Surgical hand-washing

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients treated in any setting. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony-forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2015 for this update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations) and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included in the updated review. Four trials reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, while 10 trials reported number of CFUs but not SSI rates. In general studies were small, and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence. SSIsOne study randomised 3317 participants to basic hand hygiene (soap and water) versus an alcohol rub plus additional hydrogen peroxide. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence downgraded for imprecision).One study (500 participants) compared alcohol-only rub versus an aqueous scrub and found no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.34, very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (4387 participants) compared alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients versus aqueous scrubs and found no clear evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.48, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (100 participants) compared an alcohol rub with an additional ingredient versus an aqueous scrub with a brush and found no evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.34, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision). CFUsThe review presents results for a number of comparisons; key findings include the following.Four studies compared different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands.Three studies found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs resulted in fewer CFUs than povidone iodine scrubs immediately after scrubbing, 2 hours after the initial scrub and 2 hours after subsequent scrubbing. All evidence was low or very low quality, with downgrading typically for imprecision and indirectness of outcome. One trial comparing a chlorhexidine gluconate scrub versus a povidone iodine plus triclosan scrub found no clear evidence of a difference-this was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness of outcome).Four studies compared aqueous scrubs versus alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients and reported CFUs. In three comparisons there was evidence of fewer CFUs after using alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients (moderate or very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Evidence from one study suggested that an aqueous scrub was more effective in reducing CFUs than an alcohol rub containing additional ingredients, but this was very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome.Evidence for the effectiveness of different scrub durations varied. Four studies compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the number of CFUs on hands. There was evidence that a 3 minute scrub reduced the number of CFUs compared with a 2 minute scrub (very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Data on other comparisons were not consistent, and interpretation was difficult. All further evidence was low or very low quality (typically downgraded for imprecision and indirectness).One study compared the effectiveness of using nail brushes and nail picks under running water prior to a chlorhexidine scrub on the number of CFUs on hands. It was unclear whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of these different techniques in terms of the number of CFUs remaining on hands (very low quality evidence downgraded due to imprecision and indirectness).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no firm evidence that one type of hand antisepsis is better than another in reducing SSIs. Chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs may reduce the number of CFUs on hands compared with povidone iodine scrubs; however, the clinical relevance of this surrogate outcome is unclear. Alcohol rubs with additional antiseptic ingredients may reduce CFUs compared with aqueous scrubs. With regard to duration of hand antisepsis, a 3 minute initial scrub reduced CFUs on the hand compared with a 2 minute scrub, but this was very low quality evidence, and findings about a longer initial scrub and subsequent scrub durations are not consistent. It is unclear whether nail picks and brushes have a differential impact on the number of CFUs remaining on the hand. Generally, almost all evidence available to inform decisions about hand antisepsis approaches that were explored here were informed by low or very low quality evidence.

Antibacterial effects on dry-fast and traditional water-based surgical scrubbing methods: a two-time points experimental study

This study determined the in-use effects of dry-fast and traditional hand-washing surgical scrubs among operating room staff members. This is a static group comparison study with purposive sampling. A total of 156 staff members were recruited in an operating room in a medical center located in southern Taiwan. The participants were divided into traditional and dry-fast hand-washing groups. Microbial counts were measured right after the two groups finished surgical scrubbing and at the completion of surgery. The results showed that the use of dry-fast antisepsis has a better persistent effect (P = 0.001), more nurses chose dry-fast antisepsis than surgeons (P = 0.012), and the post-operation number of colonies for nurses was significantly higher than that for surgeons (P = 0.003). Operating room nurses are long-term and frequent users of antibacterial agents, and their requirement of skin protection is higher. The dry-fast technique has the advantage of being less irritating to the skin and less time consuming; therefore, brush-free and dry-fast antisepsis is recommended.

A review of hand-washing techniques in primary care and community settings

AIM

This review seeks to identify the most effective hand-washing and hand-cleansing practice that could be used in primary care.

BACKGROUND

Healthcare associated infection is a major problem in the UK causing 5000 deaths every year. Current guidelines indicate expert opinion is the level of evidence for hand washing as an activity to reduce infection.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHOD

Publications on hand-washing, hand-cleansing studies, policy and practice-based documents were sought by searching several databases. Terms used included hand washing, hand cleansing, hand hygiene, hand decontamination, infection control and primary care.

RESULTS

Few articles described the hand-washing technique in detail and some publications simply referred to either the European and British Standards or the Centre for Disease Control statement on hand washing. Major discrepancies in hand position and water flow direction were found. Several methodological problems were also identified and few studies were undertaken in primary care.

CONCLUSION

This review has found a lack of evidence for hand-washing techniques being undertaken in practice today. Findings from hand-washing technique studies were inconclusive and methodological issues exist resulting in sparse reliable evidence. There is an urgent need to undertake methodologically sound studies of hand-washing techniques for use in the ever expanding scope of primary care practice.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Evidence for hand-washing and hand-cleansing techniques will inform healthcare professional practice, and contribute to the overall management of infection control in primary care.

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical hand antisepsis, to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms, is routinely carried out before undertaking invasive procedures. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections in patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the number of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (June 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (Week 5, 2007), CINAHL (June 2007), EMBASE (Week 23, 2007) and ZETOC (2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for selection, trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials were included in this review. Only one trial reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, and nine trials measured numbers of CFUs. One trial involving 4387 patients found alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients were as effective as aqueous scrubs in reducing SSIs. Four trials compared different alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients with aqueous scrubs for numbers of CFUs on hands. One trial found N-duopropenide more effective than chlorhexidine and povidone iodine aqueous scrubs. One trial found 45% propanol-2, 30% propanol-1 with 0.2% ethylhexadecyldimethyl ammonium ethylsulfate more effective than chlorhexidine scrubs. One trial found no difference between 1% chlorhexidine gluconate in 61% ethyl alcohol or zinc pyrithione in 70% ethyl alcohol against aqueous povidone iodine. A fourth trial found 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs more effective than chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol rubs. Four trials compared the relative effects of different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands. Three trials found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs were significantly more effective than povidone iodine scrubs. One trial found no difference between chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs and povidone iodine plus triclosan scrubs. Two trials found no evidence of a difference between alternative alcohol rubs in terms of the number of CFUs. Four trials compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the numbers of CFUs on hands. One trial found no difference after the initial scrub but found subsequent three minute scrubs using chlorhexidine significantly more effective than subsequent scrubs lasting 30 seconds. One trial found that following a one minute hand wash, a three minute rub appears to be more effective than the five minute rub using alcohol disinfectant. The other comparisons demonstrated no difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol rubs used in preparation for surgery by the scrub team are as effective as aqueous scrubbing in preventing SSIs however this evidence comes from only one, equivalence, cluster trial which did not appear to adjust for clustering. Four comparisons suggest that alcohol rubs are at least as, if not more, effective than aqueous scrubs though the quality of these is mixed and each study presents a different comparison, precluding meta analysis. There is no evidence to suggest that any particular alcohol rub is better than another. Evidence from 4 studies suggests that chlorhexidine gluconate based aqueous scrubs are more effective than povidone iodine based aqueous scrubs in terms of the numbers of CFUs on the hands. There is limited evidence regarding the effects on CFUs numbers of different scrub durations. There is no evidence regarding the effect of equipment such as brushes and sponges.