Floor finish selection in health-care facilities: a systematic literature review

Persistence of two coronaviruses and efficacy of steam vapor disinfection on two types of carpet

BACKGROUND

Coronaviruses, a group of highly transmissible and potentially pathogenic viruses, can be transmitted indirectly to humans via fomites. To date, no study has investigated their persistence on carpet fibers. Establishing persistence is essential before testing the efficacy of a disinfectant.

METHODS

The persistence of BCoV and HCoV OC43 on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and nylon carpet was first determined using infectivity and RT-qPCR assays. Then, the disinfectant efficacy of steam vapor was evaluated against both coronaviruses on nylon carpet.

RESULTS

Immediately after inoculation of carpet coupons, 32.50% of BCoV and 3.87% of HCoV OC43 were recovered from PET carpet, compared to 34.86% of BCoV and 24.37% of HCoV OC43 recovered from nylon carpet. After incubation at room temperature for 1 h, BCoV and HCoV OC43 showed a 3.6 and > 2.8 log10 TCID50 reduction on PET carpet, and a 0.6 and 1.8 log10 TCID50 reduction on nylon carpet. Based on first-order decay kinetics, the whole gRNA of BCoV and HCoV OC43 were stable with k values of 1.19 and 0.67 h- 1 on PET carpet and 0.86 and 0.27 h- 1 on nylon carpet, respectively. A 15-s steam vapor treatment achieved a > 3.0 log10 TCID50 reduction of BCoV and > 3.2 log10 TCID50 reduction of HCoV OC43 on nylon carpet.

CONCLUSION

BCoV was more resistant to desiccation on both carpet types than HCoV OC43. Both viruses lost infectivity quicker on PET carpet than on nylon carpet. Steam vapor inactivated both coronaviruses on nylon carpet within 15 s.

Shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention in older adults and staff in hospitals and care homes: the SAFEST systematic review

BACKGROUND

Injurious falls in hospitals and care homes are a life-limiting and costly international issue. Shock-absorbing flooring may offer part of the solution; however, evidence is required to inform decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention among older adults in care settings.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of experimental, observational, qualitative and economic studies evaluating flooring in care settings targeting older adults and/or staff. Studies identified by a scoping review (inception to May 2016) were screened, and the search of MEDLINE, AgeLine and Scopus (to September 2019) was updated, alongside other sources. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias in duplicate (using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool, or the Joanna Briggs Institute's qualitative tool).

RESULTS

Of the 22 included studies, 20 assessed the outcomes (three randomised controlled trials; and seven observational, five qualitative and five economic studies) on novel floors (n = 12), sports floors (n = 5), carpet (n = 5) and wooden subfloors (n = 1). Quantitative data related to 11,857 patient/resident falls (nine studies) and 163 staff injuries (one study). Qualitative studies included patients/residents (n = 20), visitors (n = 8) and staff (n = 119). Hospital-based randomised controlled trial data were too imprecise; however, very low-quality evidence indicated that novel/sports flooring reduced injurious falls from three per 1000 patients per day on vinyl with concrete subfloors to two per 1000 patients per day (rate ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.84; two studies), without increasing falls rates (two studies). One care home-based randomised controlled trial found that a novel underlay produces similar injurious falls rates (high-quality evidence) and falls rates (moderate-quality evidence) to those of a plywood underlay with vinyl overlays and concrete subfloors. Very low-quality data demonstrated that, compared with rigid floors, novel/sports flooring reduced the number of falls resulting in injury in care homes (26.4% vs. 33.0%; risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.91; three studies) and hospitals (27.1% vs. 42.4%; risk ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.93; two studies). Fracture and head injury outcomes were imprecise; however, hip fractures reduced from 30 per 1000 falls on concrete to 18 per 1000 falls on wooden subfloors in care homes (odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.78; one study; very low-quality evidence). Four low-quality economic studies concluded that shock-absorbing flooring reduced costs and improved outcomes (three studies), or increased costs and improved outcomes (one study). One, more robust, study estimated that shock-absorbing flooring resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years and lower costs, if the number of falls increased on shock-absorbing floors, but that shock-absorbing flooring would be a dominant economic strategy if the number of falls remained the same. Staff found moving wheeled equipment more difficult on shock-absorbing floors, leading to workplace adaptations. Staff injuries were observed; however, very low-quality evidence suggests that these are no less frequent on rigid floors.

LIMITATIONS

Evidence favouring shock-absorbing flooring is of very low quality; thus, much uncertainty remains.

CONCLUSIONS

Robust evidence is lacking in hospitals and indicates that one novel floor may not be effective in care homes. Very low-quality evidence indicates that shock-absorbing floors may be beneficial; however, wider workplace implications need to be addressed. Work is required to establish a core outcome set, and future research needs to more comprehensively deal with confounding and the paucity of hospital-based studies, and better plan for workplace adaptations in the study design.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019118834.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Indoor Air Quality in Healthcare Units—A Systematic Literature Review Focusing Recent Research

The adequate assessment and management of indoor air quality in healthcare facilities is of utmost importance for patient safety and occupational health purposes. This study aims to identify the recent trends of research on the topic through a systematic literature review following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) methodology. A total of 171 articles published in the period 2015–2020 were selected and analyzed. Results show that there is a worldwide growing research interest in this subject, dispersed in a wide variety of scientific journals. A textometric analysis using the IRaMuTeQ software revealed four clusters of topics in the sampled articles: physicochemical pollutants, design and management of infrastructures, environmental control measures, and microbiological contamination. The studies focus mainly on hospital facilities, but there is also research interest in primary care centers and dental clinics. The majority of the analyzed articles (85%) report experimental data, with the most frequently measured parameters being related to environmental quality (temperature and relative humidity), microbiological load, CO2 and particulate matter. Non-compliance with the WHO guidelines for indoor air quality is frequently reported. This study provides an overview of the recent literature on this topic, identifying promising lines of research to improve indoor air quality in healthcare facilities.

The SAFEST review: a mixed methods systematic review of shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention

BACKGROUND

Shock-absorbing flooring may minimise impact forces incurred from falls to reduce fall-related injuries; however, synthesized evidence is required to inform decision-making in hospitals and care homes.

METHODS

This is a Health Technology Assessment mixed methods systematic review of flooring interventions targeting older adults and staff in care settings. Our search incorporated the findings from a previous scoping review, MEDLINE, AgeLine, and Scopus (to September 2019) and other sources. Two independent reviewers selected, assessed, and extracted data from studies. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute tools, undertook meta-analyses, and meta-aggregation.

RESULTS

20 of 22 included studies assessed our outcomes (3 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs); 7 observational; 5 qualitative; 5 economic), on novel floors (N = 12), sports floors (N = 5), carpet (N = 5), and wooden sub-floors (N = 1). Quantitative data related to 11,857 patient falls (9 studies), and 163 staff injuries (1 study). One care home-based RCT found a novel underlay produced similar injurious falls rates (high-quality evidence) and falls rates (moderate-quality evidence) to a plywood underlay with vinyl overlay and concrete sub-floors. Very low-quality evidence suggested that shock-absorbing flooring may reduce injuries in hospitals (Rate Ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84, 2 studies; 27.1% vs. 42.4%; Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.93, 2 studies) and care homes (26.4% vs. 33.0%; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91, 3 studies), without increasing falls. Economic evidence indicated that if injuries are fewer and falls not increased, then shock-absorbing flooring would be a dominant strategy. Fracture outcomes were imprecise; however, hip fractures reduced from 30 in 1000 falls on concrete to 18 in 1000 falls on wooden sub-floors (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.78; one study; very low-quality evidence). Staff found moving wheeled equipment harder on shock-absorbing floors leading to workplace adaptations. Very low-quality evidence suggests staff injuries were no less frequent on rigid floors.

CONCLUSION

Evidence favouring shock-absorbing flooring is uncertain and of very low quality. Robust research following a core outcome set is required, with attention to wider staff workplace implications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019118834 .