 (P=0.03), but the ABWL was more efficacious than the ABWA and the BBIS at the end of Days 2 and 5 (P=0.02 and 0.01, respectively). When colony-count reductions were compared over the entire duration of the study, there was no significant difference between the three solutions (P=0.2). The participants found the ABWL easiest to use (P<0.001), with the fewest adverse effects on skin (P=0.007), and it was their preferred product (P<0.001). Although both of the commercially available alcohol-based solutions may be considered as acceptable alternatives to the BBIS for presurgical antisepsis, the ABWL was found to have significantly higher user acceptability.

Liquid versus gel handrub formulation: a prospective intervention study

INTRODUCTION

Hand hygiene is one of the cornerstones of the prevention of health care-associated infection, but health care worker (HCW) compliance with good practices remains low. Alcohol-based handrub is the new standard for hand hygiene action worldwide and usually requires a system change for its successful introduction in routine care. Product acceptability by HCWs is a crucial step in this process.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective intervention study to compare the impact on HCW compliance of a liquid (study phase I) versus a gel (phase II) handrub formulation of the same product during daily patient care. All staff (102 HCWs) of the medical intensive care unit participated. Compliance with hand hygiene was monitored by a single observer. Skin tolerance and product acceptability were assessed using subjective and objective scoring systems, self-report questionnaires, and biometric measurements. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between predictors and compliance with the handrub formulation as the main explanatory variable and to adjust for potential risk factors.

RESULTS

Overall compliance (phases I and II) with hand hygiene practices among nurses, physicians, nursing assistants, and other HCWs was 39.1%, 27.1%, 31.1%, and 13.9%, respectively (p = 0.027). Easy access to handrub improved compliance (35.3% versus 50.6%, p = 0.035). Nurse status, working on morning shifts, use of the gel formulation, and availability of the alcohol-based handrub in the HCW's pocket were independently associated with higher compliance. Immediate accessibility was the strongest predictor. Based on self-assessment, observer assessment, and the measurement of epidermal water content, the gel performed significantly better than the liquid formulation.

CONCLUSION

Facilitated access to an alcohol-based gel formulation leads to improved compliance with hand hygiene and better skin condition in HCWs.

Skin condition associated with intensive use of alcoholic gels for hand disinfection: a combination of biophysical and sensorial data

Although hand hygiene is an important and inexpensive measure to prevent nosocomial infections in clinical settings, the compliance of healthcare workers remains low. In Europe, alcoholic hand disinfection is first choice, but there exists a limited user acceptability due to estimated adverse effects on skin condition. This study was designed to investigate skin tolerance to alcohol-based disinfecting gels and changes in skin condition depending on humectant concentration, alcohol grades, as well as type of alcohol used. A comparison of 6 alcohol-based gels was made based on a randomized double-blind study under in use conditions for 1 day. Skin condition was evaluated by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum hydration, apparent skin pH, redness and degree of scaliness. With respect to user acceptability, all gels were sensorially evaluated using a questionnaire. We saw that none of the alcohol-based gels, applied under in use conditions, altered TEWL or caused irritation. All gels hydrated the skin, proportionally to their glycerine content, and decreased skin pH. Elevated ethanol concentrations resulted in increased scaliness. Sensorial assessment revealed less appreciation for isopropanol. From this study, it was concluded that gels containing an elevated glycerine concentration and 70% (v/v) ethanol are preferred.

[Hygienic and dermatologic aspects of hand disinfection and prophylactic skin antisepsis]

Hygienic hand disinfection must be carried out after all patient-care activities associated with contamination risks, as well as when moving from contaminated to clean body sites, after contact with environmental surfaces in the immediate vicinity of patients, after glove removal and before aseptic procedures. Preparatory handwashing (for about 10 seconds) to mechanically remove soil and bacterial spores should be performed at least 10 minutes before surgical hand disinfection. This allows time for the normalization of increased skin hydration, a prerequisite for effective hand disinfection. Depending on the manufacturer's instructions, application times of 1.5, 3 or 5 minutes can be observed. The regular use of skin care and skin protection products can help to prevent toxic skin irritation. For skin antisepsis the recommended exposure times are > or =15 seconds before subcutaneous injections, > or =1 minute before puncture of joints and body cavities as well as preoperatively, and > or =10 minutes on skin areas rich in sebaceous glands. For all 3 indications, alcohol-based formulations are the agents of choice.

Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs

The etiology of nosocomial infections, the frequency of contaminated hands with the different nosocomial pathogens, and the role of health care workers' hands during outbreaks suggest that a hand hygiene preparation should at least have activity against bacteria, yeasts, and coated viruses. The importance of efficacy in choosing the right hand hygiene product is reflected in the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline on hand hygiene (J. M. Boyce and D. Pittet, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 51:1-45, 2002). The best antimicrobial efficacy can be achieved with ethanol (60 to 85%), isopropanol (60 to 80%), and n-propanol (60 to 80%). The activity is broad and immediate. Ethanol at high concentrations (e.g., 95%) is the most effective treatment against naked viruses, whereas n-propanol seems to be more effective against the resident bacterial flora. The combination of alcohols may have a synergistic effect. The antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine (2 to 4%) and triclosan (1 to 2%) is both lower and slower. Additionally, both agents have a risk of bacterial resistance, which is higher for chlorhexidine than triclosan. Their activity is often supported by the mechanical removal of pathogens during hand washing. Taking the antimicrobial efficacy and the mechanical removal together, they are still less effective than the alcohols. Plain soap and water has the lowest efficacy of all. In the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline, promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs containing various emollients instead of irritating soaps and detergents is one strategy to reduce skin damage, dryness, and irritation. Irritant contact dermatitis is highest with preparations containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, less frequent with nonantimicrobial soaps and preparations containing lower concentrations of chlorhexidine gluconate, and lowest with well-formulated alcohol-based hand rubs containing emollients and other skin conditioners. Too few published data from comparative trials are available to reliably rank triclosan. Personnel should be reminded that it is neither necessary nor recommended to routinely wash hands after each application of an alcohol-based hand rub. Long-lasting improvement of compliance with hand hygiene protocols can be successful if an effective and accessible alcohol-based hand rub with a proven dermal tolerance and an excellent user acceptability is supplied, accompanied by education of health care workers and promotion of the use of the product.

Transmission des agents conventionnels en consultation

Outpatient care bring together in a single location a large number of patients potentially bearing conventional infectious agents (virus, bacteria, fungi, parasites). This report details the germs potentially involved. We emphasize adenovirus epidemic keratoconjunctivitis, which is particularly prevalent in ophthalmology outpatient care. We analyze the modes of contamination and the means to prevent iatrogenic infections.

Effectiveness of Alcohol-based solutions for Hand Hygiene: A Systematic Review

: Hand hygiene is an important measure in reducing the transmission of nosocomial infections in hospitals, but adherence is poor among health care workers (HCWs).More rapid and effective hand disinfection procedures have been proposed, such as rubbing with alcohol.Hand rubbing with alcohol-based products is commonly used in some countries instead of handwashing. This review evaluates the scientific and clinical evidence on the use of alcohol-based hand rubs in health care settings as a new option for hand hygiene.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to determine the best available evidence related to effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions for hand hygiene. The specific review questions addressed were: the effectiveness in reducing microorganisms, compliance with hand hygiene, and the incidence of skin problems. Application time (consumption) addressed efficiency.

CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES IN THIS REVIEW

This review considered all studies that included alcohol-based solutions that related to the objectives of the review. Outcomes included measures for the reduction of organisms, compliance with hand hygiene, the types of skin problems, and application time. The review primarily considered any intra-individual trials (IITs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) relating to the effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions but also included quasi-experimental designs.

SEARCH STRATEGY FOR IDENTIFICATION OF STUDIES

The search sought to find published and unpublished studies. The databases searched included: Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest and Dissertation Abstracts International. Studies were additionally identified from reference lists of all studies retrieved.

ASSESSMENT AND DATA EXTRACTION

All studies were checked for methodological quality by two reviewers and data were extracted using a tool.

DATA ANALYSIS

The study results were pooled in statistical meta-analysis using Review Manager software and summarized in narrative form where statistical pooling was not appropriate or possible.

RESULTS

This systematic review included thirty seven studies that supports the use of alcohol-based solutions for routine hand hygiene and surgical hand scrub. Alcohol-based hand rub removes microorganisms from hands of personnel more effectively, requires less time, and irritates hands less often than traditional handwashing with nonmedicated soap or other antiseptic agents and water. The combination of 61% ethanol and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is even more effective in producing residual antibacterial properties on the skin. Furthermore, the availability of bedside alcohol-based solutions increased compliance with hand hygiene among HCWs.

CONCLUSION

Rubbing hands with alcohol-based agents has been proved to be effective in the reduction of microorganisms from hands. Alcohols are effective for preoperative cleaning of the hands of surgical personnel. Addition of CHG to alcohol-based solution can produce residual antibacterial properties on the skin. The use of alcohol-based solutions containing emollients causes less skin irritation and dryness and requires less time than washing hands with soap or other disinfectants. The promotion of bedside, alcohol-based hand rubs contributes to the increase in compliance with hand hygiene by HCWs.

Can alcohol hand rubs increase compliance with hand hygiene?

A review of the literature indicates that alcohol hand rubs reduce microbial load, are less irritant to the skin of healthcare workers, and are more easily accessible than conventional methods of hand hygiene. The review also indicates that using alcohol hand rub increases compliance to hand hygiene guideline rates by 25%. This study examines whether making alcohol hand rubs readily available to healthcare workers will increase and maintain compliance with hand hygiene protocols and guidelines, thereby reducing nosocomial infection, or whether the methods of staff education on the use and benefits of products and other interventions need to be examined.