Use of alcohol hand sanitizer as an infection control strategy in an acute care facility

Rinse, gel, and foam - is there any evidence for a difference in their effectiveness in preventing infections?

BACKGROUND

Following publication of the 2009 World Health Organizations Guidelines for Hand Hygiene in Health Care, a debate has emerged regarding the relative antimicrobial efficacy of the different formats (rinse, gel, foam) of ABHRs and their ability to contribute to reduction of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs).

METHODS

Data regarding the in-vivo antimicrobial efficacy of ABHRs and other factors that likely affect their effectiveness in reducing HAIs were reviewed, and a comprehensive review of studies that reported the effectiveness of each of the three ABHR formats to improve hand hygiene compliance and reduce HAIs was conducted.

RESULTS

The amount of rubbing time it takes for hands to feel dry (dry time) is the major driver of ABHR antimicrobial efficacy. ABHR format is not a major factor, and several studies found that rinse, gel, and foam ABHRs have comparable in-vivo antimicrobial efficacy. Other factors that likely impact the ability of ABHRs to reduce transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens and HAIs include ABHR formulation, the volume applied to hands, aesthetic characteristics, skin tolerance, acceptance by healthcare personnel, and hand hygiene compliance rates. When accompanied by complementary strategies, promoting the use of each of the three ABHR formats has been associated with improvements in hand hygiene compliance rates. A review of 67 studies failed to identify an ABHR format that was significantly more effective in yielding statistically significant reductions in transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens or HAIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is insufficient to definitively determine if one ABHR format is more effective in reducing transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens and HAIs. More rigorous studies such as multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing the different formats are needed to establish if one format is significantly more effective in reducing HAIs.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of surgical site infection after orthopaedic surgery: an interrupted time series analysis of the nationwide surveillance database in Japan

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, hygiene awareness was increased in communities and hospitals. However, there is controversy regarding whether such circumstances affected the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) in the orthopaedic surgical field.

AIM

To examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of SSIs after orthopaedic surgery.

METHODS

The medical records of patients having undergone orthopaedic surgery were extracted from the nationwide surveillance database in Japan. The primary outcomes were the monthly incidences of total SSIs, deep or organ/space SSIs, and SSIs due to meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Interrupted time series analysis was conducted between pre-pandemic (January 2017 to March 2020) and pandemic (April 2020 to June 2021) periods.

RESULTS

A total of 309,341 operations were included. Interrupted time series analysis adjusted for seasonality showed no significant changes in the incidence of total SSIs (rate ratio 0.94 and 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.02), deep or organ/space SSIs (0.91, 0.72-1.15), or SSIs due to MRSA (1.07, 0.68-1.68) along with no remarkable slope changes in any parameter (1.00, 0.98-1.02; 1.00, 0.97-1.02; and 0.98, 0.93-1.03, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness and measures against the COVID-19 pandemic did not markedly influence the incidence of total SSIs, deep or organ/space SSIs, or SSIs due to MRSA following orthopaedic surgery in Japan.

Efficacy of a New Alcohol-Free Organic Acid-Based Hand Sanitizer against Foodborne Pathogens

In light of the global health crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous experts have deemed the utilization of hand sanitizers imperative as a precautionary measure against the virus. Consequently, the demand for hand sanitizers has experienced a substantial surge. Since the beginning of 2020, the utilization of alcohol-free hand sanitizers has been increasingly favored due to the potential risks associated with alcohol poisoning, flammability, as well as the adverse effects on skin lipid dissolution, dehydration, and sebum reduction, which can lead to severe cases of eczema and norovirus infections. In this study, we developed an aqueous hand sanitizer that does not contain alcohol. The sanitizer consists of naturally occurring, food-grade organic acids, including lactic, citric, and azelaic acids. Additionally, food-grade ammonium sulfate and a small amount of povidone-iodine (PVPI) were included in the formulation to create a synergistic and potent antibacterial effect. The effectiveness of the hand sanitizer was evaluated against four common foodborne pathogens, namely Clostridium botulinum, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus, via in vitro testing. The organic acids exhibited a synergistic inhibitory function, resulting in a 3-log reduction in CFU/mL. Furthermore, the presence of povidone-iodine and ammonium sulfate enhanced their antibacterial effect, leading to a 4-log reduction in CFU/mL. The hand sanitizer solution remained stable even after 60 days of storage. During this period, the detection of additional triiodide (I3-) ions occurred, which have the ability to release broad-spectrum molecular iodine upon penetrating the cell walls. This alcohol-free hand sanitizer may offer extended protection and is anticipated to be gentle on the skin. This is attributed to the presence of citric and lactic acids, which possess cosmetic properties that soften and smoothen the skin, along with antioxidant properties.

Impact on S. aureus and E. coli Membranes of Treatment with Chlorhexidine and Alcohol Solutions: Insights from Molecular Simulations and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

Membranes form the first line of defence of bacteria against potentially harmful molecules in the surrounding environment. Understanding the protective properties of these membranes represents an important step towards development of targeted anti-bacterial agents such as sanitizers. Use of propanol, isopropanol and chlorhexidine can significantly decrease the threat imposed by bacteria in the face of growing anti-bacterial resistance via mechanisms that include membrane disruption. Here we have employed molecular dynamics simulations and nuclear magnetic resonance to explore the impact of chlorhexidine and alcohol on the S. aureus cell membrane, as well as the E. coli inner and outer membranes. We identify how sanitizer components partition into these bacterial membranes, and show that chlorhexidine is instrumental in this process.

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.

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Rates of Ninety-Day Peri-Prosthetic Joint and Surgical Site Infections after Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study

Background: The impact of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the rate of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and superficial surgical site infections (SSI) is currently unknown. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate any changes in the rates of 90-day PJI or 30-day SSI, including trends in microbiology of the infections, during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the three years prior. Patients and Methods: An Institutional Review Board-approved, multicenter, retrospective study was conducted with five participating academic institutions across two healthcare systems in the northeastern United States. Primary TJA patients from the years 2017-2019 were grouped as a pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort and patients from the year 2020 were grouped as a COVID-19 pandemic cohort. Differences in patient demographics, PJI, SSI, and microbiology between the two cohorts were assessed. Results: A total of 14,844 TJAs in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort and 5,453 TJAs in the COVID-19 pandemic cohort were evaluated. There were no substantial differences of the combined 90-day PJI and 30-day superficial SSI rates between the pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort (0.35%) compared with the COVID-19 pandemic cohort (0.26%; p = 0.303). Conclusions: This study did not find any change in the rates of 90-day PJI or 30-day superficial SSI in patients undergoing primary TJA between a pre-COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 pandemic cohort. Larger national database studies may identify small but substantial differences in 90-day PJI and 30-day superficial SSI rates between these two time periods. Our data may support continued efforts to maintain high compliance with hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment, and limited hospital visitation whenever possible.

Spectroscopic methods for assessment of hand sanitizers

Sanitization of inanimate objects or body surfaces using disinfectant is essential for eliminating disease-causing pathogens and maintaining personal hygiene. With the advent of health emergencies, the importance and high demand for hand sanitizers (HS) are observed in everyday life. It is also important to know the constituent added to formulate HS, as the presence of harsh chemicals can cause skin irritation. In this study, different spectroscopic techniques were used to assess several commercially available HS along with the in-house prepared HS as per the WHO protocol. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and Raman spectroscopy identified the different HS chemical bonds and quantified the amount of alcohol and water in the HS. Varying amount of alcohols in HS, calibration profile was generated to identify its amount in commercial samples. Further, the commercial samples were also checked for contaminants whose presence in the HS might bring down its sanitization efficacy.

Comparative Assessment of the Efficacy of Commercial Hand Sanitizers Against Human Norovirus Evaluated by an in vivo Fingerpad Method

Human noroviruses (hNoV) are the leading cause of acute non-bacterial gastroenteritis worldwide and contaminated hands play a significant role in the spread of disease. Some hand sanitizers claim to interrupt hNoV transmission, but their antiviral efficacy on human hands is poorly characterized. The purpose of this work was to characterize the efficacy of representative commercial hand sanitizers against hNoV using an in vivo fingerpad method (ASTM E1838-17). Eight products [seven ethanol-based and one benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-based], and a benchmark 60% ethanol solution, were each evaluated on 10 human volunteers using the epidemic GII.4 hNoV strain. Virus titers before and after treatment were evaluated by RT-qPCR preceded by RNase treatment; product efficacy was characterized by log₁₀ reduction (LR) in hNoV genome equivalent copies after treatment. The benchmark treatment produced a 1.7 ± 0.5 LR, compared with Product A (containing 85% ethanol) which produced a 3.3 ± 0.3 LR and was the most efficacious (p < 0.05). Product B (containing 70% ethanol), while less efficacious than Product A (p < 0.05), performed better than the benchmark with a LR of 2.4 ± 0.4. Five of the other ethanol-based products (labeled ethanol concentration ranges of 62–80%) showed similar efficacy to the 60% ethanol benchmark with LR ranging from 1.3 to 2.0 (p > 0.05). Product H (0.1% BAK) was less effective than the benchmark with a LR of 0.3 ± 0.2 (p < 0.05). None of the products screened were able to completely eliminate hNoV (maximum assay resolution 5.0 LR). Product performance was variable and appears driven by overall formulation. There remains a need for more hand sanitizer formulations having greater activity against hNoV, a virus that is comparatively recalcitrant relative to other pathogens of concern in community, healthcare, and food preparation environments.

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.

Allergens in Medical Hand Skin Cleansers

Health care workers may be at risk of occupational allergic contact dermatitis because of their frequent exposure to medical hand skin cleansers. We identified American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 Allergens found in medical hand skin cleansers (waterless skin soaps, water-needed skin soaps, and skin disinfectants) in the United States and developed a list of "low-allergen" medical hand skin cleansers. Waterless skin soaps most commonly contained fragrance, tocopherol, and sodium benzoate. Top allergens in water-needed skin soaps included fragrance, chloroxylenol, propylene glycol, and cocamidopropyl betaine. The most common allergens identified in skin disinfectants were chlorhexidine, cocamide diethanolamine, and fragrance. We identified 11 waterless skin soaps that were free of American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 Allergens. Low-allergen products were also identified for water-needed skin soaps (2 products) and skin disinfectants (4 products). This information is accurate as of the date of publication; product availability and ingredients may change over time.

Comparison of knowledge, attitudes and hand hygiene behavioral intention in medical and nursing students

Introduction

Hand hygiene is crucial to prevent cross infection. Healthcare students are in a prime position to learn hand hygiene skills. The aim of this study was to analyze hand hygiene behavioral intentions of healthcare students before and after contact with the patient and to compare the knowledge of and attitude towards hand hygiene between medical and nursing students.

Methods

In a descriptive survey research design, convenience selection of a sample of medical students (n=657) and nursing students (n=303) was done from modules taught by the Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health in both Medicine and Nursing undergraduate degrees in four Spanish universities. The hand hygiene Questionnaire, a validated instrument to evaluate behavior, knowledge, and attitudes, was used.

Results

A significantly lower percentage of students reported always or almost always carrying out hand hygiene before contact with the patient or invasive procedures in comparison to the percentage complying after contact with secretions or with the patient. Although hand hygiene knowledge appears acceptable, its importance is not sufficiently valued.

Conclusions

There are deficiencies in behavioral intention, knowledge, and attitudes related to hand hygiene in medical and nursing students. Better results are observed among nursing students, especially those who have received specific training.

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.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of healthcare professionals regarding infection prevention at Gondar University referral hospital, northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study

Objectives

Workplace health and safety is vital in every organization particularly in the healthcare settings. The aim was to assess the levels of knowledge, attitude, and practices of the healthcare professionals towards safety at Gondar University referral hospital. An institution based cross-sectional study was conducted from February to June 2018. Proportional random sampling technique was used to include 282 study participants and data were collected using a structured self-administered questionnaire and analyzed using SPSS version 20.

Results

Among 282 study participants, 230 (81.6%), 181 (64.2%), and 162 (57.4%) had adequate knowledge, favorable attitude, and adequate practice scores, respectively. More than half (55.3%) of the study participants were untrained. There was a high (26.6%) prevalence of needlestick injury; however, the use of post-exposure prophylaxis after potential exposures was very limited. Generally, the levels of knowledge, attitude, and practice scores among the study participants were low. Therefore, there should be adequate and consistent supply of personal protective devices and other materials used for infection prevention and control. In addition, there should be awareness raising mechanism, including the provision of job aids and periodic training. Further, comprehensive studies should be conducted by including different types and levels of health facilities.

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.

Neonatal ethanol exposure from ethanol-based hand sanitisers in isolettes

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study is to measure the ethanol vapours in the isolette after use of hands cleaned with ethanol-based hand sanitiser (EBHS).

METHODS

Two squirts (1.5 mL) of hand sanitiser were rubbed on hands for 10 or 20 s before inserting the hands in the isolette for 5 min. Ethanol vapours were measured in the isolette with photoionisation detector and alcohol breathalyser for 30 min.

RESULTS

Peak ethanol concentration in the isolette was considerably higher with a 10 s hand rub (381±192 ppm) compared with a 20 s hand rub (99±50 ppm), and dissipated to ≤5 ppm within 30 min. Under routine care, EBHS use by care providers exposes neonates in isolettes to 3.7-7.3 or 1.4-2.8 mg/kg ethanol per day with 10 or 20 s hand rubs, respectively. The expected blood level from average single exposure is 0.036 mg/dL with 10 s hand rub and may increase further with multiple exposures in a short period.

CONCLUSION

Preterm neonates in the isolette are at risk of inadvertent exposure to ethanol. The expected blood alcohol level from this exposure is small and below 1 mg/dL level recommended by European Medicines Agency to limit the ethanol exposure in children. The unintended ethanol exposure can be avoided by rubbing hands for at least 20 s after applying EBHS.

Sensitizing Clostridium difficile Spores with Germinants on Skin and Environmental Surfaces Represents a New Strategy for Reducing Spores via Ambient Mechanisms

Background

Clostridium difficile is a leading cause of healthcare-associated infections worldwide. Prevention of C. difficile transmission is challenging because spores are not killed by alcohol-based hand sanitizers or many commonly used disinfectants. One strategy to control spores is to induce germination, thereby rendering the spores more susceptible to benign disinfection measures and ambient stressors.

Methods/Results

C. difficile spores germinated on skin after a single application of cholic acid-class bile salts and co-germinants; for 4 C. difficile strains, recovery of viable spores from skin was reduced by ~0.3 log₁₀CFU to 2 log₁₀CFU after 2 hours and ~1 log₁₀CFU to > 2.5 log₁₀CFU after 24 hours. The addition of taurocholic acid to 70% and 30% ethanol significantly enhanced reduction of viable spores on skin and on surfaces. Desiccation, and to a lesser extent the presence of oxygen, were identified as the stressors responsible for reductions of germinated spores on skin and surfaces. Additionally, germinated spores became susceptible to killing by pH 1.5 hydrochloric acid, suggesting that germinated spores that remain viable on skin and surfaces might be killed by gastric acid after ingestion. Antibiotic-treated mice did not become colonized after exposure to germinated spores, whereas 100% of mice became colonized after exposure to the same quantity of dormant spores.

Conclusions

Germination could provide a new approach to reduce C. difficile spores on skin and in the environment and to render surviving spores less capable of causing infection. Our findings suggest that it may be feasible to develop alcohol-based hand sanitizers containing germinants that reduce spores on hands.

Strategies to Prevent Acute Diarrhea and Upper Respiratory Tract Infection among Disaster Relief Workers

Background

Sickness among field relief workers prompted us to develop strategies for preventing manpower loss. Most studies have focused on the preparedness and safety of medical responders in the prepared phase, but those parameters are lacking in the response phase. This study attempted to identify effective ways to prevent medical team members from acquiring acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection (URI) based on our field reports. This was a retrospective cohort study. The 56 team members were from eight missions in total, including medial disaster relief and international humanitarian assistance, deployed between June 2007 and February 2010. The demographics of the participating members and their actions were examined for association with acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection episodes using a mixed-effect logistic regression model. One member (7.0%) with acute diarrhea and 11 (26.1%) members without acute diarrhea took doxycycline. The relationship between doxycycline and acute diarrhea episodes was not statistically signifi cant. However, while 6 of 14 team members (42.9%) with acute diarrhea used hand sanitizer, 35 of 42 team members (83.3%) without diarrhea used hand sanitizer. Only hand sanitizer use was statistically related to the prevention of acute diarrhea and URI (p value = 0.021, 0.032). Hand sanitizer is suggested to protect medical teams from acute diarrhea and URI in such challenging environments. Chemoprophylaxis for malaria remains dependent on the area of deployment.

Methods

Sickness among field relief workers prompted us to develop strategies for preventing manpower loss. Most studies have focused on the preparedness and safety of medical responders in the prepared phase, but those parameters are lacking in the response phase. This study attempted to identify effective ways to prevent medical team members from acquiring acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection (URI) based on our field reports. This was a retrospective cohort study. The 56 team members were from eight missions in total, including medial disaster relief and international humanitarian assistance, deployed between June 2007 and February 2010. The demographics of the participating members and their actions were examined for association with acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection episodes using a mixed-effect logistic regression model. One member (7.0%) with acute diarrhea and 11 (26.1%) members without acute diarrhea took doxycycline. The relationship between doxycycline and acute diarrhea episodes was not statistically signifi cant. However, while 6 of 14 team members (42.9%) with acute diarrhea used hand sanitizer, 35 of 42 team members (83.3%) without diarrhea used hand sanitizer. Only hand sanitizer use was statistically related to the prevention of acute diarrhea and URI (p value = 0.021, 0.032). Hand sanitizer is suggested to protect medical teams from acute diarrhea and URI in such challenging environments. Chemoprophylaxis for malaria remains dependent on the area of deployment.

Results

Sickness among field relief workers prompted us to develop strategies for preventing manpower loss. Most studies have focused on the preparedness and safety of medical responders in the prepared phase, but those parameters are lacking in the response phase. This study attempted to identify effective ways to prevent medical team members from acquiring acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection (URI) based on our field reports. This was a retrospective cohort study. The 56 team members were from eight missions in total, including medial disaster relief and international humanitarian assistance, deployed between June 2007 and February 2010. The demographics of the participating members and their actions were examined for association with acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection episodes using a mixed-effect logistic regression model. One member (7.0%) with acute diarrhea and 11 (26.1%) members without acute diarrhea took doxycycline. The relationship between doxycycline and acute diarrhea episodes was not statistically signifi cant. However, while 6 of 14 team members (42.9%) with acute diarrhea used hand sanitizer, 35 of 42 team members (83.3%) without diarrhea used hand sanitizer. Only hand sanitizer use was statistically related to the prevention of acute diarrhea and URI (p value = 0.021, 0.032). Hand sanitizer is suggested to protect medical teams from acute diarrhea and URI in such challenging environments. Chemoprophylaxis for malaria remains dependent on the area of deployment.

Conclusion

Sickness among field relief workers prompted us to develop strategies for preventing manpower loss. Most studies have focused on the preparedness and safety of medical responders in the prepared phase, but those parameters are lacking in the response phase. This study attempted to identify effective ways to prevent medical team members from acquiring acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection (URI) based on our field reports. This was a retrospective cohort study. The 56 team members were from eight missions in total, including medial disaster relief and international humanitarian assistance, deployed between June 2007 and February 2010. The demographics of the participating members and their actions were examined for association with acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection episodes using a mixed-effect logistic regression model. One member (7.0%) with acute diarrhea and 11 (26.1%) members without acute diarrhea took doxycycline. The relationship between doxycycline and acute diarrhea episodes was not statistically signifi cant. However, while 6 of 14 team members (42.9%) with acute diarrhea used hand sanitizer, 35 of 42 team members (83.3%) without diarrhea used hand sanitizer. Only hand sanitizer use was statistically related to the prevention of acute diarrhea and URI (p value = 0.021, 0.032). Hand sanitizer is suggested to protect medical teams from acute diarrhea and URI in such challenging environments. Chemoprophylaxis for malaria remains dependent on the area of deployment.

Predicting and explaining behavioral intention and hand sanitizer use among US Army soldiers

BACKGROUND

Using hand sanitizers can reduce bacterial contamination and is an efficient and inexpensive method of preventing infections. The purpose of this study was to explore the behavioral intention (low and absolute), attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control of hand sanitizer use among US Army soldiers.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed following an expert panel (N = 5) review and 2 pilot studies (N = 35) to ensure questionnaire validity and clarity. Surveys were distributed among nontrainee soldiers during lunch periods. A total of 201 surveys were collected.

RESULTS

Results indicated that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls explained 64% of the variance in behavioral intention. Attitude remained the strongest predictor of behavior (β = 0.70, P < .01), followed by subjective norms (β = 0.18; P < .01), with significant differences between low and absolute intenders.

CONCLUSIONS

Soldiers with absolute intention to use hand sanitizers hold significantly different behavioral and normative beliefs than low intenders. Other soldiers create negative social pressure about using hand sanitizers, indicating that if other soldiers use hand sanitizers, they will refuse to do so. Intervention to ensure use of hand sanitizer should focus on strengthening behavioral and normative beliefs among low intenders. This should increase the overall well being of the military.

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.

What Transmission Precautions Best Control Influenza Spread in a Hospital?

Influenza is a significant problem within hospitals, leading to extended hospital stays, excess morbidity and mortality, and economic loss. Prevention and control strategies are generally "bundled"; therefore, the individual effects of particular strategies and the value of combined strategies cannot be determined directly, making it difficult to discern the optimal strategy. To quantify the individual and joint effectiveness of several known influenza infection control measures used in general hospitals, we simulated influenza transmission at a hypothetical hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, during a 1-year seasonal epidemic (June 2012-June 2013), using a susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered (SEIR) compartmental model. The hospital population comprised patients and health-care workers, interacting with its larger community population. Parameter ranges and values were determined from the literature (both national and local to Ann Arbor) and took into account coverage levels and effects of vaccination. The most effective individual strategies, based on percent reduction of cases, were: hand-washing (11%-27%), health-care worker vaccination (6%-19%), prevaccination of patients (4%-17%), patient isolation (5%-16%), antiviral treatment (4%-14%), and use of face masks (3%-10%). Use of all strategies together with ideal levels of compliance could potentially halve the number of observed hospital cases of influenza; under a more realistic scenario, an almost 40% reduction could be achieved. A multifaceted approach is imperative to control and prevent nosocomial influenza in health-care settings.

Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections through Hand Hygiene

Previously published guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for hand hygiene in healthcare facilities. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format, update recommendations with the most current scientific evidence, and elucidate topics that warrant clarification or more robust research. Additionally, this document is designed to assist healthcare facilities in implementing hand hygiene adherence improvement programs, including efforts to optimize hand hygiene product use, monitor and report back hand hygiene adherence data, and promote behavior change. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Interventions to improve patient hand hygiene: a systematic review

Nosocomial pathogens may be acquired by patients via their own unclean hands, but there has been relatively little emphasis on patient hand hygiene as a tool for preventing healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs). The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of patient hand hygiene interventions in reducing HCAIs and improving patient hand hygiene rates compared to usual care. Electronic databases and grey literature were searched to August 2014. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies were included if they evaluated a patient hand hygiene intervention conducted in an acute or chronic healthcare facility and included HCAI incidence and/or patient hand hygiene rates as an outcome. All steps were performed independently by two investigators. Ten studies were included, most of which were uncontrolled before-after studies (N=8). The majority of interventions (N=7) were multi-modal, with components similar to healthcare worker hand hygiene programmes, including education, reminders, audit and feedback, and provision of hand hygiene products. Six studies reported HCAI outcomes and four studies assessed patient hand hygiene rates; all demonstrated improvements but were at moderate to high risk of bias. In conclusion, interventions to improve patient hand hygiene may reduce the incidence of HCAIs and improve hand hygiene rates, but the quality of evidence is low. Future studies should use stronger designs and be more selective in their choice of outcomes.

Infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamases producing Enterobacteriaceae: clinical and economic impact in patients hospitalized in 2 teaching hospitals in Dakar, Senegal

BACKGROUND

Infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamases producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) are of major concern in clinical practice because of limited therapeutic options effective to treat them. Published studies showed that ESBL-E, widely spread in Europe, United States or Asia; are also frequent in Africa. However, the impact of ESBL-E infections is yet to be adequately determined in Sub-Saharan African countries, particularly in Senegal. The aim of our study was to estimate the incidence rate of ESBL-E infections and to assess their clinical and economic impact in Senegal.

METHODS

Two retrospective cohort studies were conducted in patients hospitalized from April to October 2012. A classic retrospective cohort study comparing patients infected by an Enterobacteriaceae producer of ESBL (ESBL+) and patients infected by an Enterobacteriaceae non-producer of ESBL (ESBL-) was carried out for fatal outcomes. Besides, a retrospective parallel cohort study comparing infected patients by an ESBL+ and ESBL- versus uninfected patients was carried out for the excess LOS analyses. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for fatal outcomes. A multistate model and a cost-of-illness analysis were used to estimate respectively the excess length of stay (LOS) attributable to ESBL production and costs associated. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the independent effect of ESBL+ and ESBL- infections on LOS.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of ESBL-E infections was 3 cases/1000 patient-days (95 % CI: 2.4-3.5 cases/1000 patient-days). Case fatality rate was higher in ESBL+ than in ESBL- infections (47.3 % versus 22.4 %, p = 0.0006). Multivariable analysis indicated that risk factors for fatal outcomes were the production of ESBL (OR = 5.7, 95 % CI: 3.2-29.6, p = 0.015) or being under mechanical ventilation (OR = 5.6, 95 % CI: 2.9-57.5, p = 0.030). Newborns and patients suffering from meningitidis or cancer were patients at-risk for fatal outcomes. ESBL production increased hospital LOS (+4 days) and reduced significantly the hazard of discharge after controlling for confounders (HR = 0.3, 95 % CI:0.2-0.4). The additional cost associated with ESBL-production of €100 is substantial given the lower-middle-income status of Senegal.

CONCLUSION

Our findings show an important clinical and economic impact of ESBL-E infections in Senegal and emphasize the need to implement adequate infection control measures to reduce their incidence rate. An antibiotic stewardship program is also crucial to preserve the effectiveness of our last-resort antibiotic drugs.

Visitor characteristics and alcohol-based hand sanitizer dispenser locations at the hospital entrance: Effect on visitor use rates

BACKGROUND

Hospital visitors' hand hygiene (HH) is an important aspect of preventing health care-associated infections, but little is known about visitors' use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (AHS). The study aim was to examine if use of AHS is influenced by visitor characteristics and the location of AHS within the lobby of a large hospital.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted with AHS placed in 3 different locations. The data included visitor characteristics and if AHS were used.

RESULTS

The results suggest that visitors are 5.28 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.68-7.82) more likely to use AHS when dispensers are located in the middle of the lobby with limited landmarks or barriers, 1.35 times more likely to use the AHS in the afternoon compared with the morning, or when they are younger visitors (adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.97). Individuals in a group are more likely (adjusted odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.84) to use AHS.

DISCUSSION

In addition to location, time of day, and age, there is a group effect that results in visitors being more likely to use AHS when in a group. The increased use related to groups may serve as a mechanism to encourage visitor HH.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest future research opportunities to investigate the effect of group dynamics and social pressure on visitor AHS use and to identify strategies for improving visitor HH.

Comparative assessment of antimicrobial efficacy of different hand sanitizers: An in vitro study

Background:

To evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of four different hand sanitizers against Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus faecalis as well as to assess and compare the antimicrobial effectiveness among four different hand sanitizers.

Materials and Methods:

The present study is an in vitro study to evaluate antimicrobial efficacy of Dettol, Lifebuoy, PureHands, and Sterillium hand sanitizers against clinical isolates of the aforementioned test organisms. The well variant of agar disk diffusion test using Mueller-Hinton agar was used for evaluating the antimicrobial efficacy of hand sanitizers. McFarland 0.5 turbidity standard was taken as reference to adjust the turbidity of bacterial suspensions. Fifty microliters of the hand sanitizer was introduced into each of the 4 wells while the 5^th well incorporated with sterile water served as a control. This was done for all the test organisms and plates were incubated in an incubator for 24 h at 37΀C. After incubation, antimicrobial effectiveness was determined using digital caliper (mm) by measuring the zone of inhibition.

Results:

The mean diameters of zones of inhibition (in mm) observed in Group A (Sterillium), Group B (PureHands), Group C (Lifebuoy), and Group D (Dettol) were 22 ± 6, 7.5 ± 0.5, 9.5 ± 1.5, and 8 ± 1, respectively. Maximum inhibition was found with Group A against all the tested organisms. Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance, followed by post hoc test for group-wise comparisons. The difference in the values of different sanitizers was statistically significant at P < 0.001.

Conclusion:

Sterillium was the most effective hand sanitizer to maintain the hand hygiene.

Cost-effectiveness of a hand hygiene program on health care-associated infections in intensive care patients at a tertiary care hospital in Vietnam

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of a hand hygiene (HH) program in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is largely unknown. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a HH program in a large tertiary Vietnamese hospital.

METHODS

This was a before and after study of a hand hygiene program where HH compliance, incidence of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), and costs were analyzed.The HH program was implemented in 2 intensive care and 15 critical care units. The program included upgrading HH facilities, providing alcohol-based handrub at point of care, HH campaigns, and continuous HH education.

RESULTS

The HH compliance rate increased from 25.7% to 57.5% (P < .001). The incidence of patients with HAI decreased from 31.7% to 20.3% (P < .001) after the intervention. The mean cost for patients with HAI was $1,908, which was 2.5 times higher than the costs for patients without an HAI. The mean attributable cost of an HAI was $1,131. The total cost of the HH program was $12,570, which equates to a per-patient cost of $6.5. The cost-effectiveness was estimated at -$1,074 or $1,074 saved per HAI prevented. The intervention remained cost savings under various scenarios with lower HAI rates.

CONCLUSION

The HH program is an effective strategy in reducing the incidence of HAIs in intensive care units and is cost-effective in Vietnam. HH programs need to be encouraged across Vietnam and other LMICs.

TS, Setlow P, Donskey CJ. Unlocking the Sporicidal Potential of Ethanol: Induced Sporicidal Activity of Ethanol against Clostridium difficile and Bacillus Spores under Altered Physical and Chemical Conditions

Background

Due to their efficacy and convenience, alcohol-based hand sanitizers have been widely adopted as the primary method of hand hygiene in healthcare settings. However, alcohols lack activity against bacterial spores produced by pathogens such as Clostridium difficile and Bacillus anthracis. We hypothesized that sporicidal activity could be induced in alcohols through alteration of physical or chemical conditions that have been shown to degrade or allow penetration of spore coats.

Principal Findings

Acidification, alkalinization, and heating of ethanol induced rapid sporicidal activity against C. difficile, and to a lesser extent Bacillus thuringiensis and Bacillus subtilis. The sporicidal activity of acidified ethanol was enhanced by increasing ionic strength and mild elevations in temperature. On skin, sporicidal ethanol formulations were as effective as soap and water hand washing in reducing levels of C. difficile spores.

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate that novel ethanol-based sporicidal hand hygiene formulations can be developed through alteration of physical and chemical conditions.

Strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections through hand hygiene

Previously published guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for hand hygiene in healthcare facilities. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format, update recommendations with the most current scientific evidence, and elucidate topics that warrant clarification or more robust research. Additionally, this document is designed to assist healthcare facilities in implementing hand hygiene adherence improvement programs, including efforts to optimize hand hygiene product use, monitor and report back hand hygiene adherence data, and promote behavior change. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections through Hand Hygiene

Previously published guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for hand hygiene in healthcare facilities. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format, update recommendations with the most current scientific evidence, and elucidate topics that warrant clarification or more robust research. Additionally, this document is designed to assist healthcare facilities in implementing hand hygiene adherence improvement programs, including efforts to optimize hand hygiene product use, monitor and report back hand hygiene adherence data, and promote behavior change. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Reduction in Surgical Site Infections in Neurosurgical Patients Associated With a Bedside Hand Hygiene Program in Vietnam

Objective.

We conducted an intervention study to assess the impact of the use of an alcohol-chlorhexidine-based hand sanitizer on surgical site infection (SSI) rates among neurosurgical patients in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Design.

A quasi-experimental study with an untreated control group and assessment of neurosurgical patients admitted to 2 neurosurgical wards at Cho Ray Hospital between July 11 and August 15, 2000 (before the intervention), and July 14 and August 18, 2001 (after the intervention). A hand sanitizer with 70% isopropyl alcohol and 0.5% Chlorhexidine gluconate was introduced, and healthcare workers were trained in its use on ward A in September 2000. No intervention was made in ward B. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions of SSI were used. Patient SSI data were collected on standardized forms and were analyzed using Stata software (Stata).

Results.

A total of 786 patients were enrolled: 377 in the period before intervention (156 in ward A and 221 in ward B) and 409 in the period after intervention (159 in ward A and 250 in ward B). On ward A after the intervention, the SSI rate was reduced by 54% (from 8.3% to 3.8%; P = .09), and more than half of superficial SSIs were eliminated (7 of 13 vs 0 of 6 in ward B; P = .007). On ward B, the SSI rate increased by 22% (from 7.2% to 9.2%; P = .8). In patients without SSI, the median postoperative length of stay and the duration of antimicrobial use were reduced on ward A (both from 8 to 6 days; P &lt;.001) but not on ward B.

Conclusions.

Our study demonstrates that introduction of a hand sanitizer can both reduce SSI rates in neurosurgical patients, with particular impact on superficial SSIs, and reduce the overall postoperative length of stay and the duration of antimicrobial use. Hand hygiene programs in developing countries are likely to reduce SSI rates and improve patient outcomes.

Evaluation of an Alcohol-Based Surgical Hand Disinfectant Containing a Synergistic Combination of Farnesol and Benzethonium Chloride for Immediate and Persistent Activity Against Resident Hand Flora of Volunteers and With a Novel In Vitro Pig Skin Model

Objective.

To evaluate the immediate, persistent and sustained in vivo activity of an alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectant, consisting of a zinc gel and a preservative system containing a synergistic combination of farnesol and benzethonium chloride (ZBF disinfectant), and to develop a pig skin model for in vitro evaluation of the immediate and persistent efficacy of alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectants against resident hand flora.

Design.

The in vivo immediate, persistent, and sustained activity of ZBF disinfectant was evaluated using human volunteers and the “glove-juice” method described in the US Food and Drug Administration's Tentative Final Monograph (FDA-TFM) for Healthcare Antiseptic Products. A novel in vitro pig skin model was developed to compare the immediate and persistent activity of alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectants against resident flora usingStaphylococcus epidermidisas the test organism. Four alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectants were evaluated using this model.

Results.

The results for the ZBF disinfectant exceed the FDA-TFM criteria for immediate, persistent, and sustained activity required for surgical hand disinfectants. The reduction factors for the 4 hand disinfectants obtained using the pig skin model show good agreement with the log10reductions in concentrations of hand flora obtained using human volunteers to test for immediate and persistent activity.

Conclusion.

The ZBF disinfectant we evaluated met the FDA-TFM criteria for surgical hand disinfectants. The immediate and persistent efficacy of the surgical hand disinfectants evaluated with the novel pig skin model described in this study shows good agreement with the results obtained in vivo.

Social Marketing Analysis of 2 Years of Hand Hygiene Promotion

Objective.

To assess published hand hygiene behavioral interventions that employed a social marketing framework and to recommend improvements to future interventions.

Methods.

We performed a systematic literature review by searching the PubMed database and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for published articles about hand hygiene behavioral interventions in healthcare facilities, schools, and community settings. Our analysis included articles that describe multifaceted interventions and evaluated them with predefined social marketing benchmark criteria.

Results.

Of 53 interventions analyzed in this review, 16 (30.2%) employed primary formative audience research, 5 (9.4%) incorporated social or behavioral theories, 27 (50.9%) employed segmentation and targeting of the audience, 44 (83.0%) used components of the “marketing mix,” 3 (5.7%) considered the influence of competing behaviors, 7 (13.2%) cultivated relationships with the target audience, and 15 (28.3%) provided simple behavioral messages. Thirty-five (66.0%) of the interventions demonstrated a significant improvement in performance, but only 21 (39.6%) were considered to have a strong evaluative design. The median duration of the interventions was 8.0 months.

Conclusions.

From a social marketing perspective, the promotion of hand hygiene could be improved in several ways. The effectiveness of social marketing in hand hygiene promotion should be tested in future interventions.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies to encourage patients to remind healthcare professionals about their hand hygiene

BACKGROUND

Patients could help to improve the hand hygiene (HH) compliance of healthcare professionals (HCPs) by reminding them to sanitize their hands.

AIM

To review the effectiveness of strategies aimed at increasing patient involvement in reminding HCPs about their HH.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted across Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO between 1980 and 2013.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight out of a possible 1956 articles were included. Of these, 23 articles evaluated the effectiveness of developed patient-focused strategies and five articles examined patients' attitudes towards hypothetical strategies. Sixteen articles evaluated single-component strategies (e.g. videos) and 12 articles evaluated multi-modal approaches (e.g. combination of video and leaflet). Overall, the strategies showed promise in helping to increase patients' intentions and/or involvement in reminding HCPs about their HH. HCP encouragement appeared to be the most effective strategy. However, the methodological quality of the articles in relation to addressing the specific aims of this review was generally weak.

CONCLUSION

A number of strategies are available to encourage patients to question HCPs about their HH. Better controlled studies with more robust outcome measures will enhance understanding about which strategies may be most successful and why.

Hand hygiene--evaluation of three disinfectant hand sanitizers in a community setting

Hand hygiene is acknowledged as the single most important measure to prevent nosocomial infections in the healthcare setting. Similarly, in non-clinical settings, hand hygiene is recognised as a key element in helping prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three different disinfectant hand sanitizers in reducing the burden of bacterial hand contamination in 60 healthy volunteers in a community setting, both before and after education about the correct use of hand sanitizers. The study is the first to evaluate the efficacy and ease of use of different formulations of hand rubs used by the general population. The products tested were: Sterillium (perfumed, liquid), desderman pure gel (odorless, gel) and Lavit (perfumed, spray). Sterillium and desderman are EN1500 (hygienic hand rub) certified products (available in pharmacy) and Lavit is non EN1500 certified and available in supermarkets. The two EN1500 certified products were found to be significantly superior in terms of reducing bacterial load. desderman pure gel, Sterillium and Lavit reduced the bacterial count to 6.4%, 8.2% and 28.0% respectively. After education in the correct use of each hand rub, the bacterial load was reduced even further, demonstrating the value of education in improving hand hygiene. Information about the testers' perceptions of the three sanitizers, together with their expectations of a hand sanitizer was obtained through a questionnaire. Efficacy, followed by skin compatibility were found to be the two most important attributes of a hand disinfectant in our target group.

epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England

National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England were originally commissioned by the Department of Health and developed during 1998-2000 by a nurse-led multi-professional team of researchers and specialist clinicians. Following extensive consultation, they were first published in January 2001(1) and updated in 2007.(2) A cardinal feature of evidence-based guidelines is that they are subject to timely review in order that new research evidence and technological advances can be identified, appraised and, if shown to be effective for the prevention of HCAI, incorporated into amended guidelines. Periodically updating the evidence base and guideline recommendations is essential in order to maintain their validity and authority. The Department of Health commissioned a review of new evidence and we have updated the evidence base for making infection prevention and control recommendations. A critical assessment of the updated evidence indicated that the epic2 guidelines published in 2007 remain robust, relevant and appropriate, but some guideline recommendations required adjustments to enhance clarity and a number of new recommendations were required. These have been clearly identified in the text. In addition, the synopses of evidence underpinning the guideline recommendations have been updated. These guidelines (epic3) provide comprehensive recommendations for preventing HCAI in hospital and other acute care settings based on the best currently available evidence. National evidence-based guidelines are broad principles of best practice that need to be integrated into local practice guidelines and audited to reduce variation in practice and maintain patient safety. Clinically effective infection prevention and control practice is an essential feature of patient protection. By incorporating these guidelines into routine daily clinical practice, patient safety can be enhanced and the risk of patients acquiring an infection during episodes of health care in NHS hospitals in England can be minimised.

Current and emergent strategies for disinfection of hospital environments

A significant number of hospital-acquired infections occur due to inefficient disinfection of hospital surfaces, instruments and rooms. The emergence and wide spread of multiresistant forms of several microorganisms has led to a situation where few compounds are able to inhibit or kill the infectious agents. Several strategies to disinfect both clinical equipment and the environment are available, often involving the use of antimicrobial chemicals. More recently, investigations into gas plasma, antimicrobial surfaces and vapour systems have gained interest as promising alternatives to conventional disinfectants. This review provides updated information on the current and emergent disinfection strategies for clinical environments.

Hand hygiene perception among health care workers in Hungarian hospitals: prior to a nationwide microbiological survey

Transmission of pathogens via healthcare workers' (HCWs) hands is one of the most frequent means of spreading multi-resistant organisms and occurring healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in hospitals. The role of contaminated hands in pathogen transmission was recognized by Hungarian physician, Ignác Semmelweis. Hand hygiene prevents cross-infections in hospitals, but numerous epidemiological and microbiology-based studies have documented low compliance of HCWs with this simple procedure. Furthermore, hand hygiene perception of HCWs plays an important role in determining hand hygiene compliance. Our aim was to describe the opinion of HCWs about their perception regarding hand hygiene practice. Our further goal was to strengthen a laboratory basis for bacterial backup control of nosocomial pathogens. A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted between December 2010 and February 2011 in 13 participating hospitals in Hungary. HCWs know that there is correlation between contaminated hands and HAIs (83%), but neither the frequency (62%) nor the implementation (73%) of their hand hygiene performance are satisfying.We recommend that multimodal interventions - highlighted active microbiological surveillance of HCWs' hands - are the most suitable strategies to reduce the occurrence of HAIs and to determine their impact on cross-transmission of microorganisms and to overcome barriers of HCWs.

Common hand sanitizer may distort readings of breathalyzer tests in the absence of acute intoxication

OBJECTIVES

The use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers has recently become widespread. To the authors' knowledge, no previous study has examined whether application of ethanol-based hand sanitizers by the person operating a common breathalyzer machine will affect the accuracy of the readings. This was a prospective study investigating whether the use of hand sanitizer applied according to manufacturer's recommendations (Group I), applied improperly at standard doses (Group II), or applied improperly at high doses (Group III) had an effect on breathalyzer readings of individuals who had not ingested alcohol.

METHODS

The participants of the prospective study were divided into three groups to assess the effect of hand sanitizer on breathalyzer readings. Group I used one pump (1.5 mL) of hand sanitizer (Purell), allowing the hands to dry per manufacturer's recommendations; Group II used one pump (1.5 mL), without allowing the hands to dry; and Group III used two pumps (3 mL), without allowing the hands to dry. Breathalyzer measures for each group are presented as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR) and ranges. Differences between each sequential group (I vs. II and II vs. III) were assessed using a Mann-Whitney U-test (p < 0.05 significant).

RESULTS

There were 25 study participants in each group for a total of 75 participants. The initial breathalyzer readings of all study participants were 0.000 g/dL. The median breathalyzer reading was 0.004 g/dL in Group I (IQR = 0.001 to 0.008 g/dL), 0.051 g/dL in Group II (IQR = 0.043 to 0.064 g/dL), and 0.119 g/dL in Group III (IQR = 0.089 to 0.134 g/dL). Measures between each subsequent group were all statistically different (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of common alcohol-based hand sanitizer may cause false-positive readings with a standard hospital breathalyzer when the operator uses the hand sanitizer correctly. The breathalyzer readings are further elevated if more sanitizer is used or if it is not allowed to dry appropriately.

Effectiveness of a comprehensive hand hygiene program for reduction of infection rates in a long-term care facility

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-based hand rubs play a key role in reducing the transmission of pathogens in acute care settings, especially as part of a comprehensive hand hygiene program. However, their use in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) has been virtually unstudied.

METHODS

Infection data, including those meeting McGeer et al and the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority's surveillance definitions, for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) and skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs), as well as hospitalization data were collected in a 174-bed LTCF for 22 months (May 2009 to February 2011). In March 2010, a comprehensive hand hygiene program including increased product availability, education for health care personnel (HCP) and residents, and an observation tool to monitor compliance, was implemented.

RESULTS

Infection rates for LRTIs were reduced from 0.97 to 0.53 infections per 1,000 resident-days (P = .01) following the intervention, a statistically significant decline. Infection rates for SSTIs were reduced from 0.30 to 0.25 infections per 1,000 resident-days (P = .65). A 54% compliance rate was observed among HCP.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the use of alcohol-based hand rubs, as part of a comprehensive hand hygiene program for HCP and residents, can decrease infection rates in LTCFs.

Comparative efficacy of commercially available alcohol-based hand rubs and World Health Organization-recommended hand rubs: formulation matters

BACKGROUND

Use of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs) effectively reduces transmission of pathogenic microorganisms. However, the impact of alcohol concentration and format on product efficacy is currently being debated.

METHODS

Two novel ABHR formulations containing 70% ethanol were evaluated according to American Society for Testing and Materials E1174 (Health Care Personnel Handwash [HCPHW]) and European Norm (EN) 1500 global standards. Additionally, using E1174, the efficacy of these formulations was compared head-to-head against 7 representative commercially available ABHRs and 2 World Health Organization recommended formulations containing alcohol concentrations of 60% to 90%.

RESULTS

The novel ABHR formulations met efficacy requirements for both HCPHW and EN 1500 when tested at application volumes typically used in these methods. Moreover, these formulations met HCPHW requirements when tested at a more realistic 2-mL product application. In contrast, the commercial ABHRs and World Health Organization formulations failed to meet HCPHW requirements using a 2-mL application. Importantly, product performance did not correlate with alcohol concentration.

CONCLUSION

Product formulation can greatly influence the overall antimicrobial efficacy of ABHRs and is a more important factor than alcohol concentration alone. Two novel ABHRs based on 70% ethanol have been formulated to meet global efficacy standards when tested at volumes more representative of normal product use in health care environments.

Effectiveness of hand hygiene and provision of information in preventing influenza cases requiring hospitalization

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in preventing cases of influenza requiring hospitalization.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter case-control study in 36 hospitals, in 2010 in Spain. Hospitalized influenza cases confirmed by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and three matched controls (two hospital and one community control) per case were selected. The use of non-pharmacological measures seven days before the onset of symptoms (frequency of hand washing, use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers and handwashing after touching contaminated surfaces) was collected.

RESULTS

We studied 813 cases hospitalized for influenza and 2274 controls. The frequency of hand washing 5-10 times (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.65) and >10 times (aOR=0.59) and handwashing after contact with contaminated surfaces (aOR=0.65) were protective factors and were dose-responsive (p<0.001). Alcohol-based hand sanitizers were associated with marginal benefits (aOR=0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

Frequent handwashing should be recommended to prevent influenza cases requiring hospitalization.

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.

Dermal and pulmonary absorption of propan-1-ol and propan-2-ol from hand rubs

BACKGROUND

It has been shown that nontoxic concentrations of ethanol are absorbed after hand hygiene using ethanol-based hand rubs. This study investigated whether absorption of propan-1-ol and propan-2-ol from commercially available hand rubs results in measurable concentrations after use.

METHODS

The pulmonary and dermal absorption of propanol during hand rubs was investigated. Rubs contained 70% (w/w) propan-1-ol, 63.14% (w/w) propan-2-ol, or 45% (w/w) propan-2-ol in combination with 30% (w/w) propan-1-ol.

RESULTS

Peak median blood levels were 9.15 mg/L for propan-1-ol and 5.3 mg/L for propan-2-ol after hygienic hand rubs and 18.0 mg/L and 10.0 mg/L, respectively, after surgical hand rubs. Under actual surgical conditions, the highest median blood levels were 4.08 mg/L for propan-1-ol and 2.56 mg/L for propan-2-ol. The same procedure performed with prevention of pulmonary exposure through the use of a gas-tight mask resulted in peak median blood levels of 1.16 mg/L of propan-1-ol and 1.74 mg/L of propan-2-ol.

CONCLUSION

Only minimal amounts of propanols are absorbed through the use of hand rubs. Based on our experimental data, the risk of chronic systemic toxic effects caused by hand rubs is likely negligible. However, our study did not evaluate the consequences of long-term daily and frequent use of hygienic hand rubs.

Risk factors and effectiveness of preventive measures against influenza in the community

Please cite this paper as: Castilla et al. (2013) Risk factors and effectiveness of preventive measures against influenza in the community. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 7(2) 177–183.

Background  The role of different risk exposures and preventive measures against influenza has not been well established.

Objective  The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors and measures to prevent influenza infection in the community.

Methods  We conducted a multicenter case–control study. Cases were 481 outpatients aged 18 years or older with laboratory‐confirmed influenza A(H1N1)09 in the 2009–2010 season in Spain. A control was selected for each case from outpatients from the same area matched by age and date of consultation. Information on risk situations, preventive measures and other variables was obtained by interview and review of the medical record.

Results  In the multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis, the risk of a diagnosis of influenza increased with the number of cohabitants (compared with <3 cohabitants, three cohabitants had an OR = 1·80, 95% CI 1·12–2·89, and ≥5 cohabitants had an OR = 2·66, 95% CI 1·31–5·41) and for health care workers (OR = 2·94, 95% CI 1·53–5·66). The use of metropolitan public transport was associated with a lower frequency of a diagnosis of influenza (OR = 0·45, 95% CI 0·30–0·68) but not the use of taxis or long‐distance transport. The influenza A(H1N1)09 vaccine had a protective effect (OR = 0·13, 95% CI 0·04–0·48), unlike hand washing after touching contaminated surfaces or the use of alcohol‐based hand sanitizers.

Conclusion  The home environment appears to play an important role in the spread of influenza in adults, but not the use of public transport. Health care workers have a higher risk of contracting influenza. Vaccination was the most effective preventive measure.

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.