The importance of evaluating product dispensers when selecting alcohol-based handrubs

Knowledge, awareness, and risk practices related to bacterial contamination of antiseptics, disinfectants, and hand hygiene products among healthcare workers in sub-saharan Africa: a cross-sectional survey in three tertiary care hospitals (Benin, Burkina Faso, and DR Congo)

BACKGROUND

Antiseptics, disinfectants, and hand hygiene products can be contaminated with bacteria and cause healthcare-associated infections, which are underreported from low- and middle-income countries. To better understand the user-related risk factors, we conducted a knowledge, awareness, and practice survey among hospital staff in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

Self-administered questionnaire distributed among healthcare workers in three tertiary care hospitals (Burkina Faso, Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo).

RESULTS

617 healthcare workers (85.3% (para)medical and 14.7% auxiliary staff) participated. Less than half (45.5%) had been trained in Infection Prevention & Control (IPC), and only 15.7% were trained < 1 year ago. Near two-thirds (64.2%) preferred liquid soap for hand hygiene, versus 33.1% for alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR). Most (58.3%) expressed confidence in the locally available products. Knowledge of product categories, storage conditions and shelf-life was inadequate: eosin was considered as an antiseptic (47.5% of (para)medical staff), the shelf life and storage conditions (non-transparent container) of freshly prepared chlorine 0.5% were known by only 42.6% and 34.8% of participants, respectively. Approximately one-third of participants approved using tap water for preparation of chlorine 0.5% and liquid soap. Most participants (> 80%) disapproved recycling soft-drink bottles as liquid soap containers. Nearly two-thirds (65.0%) declared that bacteria may be resistant to and survive in ABHR, versus 51.0% and 37.4% for povidone iodine and chlorine 0.5%, respectively. Depicted risk practices (n = 4) were ignored by 30 to 40% of participants: they included touching the rim or content of stock containers with compresses or small containers, storing of cotton balls soaked in an antiseptic, and hand-touching the spout of pump dispenser. Filling containers by topping-up was considered good practice by 18.3% of participants. Half (52.1%) of participants acknowledged indefinite reuse of containers. Besides small differences, the findings were similar across the study sites and professional groups. Among IPC-trained staff, proportions recognizing all 4 risk practices were higher compared to non-trained staff (35.9% versus 23.8%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings can guide tailored training and IPC implementation at the healthcare facility and national levels, and sensitize stakeholders' and funders' interest.

Current issues in hand hygiene

BACKGROUND

Multiple aspects of hand hygiene have changed in recent years.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted to identify recent articles about hand hygiene.

RESULTS

The COVID-19 pandemic caused temporary changes in hand hygiene compliance rates and shortages of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHSs), and in marketing of some products that were ineffective or unsafe. Fortunately, ABHSs are effective against SARS-CoV-2 and other emerging pathogens including Candida auris and mpox. Proper placement, maintenance, and design of ABHS dispensers have gained additional attention. Current evidence suggests that if an adequate volume of ABHS has been applied to hands, personnel must rub their hands together for at least 15 seconds before hands feel dry (dry time), which is the primary driver of antimicrobial efficacy. Accordingly, practical methods of monitoring hand hygiene technique are needed. Direct observation of hand hygiene compliance remains a challenge in many healthcare facilities, generating increased interest in automated hand hygiene monitoring systems (AHHMSs). However, several barriers have hindered widespread adoption of AHHMSs. AHHMSs must be implemented as part of a multimodal improvement program to successfully improve hand hygiene performance rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Remaining gaps in our understanding of hand hygiene warrant continued research into factors impacting hand hygiene practices.

Growth of Gram-Negative Bacteria in Antiseptics, Disinfectants and Hand Hygiene Products in Two Tertiary Care Hospitals in West Africa-A Cross-Sectional Survey

Antiseptics, disinfectants, and hand hygiene products can act as reservoirs of Gram-negative bacteria causing healthcare-associated infections. This problem is rarely documented in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. In a cross-sectional survey, we assessed the bacterial contamination of antiseptics, disinfectants, and hand hygiene products in two university hospitals in Burkina Faso and Benin. During ward visits and staff interviews, in-use products were cultured for the presence of Gram-negative bacteria. The growth of Gram-negative bacteria was absent or rare in alcohol-based products, povidone iodine, and Dakin solution. Contamination was highest (73.9% (51/69)) for liquid soap products (versus antiseptic/disinfectants (4.5%, 7/157) (p < 0.0001)), mostly used in high-risk areas and associated with high total bacterial counts (>10,000 colony-forming units/mL). Contaminating flora (105 isolates) included Enterobacterales and the Vibrio non-cholerae/Aeromonas group (17.1%) and non-fermentative Gram-negative rods (82.8%). Multidrug resistance was present among 9/16 Enterobacterales (Klebsiella and Enterobacter spp.) and 3/12 Acinetobacter spp., including carbapenem resistance (Acinetobacter baumannii: NDM, Pseudomonas stutzeri: VIM). The risk factors for contamination included the type of product (cleaning grade and in-house prepared liquid soap), use of recycled disposable containers and soft drink bottles, absence of labeling, topping-up of containers, dilution with tap water (pharmacy and ward), and poor-quality management (procurement, stock management, expiry dates, and period after opening).

Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers in COVID-19 Prevention: A Multidimensional Perspective

The global use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) as an important means of controlling the transmission of infectious disease has increased significantly as governments and public health agencies across the world advocated hand hygiene as a preventative measure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the performance of these products is most commonly defined as a function of their alcohol concentration, they are multifaceted products in which an interplay of several factors is important in determining efficacy. This paper discusses the interplay between ABHS input (formulation) factors and output (product performance) factors in the context of a multidimensional perspective using a novel representative paradigm. In the model, represented in the form of a three-dimensional tetrahedron, each of the faces represents inputs in the manufacturing of the ABHS product, which are the type and amount of alcohol, the inactive ingredients, the formulation and the manufacturing practices. The four corners of the tetrahedron represent the product performance factors which include product efficacy, sensory characteristics, usage and compliance and product safety. The multidimensional approach to the formulation and evaluation of ABHS shows that several factors contribute to the effectiveness and utility of these products. The paradigm provides a useful framework for manufacturers of ABHS and related healthcare products.

Critical Reliability Issues of Common Type Alcohol-Based Handrub Dispensers

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene can only be efficient if the whole hand surface is treated with sufficient alcohol-based handrub (ABHR); therefore, the volume of handrub applied is a critical factor in patient safety. The proper amount of ABHR should be provided by handrub dispensers. The aim of this study was to investigate the dispensing performance of wall-mounted ABHR dispensers commonly employed in hospital settings.

METHOD

In a multicenter study, we tested 46 dispensers (22 in laboratory and 24 in clinical environments), measuring dispensed ABHR volume during continuous use and after a period of non-use. The influence of the pumping mechanism, liquid level, ABHR formats, handrub composition, temperature, and atmospheric pressure was investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 7 out of the 22 investigated dispensers (32%) lost a significant amount of handrub; greater than 30% of the nominal volume after 8 h of non-use, thus frequently dispensing suboptimal volume, as measured in laboratory settings. Key influencing factors were found to be handrub format (gel or liquid), handrub level in the container and type of dispenser. When gel ABHR was used, after 4 h of non-use of the dispensers, the volume of the dispensed amount of ABHR insignificantly changed (97% of the original amount), while it technically decreased to zero in the case of liquid ABHR (1% of the original amount). The liquid level had a medium effect on the dispensed volume in each investigated case; the magnitude of this effect varied widely depending on the dispensing mechanism. When dispensers were in continuous use, they dispensed a cumulated 3 mL of ABHR from two consecutive pushes, while when they were not in use for 1 h, up to 4 consecutive pushes were necessary to provide a total of 3 mL ABHR. Design and production quality were also identified as important contributing factors with respect to the volume dispensed. Data collected in clinical settings confirmed these findings, for multiple types of dispensers.

CONCLUSION

All ABHR dispensers should be regularly audited to control the reference volume distributed, with particular attention paid to regular mechanical pump units filled with liquid handrub.

Nursing preference for alcohol-based hand rub volume

Background:

The effectiveness of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) is correlated with drying time, which depends on the volume applied. Evidence suggests that there is considerable variation in the amount of ABHR used by healthcare providers.

Objective:

We sought to identify the volume of ABHR preferred for use by nurses.

Methods:

A prospective observation study was performed in 8 units at a tertiary-care hospital. Nurses were provided pocket-sized ABHR bottles with caps to record each bottle opening. Nurses were instructed to use the volume of ABHR they felt was best. The average ABHR volume used per hand hygiene event was calculated using cap data and changes in bottle mass.

Results:

In total, 53 nurses participated and 140 nurse shifts were analyzed. The average ABHR dose was 1.09 mL. This value was greater for non-ICU nurses (1.18 mL) than ICU nurses (0.96 mL), but this difference was not significant. We detected no significant association between hand surface area and preferred average dose volume. The ABHR dose volume was 0.006 mL less per use as the number of applications per shift increased (P = .007).

Conclusions:

The average dose of ABHR used was similar to the dose provided by the hospital’s automated dispensers, which deliver 1.1 mL per dose. The volume of ABHR dose was inversely correlated with the number of applications of ABHR per shift and was not correlated with hand size. Further research to understand differences and drivers of ABHR volume preferences and whether automated ABHR dosing may create a risk for people with larger hands is warranted.

An elicitation study of critical care nurses' salient hand hygiene beliefs

AIM

To describe critical care nurses' hand hygiene attitudinal, normative referent, and control beliefs.

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene is the primary strategy to prevent healthcare-associated infections. Social influence is an underdeveloped hand hygiene strategy.

METHODS

This qualitative descriptive study was conducted with 25 ICU nurses in the southeastern United States. Data were collected using the Nurses' Salient Belief Instrument.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis generated four themes: Hand Hygiene is Protective; Nurses look to Nurses; Time-related Concerns; and Convenience is Essential.

CONCLUSION

Nurses look to nurses as hand hygiene referents and believe hand hygiene is a protective behaviour that requires time and functional equipment.

Bacteriological Aspects of Hand Washing: A Key for Health Promotion and Infections Control

The aim of this review is to show the historical aspects of hands washing for healthy life and explains how can reduce the transmission of community-acquired infectious agents by healthcare workers and patients. This review article is prepared based on available database. The key words used were hands washing, risk assessment, hands hygiene, bacterial flora, contamination, infection, nosocomial, tap water, sanitizer, bacterial resistance, hands bacterial flora, washing methods, antiseptics, healthcare workers, healthcare personnel, from PubMed, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Google Scholar. Data were descriptively analyzed. The insistence on hand washing has a history of 1400 years. The research results indicate that the bacteria released from the female washed hands in wet and dry condition was lower than from the male's hands with a significance level (3 CFU vs. 8 CFU; confidence interval 95%, P ≤ 0.001). The valuable results of the study indicated that released amount of bacterial flora from wet hands is more than 10 times in compared to dry hands. In addition, established monitoring systems for washing hands before and after patient's manipulation as well as after toilet were dominant indices to prevent the transfer of infectious agents to the patients. Increasing awareness and belief of the healthcare workers have shown an important role by about 30% reduction in the transfection. Hand washing could reduce the episodes of transmission of infectious agents in both community and healthcare settings. However, hand washing is an important key factor to prevent transmission of infectious agents to patients. There is no standard method for measuring compliance. Thus, permanent monitoring of hand washing to reduce the transmission of infections is crucial. Finally, the personnel must believe that hand washing is an inevitable approach to infection control.

Hand sanitizer-dispensing door handles increase hand hygiene compliance: a pilot study

Improving rates of hand hygiene compliance (HHC) has been shown to reduce nosocomial disease. We compared the HHC for a traditional wall-mounted unit and a novel sanitizer-dispensing door handle device in a hospital inpatient ultrasound area. HHC increased 24.5%-77.1% (P < .001) for the exam room with the sanitizer-dispensing door handle, whereas it remained unchanged for the other rooms. Technical improvements like a sanitizer-dispensing door handle can improve hospital HHC.

Hand rub dose needed for a single disinfection varies according to product: a bias in benchmarking using indirect hand hygiene indicator

Background: The 3 ml volume currently used as the hand hygiene (HH) measure has been explored as the pertinent dose for an indirect indicator of HH compliance. A multicenter study was conducted in order to ascertain the required dose using different products.

Method: The average contact duration before drying was measured and compared with references. Effective hand coverage had to include the whole hand and the wrist. Two durations were chosen as points of reference: 30 s, as given by guidelines, and the duration validated by the European standard EN 1500. Each product was to be tested, using standardized procedures, by three nosocomial infection prevention teams, for three different doses (3, 2 and 1.5 ml).

Results: Data from 27 products and 1706 tests were analyzed. Depending on the product, the dose needed to ensure a 30-s contact duration in 75% of tests ranging from 2 ml to more than 3 ml, and to ensure a contact duration exceeding the EN 1500 times in 75% of tests ranging from 1.5 ml to more than 3 ml. The aftermath interpretation is the following: if different products are used, the volume utilized does not give an unbiased estimation of the HH compliance. Other compliance evaluation methods remain necessary for efficient benchmarking.

The World Health Organization Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care and their consensus recommendations

The World Health Organization's Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care have been issued by WHO Patient Safety on 5 May 2009 on the occasion of the launch of the Save Lives: Clean Your Hands initiative. The Guidelines represent the contribution of more than 100 international experts and provide a comprehensive overview of essential aspects of hand hygiene in health care, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations, and lessons learned from testing their Advanced Draft and related implementation tools.

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

BACKGROUND

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Prospective, controlled, cross-over trial of alcohol-based hand gel in critical care units

BACKGROUND

There are limited data from prospective studies to indicate whether improvement in hand hygiene associated with the use of alcohol-based hand hygiene products results in improved patient outcomes.

DESIGN

A 2-year, prospective, controlled, cross-over trial of alcohol-based hand gel.

SETTING

The study was conducted in 2 medical-surgical ICUs for adults, each with 12 beds, from August 2001 to September 2003 at a university-associated, tertiary care teaching hospital.

METHODS

An alcohol-based hand gel was provided in one critical care unit and not provided in the other. After 1 year, the assignment was reversed. The hand hygiene adherence rate and the incidence of nosocomial infection were monitored. Samples for culture were obtained from nurses' hands every 2 months.

RESULTS

During 17,994 minutes of observation, which included 3,678 opportunities for hand hygiene, adherence rates improved dramatically after the introduction of hand gel, increasing from 37% to 68% in one unit and from 38% to 69% in the other unit (P< .001). Improvement was observed among all groups of healthcare workers. Hand hygiene rates were better at higher workloads when hand gel was available in the unit (P= .02). No substantial change in the rates of device-associated infection, infection due to multidrug-resistant pathogens, or infection due to Clostridium difficile was observed. Culture of samples from the hands of nursing staff revealed that an increased number of microbes and an increased number of microbe species was associated with longer fingernails (ie, more than 2 mm long), the wearing of rings, and/or lack of access to hand gel.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of alcohol-based gel resulted in a significant and sustained improvement in the rate of hand hygiene adherence. Fingernail length greater than 2 mm, wearing rings, and lack of access to hand gel were associated with increased microbial carriage on the hands. This improvement in the hand hygiene adherence rate was not associated with detectable changes in the incidence of healthcare-associated infection.

How “User Friendly” Is the Hospital for Practicing Hand Hygiene? An Ergonomic Evaluation

BACKGROUND

An important cause of nonoptimal hand hygiene may be lack of "user friendliness" of hand hygiene resources due to violation of ergonomic principles in the design of the hospital environment and lack of timely replenishment of consumable resources.

METHODS

An ergonomics-based tool, SWAG (for the four main hand hygiene resources-sinks, waste receptacles, alcohol-based hand rub dispensers, and gloves) was developed and implemented to assess the intensive care units and 59 individual rooms in the hospital for structural ergonomic characteristics that facilitate usage of these resources.

RESULTS

Several deficiencies in the structural layout of hand hygiene resources were identified that hinder their usage, such as poor visibility, difficulty of access, placement at undesirable height, lack of redundancy, and wide spatial separation of resources that are used sequentially. Consumable hand hygiene resources were often not available because of lack of timely replenishment.

DISCUSSION

Many simple inexpensive changes using ergonomic principles can be implemented to promote hand hygiene in hospitals.

Skin reactions related to hand hygiene and selection of hand hygiene products

BACKGROUND

In October 2004, The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the World Alliance for Patient Safety. Within the alliance, the first priority of the Global Patient Safety Challenge is to reduce health care-associated infection. A key action within the challenge is to promote hand hygiene in health care globally as well as at the country level through the campaign "Clean Care is Safer Care." As a result, the WHO is developing Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care, designed to be applicable throughout the world.

METHODS

This paper summarizes one component of the global WHO guidelines related to the impact of hand hygiene on the skin of health care personnel, including a discussion of types of skin reactions associated with hand hygiene, methods to reduce adverse reactions, and factors to consider when selecting hand hygiene products.

RESULTS

Health care professionals have a higher prevalence of skin irritation than seen in the general population because of the necessity for frequent hand hygiene during patient care.

CONCLUSION

Ways to minimize adverse effects of hand hygiene include selecting less irritating products, using skin moisturizers, and modifying certain hand hygiene practices such as unnecessary washing. Institutions need to consider several factors when selecting hand hygiene products: dermal tolerance and aesthetic preferences of users as well as practical considerations such as convenience, storage, and costs.

Hand Hygiene Behavior in a Pediatric Emergency Department and a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: Comparison of Use of 2 Dispenser Systems

• Background Adherence to hand hygiene standards is poor. Approaches and systems to improve hand hygiene practices warrant testing.

• Objective To compare the frequency of use of manually operated and touch-free dispensers of sanitizer for hand hygiene.

• Methods Manual and touch-free dispensers of alcohol sanitizer were placed in the emergency department and an intensive care unit of a large pediatric hospital for two 2-month periods for each type of dispenser. Counting devices installed in each dispenser and direct observations were used to determine actual frequency of and indications for hand hygiene.

• Results The touch-free dispensers were used significantly more often than were the manual dispensers. The means for the number of episodes of hand hygiene per hour were 4.42 for the touch-free dispensers and 3.33 for the manual dispensers (P = .04); the means for the number of episodes per patient per hour were 2.22 and 1.79, respectively (P = .004); and the means for the number of uses of the dispenser per day were 41.2 and 25.6, respectively (P = .02). However, the overall compliance rate was 38.4% (2136 episodes of hand hygiene per 5568 indications for hand hygiene).

• Conclusions The type of dispensing system influenced hand hygiene behavior. Nevertheless, overall hand hygiene compliance remained low. In order for interventions to have a major effect on hand hygiene, multiple factors must be considered.

The six golden rules to improve compliance in hand hygiene

Improvement of compliance in hand hygiene is probably the most effective step in reducing the incidence of nosocomial infections (NI). But improvement of compliance is known to be complex. Six possibilities for improving compliance are available although some of them may be difficult to carry out. Rule 1: Select an alcohol-based hand rub which has a good skin tolerance and is acceptable to health care workers to use. This has been shown to improve compliance. Rule 2: The hand rub shall be easily available. Wall dispensers near the patient and pocket bottles may well help. Other possibilities should be assessed locally. Rule 3: Implement teaching and promotion of hand hygiene, which has been shown to be very effective. This is may be the most effective tool but will cost time and money. If money is a problem, rule 4 may be the solution. Rule 4: Create a hospital budget which covers all costs involved with preventable nosocomial infection. Combine it with the budget for hand hygiene products. Even a small number of prevented NI largely outweighs the cost of effective hand hygiene products. Rule 5: Get senior staff to set a good example in order to motivate junior staff, because negligence in hand hygiene appears to correlate with the number of professional years. Rule 6: Have the patient-staff ratio well balanced. It has been shown that staff shortage decreases hand hygiene compliance. Other factors may be important as well, but implementation of these 6 golden rules could be an effective step into the right direction.

Hand hygiene: improved standards and practice for hospital care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the most recently published literature on hand hygiene practices in healthcare settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Adherence with recommendations for hand hygiene remains low, but key factors of noncompliance have been identified and corrective actions proposed. Current guidelines recommend the use of alcohol-based handrub formulations as the new standard of care, thus requiring a system change in most hospitals. In addition, healthcare worker education and motivation are obviously important to modify hand hygiene behavior and must be part of multimodal strategies to enhance compliance in hospitals. Compliance improvement is associated with reduced infection rates and resistance spread. Handrub application according to recommended practices is an alternative to conventional surgical handscrubbing with antiseptic soap and water for surgical hand preparation.

SUMMARY

System change must be addressed in most hospitals where alcohol-based handrubbing has not become a standard of care. Strategies to improve hand hygiene compliance must be multimodal and include staff education and motivation, the use of performance indicators, and hospital management support. Successful campaigns will result in reduced infection rates, antimicrobial resistance spread, and enhance patient safety.

Technique to determine contamination exposure routes and the economic efficiency of folded paper-towel dispensing

Handwashing and hand drying are key elements of infection control. Paper towels are generally accepted as the most hygienic means of drying hands and are often distributed from generic dispensers. Effective dispensing of towels is of importance economically and may influence infection control objectives if hands become contaminated during hand drying. In this study, a method to identify potential exposure routes for hand contamination and evaluate the efficiency of paper-towel dispensing is described and applied to 5 different folded paper towels using a generic wall-mounted dispenser. A total of 18 male and female participants of varying heights participated in pull testing of 400 paper towels each, in controlled hand-drying simulations. All events having the potential for hand contamination, including towel jamming, towels falling onto the floor, and incidental contact of paper exits, were monitored and documented. There was considerable variation in dispensing efficiency between different towel brands. One towel (Z) had significantly (P <.05) superior dispensing properties from the generic dispenser. Participants of a shorter height obtained a lower incidence of dispensing malfunctions using all towel products and type. The results indicated likely contamination exposure routes and wastage levels for each towel type. Environmental service managers and infection control practitioners should carefully consider, for economic and infection control reasons, the siting and design of towel dispensers and the types of towel purchased.

Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force

The Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings provides health-care workers (HCWs) with a review of data regarding handwashing and hand antisepsis in health-care settings. In addition, it provides specific recommendations to promote improved hand-hygiene practices and reduce transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to patients and personnel in health-care settings. This report reviews studies published since the 1985 CDC guideline (Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:231-43) and the 1995 APIC guideline (Larson EL, APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69) were issued and provides an in-depth review of hand-hygiene practices of HCWs, levels of adherence of personnel to recommended handwashing practices, and factors adversely affecting adherence. New studies of the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs and the low incidence of dermatitis associated with their use are reviewed. Recent studies demonstrating the value of multidisciplinary hand-hygiene promotion programs and the potential role of alcohol-based hand rubs in improving hand-hygiene practices are summarized. Recommendations concerning related issues (e.g., the use of surgical hand antiseptics, hand lotions or creams, and wearing of artificial fingernails) are also included.

Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force

The Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings provides health-care workers (HCWs) with a review of data regarding handwashing and hand antisepsis in health-care settings. In addition, it provides specific recommendations to promote improved hand-hygiene practices and reduce transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to patients and personnel in health-care settings. This report reviews studies published since the 1985 CDC guideline (Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:231-43) and the 1995 APIC guideline (Larson EL, APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69) were issued and provides an in-depth review of hand-hygiene practices of HCWs, levels of adherence of personnel to recommended handwashing practices, and factors adversely affecting adherence. New studies of the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs and the low incidence of dermatitis associated with their use are reviewed. Recent studies demonstrating the value of multidisciplinary hand-hygiene promotion programs and the potential role of alcohol-based hand rubs in improving hand-hygiene practices are summarized. Recommendations concerning related issues (e.g., the use of surgical hand antiseptics, hand lotions or creams, and wearing of artificial fingernails) are also included.