The time burden of alcohol-based hand cleanser when using nonsterile gloves

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.

Direct Gloving vs Hand Hygiene Before Donning Gloves in Adherence to Hospital Infection Control Practices: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Current guidelines require hand hygiene before donning nonsterile gloves, but evidence to support this requirement is lacking.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of a direct-gloving policy on adherence to infection prevention practices in a hospital setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This mixed-method, multicenter, cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 4 academic centers in Baltimore, Maryland, or Iowa City, Iowa, from January 1, 2016, to November 30, 2017. Data analysis was completed April 25, 2019. Participants were 3790 health care personnel (HCP) across 13 hospital units.

Intervention

Hospital units were randomly assigned to direct gloving, with hand hygiene not required before donning gloves (intervention), or to usual care (hand hygiene before donning nonsterile gloves).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was adherence to the expected practice at room entry and exit. A random sample of HCPs' gloved hands were imprinted on agar plates at entry to contact precautions rooms. The intention-to-treat approach was followed, and all analyses were conducted at the level of the participating unit. Primary and secondary outcomes between treatment groups were assessed using generalized estimating equations with an unstructured working correlation matrix to adjust for clustering; multivariate analysis using generalized estimating equations was conducted to adjust for covariates, including baseline adherence.

Results

In total, 13 hospital units participated in the trial, and 3790 HCP were observed. Adherence to expected practice was greater in the 6 units with the direct-gloving intervention than in the 7 usual care units (1297 of 1491 [87%] vs 954 of 2299 [41%]; P < .001) even when controlling for baseline hand hygiene rates, unit type, and universal gloving policies (risk ratio [RR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.58-1.97). Glove use on entry to contact precautions rooms was also higher in the direct-gloving units (1297 of 1491 [87%] vs 1530 of 2299 [67%]; P = .008. The intervention had no effect on hand hygiene adherence measured at entry to non-contact precautions rooms (951 of 1315 [72%] for usual care vs 1111 of 1688 [66%] for direct gloving; RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.91-1.10]) or at room exit (1587 of 1897 [84%] for usual care vs 1525 of 1785 [85%] for direct gloving; RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.91-1.07]). The intervention was associated with increased total bacteria colony counts (adjusted incidence RR, 7.13; 95% CI, 3.95-12.85) and greater detection of pathogenic bacteria (adjusted incidence RR, 10.18; 95% CI, 2.13-44.94) on gloves in the emergency department and reduced colony counts in pediatrics units (adjusted incidence RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19-0.63), with no change in either total colony count (RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.25] for adult intensive care unit; RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.31-1.10] for hemodialysis unit) or presence of pathogenic bacteria (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.40-2.14] for adult intensive care unit; RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04] for hemodialysis unit) in the other units.

Conclusions and Relevance

Current guidelines require hand hygiene before donning nonsterile gloves, but evidence to support this requirement is lacking. The findings from this cluster randomized clinical trial indicate that a direct-gloving strategy without prior hand hygiene should be considered by health care facilities.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03119389.

Current issues in hand hygiene

Although substantial improvements in hand hygiene practices have occurred in recent years, many health care facilities continue to encounter challenges in achieving and maintaining high levels of hand hygiene compliance. Issues of current interest include the optimum dose of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) that should be applied, the impact of hand size and alcohol-based handrub dry times have on efficacy, and ideal hand hygiene technique. There is a need to determine which additional promotional activities can augment improvements in hand hygiene that are achieved by implementing the multimodal improvement strategy recommended by the World Health Organization. Monitoring hand hygiene performance and providing personnel with feedback on their performance are essential elements of successful improvement programs. Further research is needed to establish the most effective methods of providing feedback. Additional studies are needed to optimize strategies for performing direct observation of hand hygiene compliance, and to determine the role of supplementing direct observations using automated monitoring systems.

Hand Hygiene Compliance in the Setting of Trauma Resuscitation

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare-associated infections are a significant health burden, and hand hygiene (HH) is an essential prevention strategy. World Health Organization (WHO) 2009 guidelines recommend washing hands during five moments of patient care; 1)before touching a patient; 2)before a clean procedure; 3)after body fluid exposure; and 4)after touching a patient or 5)patient surroundings. HH opportunities at these 5 moments are frequent and compliance is low (22-60%). Infection risk is particularly high in trauma patients, and HH compliance during active trauma resuscitation has yet to be evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using video surveillance, all healthcare worker (HCW)-patient interactions for 30 patients were retrospectively reviewed for HH compliance according to WHO guidelines and glove use during initial resuscitation at a level-1 trauma center.

RESULTS

342 HCW-patient interactions and 1034 HH opportunities were observed. HH compliance with the WHO moments was 7% (71/1034) overall; 3% (10/375) before patient contact, 0% (0/178) before a clean procedure, 11% (2/19) after body fluid contact, 15% (57/376) after patient contact and 2% (2/86) after contact with the environment. Glove use was more common, particularly before (69%) and after (47%) patient contact and after body fluid contact (58%). No HH was observed before clean procedures, but HCW donned new gloves 75% of the time before bedside procedures. If donning/removing gloves was included with HH as compliant, compliance was 57% overall.

CONCLUSION

HH opportunities are frequent and compliance with WHO HH guidelines may be infeasible, requiring significant amounts of time that may be better spent with the patient during the golden hour of trauma resuscitation. In an era where more scrutiny is being applied to patient safety, particularly the prevention of inpatient infections, more research is needed to identify alternative strategies (e.g. glove use, prioritizing moments) that may more effectively promote compliance in this setting.

Hand hygiene-related clinical trials reported since 2010: a systematic review

Considerable emphasis is currently placed on reducing healthcare-associated infection through improving hand hygiene compliance among healthcare professionals. There is also increasing discussion in the lay media of perceived poor hand hygiene compliance among healthcare staff. Our aim was to report the outcomes of a systematic search for peer-reviewed, published studies - especially clinical trials - that focused on hand hygiene compliance among healthcare professionals. Literature published between December 2009, after publication of the World Health Organization (WHO) hand hygiene guidelines, and February 2014, which was indexed in PubMed and CINAHL on the topic of hand hygiene compliance, was searched. Following examination of relevance and methodology of the 57 publications initially retrieved, 16 clinical trials were finally included in the review. The majority of studies were conducted in the USA and Europe. The intensive care unit emerged as the predominant focus of studies followed by facilities for care of the elderly. The category of healthcare worker most often the focus of the research was the nurse, followed by the healthcare assistant and the doctor. The unit of analysis reported for hand hygiene compliance was 'hand hygiene opportunity'; four studies adopted the 'my five moments for hand hygiene' framework, as set out in the WHO guidelines, whereas other papers focused on unique multimodal strategies of varying design. We concluded that adopting a multimodal approach to hand hygiene improvement intervention strategies, whether guided by the WHO framework or by another tested multimodal framework, results in moderate improvements in hand hygiene compliance.

Infection prevention in the emergency department

Infection prevention remains a major challenge in emergency care. Acutely ill and injured patients seeking evaluation and treatment in the emergency department (ED) not only have the potential to spread communicable infectious diseases to health care personnel and other patients, but are vulnerable to acquiring new infections associated with the care they receive. This article will evaluate these risks and review the existing literature for infection prevention practices in the ED, ranging from hand hygiene, standard and transmission-based precautions, health care personnel vaccination, and environmental controls to strategies for preventing health care-associated infections. We will conclude by examining what can be done to optimize infection prevention in the ED and identify gaps in knowledge where further research is needed. Successful implementation of evidence-based practices coupled with innovation of novel approaches and technologies tailored specifically to the complex and dynamic environment of the ED are the keys to raising the standard for infection prevention and patient safety in emergency care.