Poorly processed reusable surface disinfection tissue dispensers may be a source of infection

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Achromobacter species (sp.) outbreak caused by hospital equipment containing contaminated water: risk factors for infection

BACKGROUND

Nosocomial outbreaks of urinary tract infections caused by Achromobacter spp. have been rare in recent decades.

AIM

To identify the origin of an Achromobacter sp. outbreak, conduct multi-modal infection control measures, and finally to stop the outbreak. To this end, an epidemiological outbreak investigation and risk factor analysis were performed.

METHODS

Achromobacter sp. was detected in 22 patients in our urology wards and six environmental cultures of specimens obtained from the operating rooms. Strains isolated were submitted for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. An on-site epidemiological investigation, evaluation of patient medical records, and environmental sampling were performed to identify the source of the outbreak, and implementation of infection control intervention. A case-control study was performed to analyse the potential risk factors.

FINDINGS

Environmental sampling showed that the source of the infection for 22 patients was an ISA-IIIA-type medical pressurizer containing contaminated water. A case-control analysis showed that the risk factors for infection were: diagnosis of kidney/ureteral stones, surgery, placement of a double-J stent, and history of hospitalization in the past three months.

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that the outbreak occurred in patients who underwent internal lithotripsy and double-J stent placement, due to contact transmission with the contaminated sensor and connecting tubes of the ISA-IIIA-type medical pressurizer.

Hygiene requirements for cleaning and disinfection of surfaces: recommendation of the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) at the Robert Koch Institute

This recommendation of the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) addresses not only hospitals, but also outpatient health care facilities and compiles current evidence. The following criteria are the basis for the indications for cleaning and disinfection: Infectious bioburden and tenacity of potential pathogens on surfaces and their transmission routes, influence of disinfecting surface cleaning on the rate of nosocomial infections, interruption of cross infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms, and outbreak control by disinfecting cleaning within bundles. The criteria for the selection of disinfectants are determined by the requirements for effectiveness, the efficacy spectrum, the compatibility for humans and the environment, as well as the risk potential for the development of tolerance and resistance. Detailed instructions on the organization and implementation of cleaning and disinfection measures, including structural and equipment requirements, serve as the basis for their implementation. Since the agents for surface disinfection and disinfecting surface cleaning have been classified as biocides in Europe since 2013, the regulatory consequences are explained. As possible addition to surface disinfection, probiotic cleaning, is pointed out. In an informative appendix (only in German), the pathogen characteristics for their acquisition of surfaces, such as tenacity, infectious dose and biofilm formation, and the toxicological and ecotoxicological characteristics of microbicidal agents as the basis for their selection are explained, and methods for the evaluation of the resulting quality of cleaning or disinfecting surface cleaning are presented.

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

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

Quaternary ammonium disinfectants and antiseptics: tolerance, resistance and potential impact on antibiotic resistance

BACKGROUND

Due to the substantial increase in the use of disinfectants containing quaternary ammonion compounds (QACs) in healthcare and community settings during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is increased concern that heavy use might cause bacteria to develop resistance to QACs or contribute to antibiotic resistance. The purpose of this review is to briefly discuss the mechanisms of QAC tolerance and resistance, laboratory-based evidence of tolerance and resistance, their occurrence in healthcare and other real-world settings, and the possible impact of QAC use on antibiotic resistance.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. The search was limited to English language articles dealing with tolerance or resistance to QACs present in disinfectants or antiseptics, and potential impact on antibiotic resistance. The review covered the period from 2000 to mid-Jan 2023.

RESULTS

Mechanisms of QAC tolerance or resistance include innate bacterial cell wall structure, changes in cell membrane structure and function, efflux pumps, biofilm formation, and QAC degradation. In vitro studies have helped elucidate how bacteria can develop tolerance or resistance to QACs and antibiotics. While relatively uncommon, multiple episodes of contaminated in-use disinfectants and antiseptics, which are often due to inappropriate use of products, have caused outbreaks of healthcare-associated infections. Several studies have identified a correlation between benzalkonium chloride (BAC) tolerance and clinically-defined antibiotic resistance. The occurrence of mobile genetic determinants carrying multiple genes that encode for QAC or antibiotic tolerance raises the concern that widespread QAC use might facilitate the emergence of antibiotic resistance. Despite some evidence from laboratory-based studies, there is insufficient evidence in real-world settings to conclude that frequent use of QAC disinfectants and antiseptics has promoted widespread emergence of antibiotic resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

Laboratory studies have identified multiple mechanisms by which bacteria can develop tolerance or resistance to QACs and antibiotics. De novo development of tolerance or resistance in real-world settings is uncommon. Increased attention to proper use of disinfectants is needed to prevent contamination of QAC disinfectants. Additional research is needed to answer many questions and concerns related to use of QAC disinfectants and their potential impact on antibiotic resistance.

In-use contamination of a hospital-grade disinfectant

BACKGROUND

Microbiological monitoring of disinfection of high-touch surfaces identified heavy growth of Serratia marcescens and Achromobacter xylosoxidans not present on surfaces before disinfection, suggesting contamination of the disinfectant used.

METHODS

An investigation included interview of the housekeeper involved, level of bacterial contamination of the in-use quaternary ammonium (Quat) disinfectant, bactericidal activity of the contaminated disinfectant, pulsed field gel electrophoresis of S.marcescens and Achromobacter isolates, survival of S. marcescens on dry surfaces, and genome sequencing to identify possible Quat resistance genes.

RESULTS

The housekeeper, who seldom cleaned patient rooms, had used the disinfectant for months without emptying and drying the bucket between uses. The contaminated disinfectant contained 9.3 × 10⁴ CFU of S. marcescens plus A. xylosoxidans. The log₁₀ reduction of S. marcescens by fresh Quat was 10²-fold lower than that achieved against a control strain (S. marcescens ATCC 13380). Genome sequencing of S. marcescens isolates identified the following genes previously shown to encode for efflux pumps associated with Quat resistance: sdeXY, sdeAB, smfY, and a sugE-like gene.

CONCLUSIONS

Failure to follow existing guidelines and manufacturer's instructions for use resulted in contamination by A. xylosoxidans and by S. marcescens that possessed multiple genes associated with Quat resistance.

Back to Basics: Choosing the Appropriate Surface Disinfectant

From viruses to bacteria, our lives are filled with exposure to germs. In built environments, exposure to infectious microorganisms and their byproducts is clearly linked to human health. In the last year, public health emergency surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of having good biosafety measures and practices. To prevent infection from spreading and to maintain the barrier, disinfection and hygiene habits are crucial, especially when the microorganism can persist and survive on surfaces. Contaminated surfaces are called fomites and on them, microorganisms can survive even for months. As a consequence, fomites serve as a second reservoir and transfer pathogens between hosts. The knowledge of microorganisms, type of surface, and antimicrobial agent is fundamental to develop the best approach to sanitize fomites and to obtain good disinfection levels. Hence, this review has the purpose to briefly describe the organisms, the kind of risk associated with them, and the main classes of antimicrobials for surfaces, to help choose the right approach to prevent exposure to pathogens.

Practical recommendations for routine cleaning and disinfection procedures in healthcare institutions: a narrative review

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are the most common adverse outcomes due to delivery of medical care. HAIs increase morbidity and mortality, prolong hospital stay, and are associated with additional healthcare costs. Contaminated surfaces, particularly those that are touched frequently, act as reservoirs for pathogens and contribute towards pathogen transmission. Therefore, healthcare hygiene requires a comprehensive approach whereby different strategies may be implemented together, next to targeted, risk-based approaches, in order to reduce the risk of HAIs for patients. This approach includes hand hygiene in conjunction with environmental cleaning and disinfection of surfaces and clinical equipment. This review focuses on routine environmental cleaning and disinfection including areas with a moderate risk of contamination, such as general wards. As scientific evidence has not yet resulted in universally accepted guidelines nor led to universally accepted practical recommendations pertaining to surface cleaning and disinfection, this review provides expert guidance for healthcare workers in their daily practice. It also covers outbreak situations and suggests practical guidance for clinically relevant pathogens. Key elements of environmental cleaning and disinfection, including a fundamental clinical risk assessment, choice of appropriate disinfectants and cleaning equipment, definitions for standardized cleaning processes and the relevance of structured training, are reviewed in detail with a focus on practical topics and implementation.

A review of wipes used to disinfect hard surfaces in health care facilities

BACKGROUND

Despite a plethora of wipes available for use in health care facilities, there is a paucity of articles describing wipe composition, potential interactions between wipes and disinfectants, the manner in which wipes are used, and their relative efficacy. The purpose of this article is to provide an in-depth review of wipes used for disinfection of hard surfaces in health care settings.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches of the Pubmed database and Internet were conducted, and articles published from 1953 through September 2019 and pertinent on-line documents were reviewed. Bibliographies of relevant articles were reviewed.

RESULTS

Wipes vary considerably in their composition, and the disinfectants with which they are used. With reusable dry wipes, the ratio of wipe material to disinfectant and the amount of disinfectant absorbed by the wipe and delivered to surfaces is difficult to standardize, which may affect their efficacy. The manner in which wipes are used by health care personnel is highly variable, due in part to insufficient instructions for use and inadequate education of relevant personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional research is needed regarding the best practices for using different types of wipes, improved methods for educating staff, and establishing the relative efficacy of wipes in reducing environmental contamination and health care-associated infections.

Description of two Serratia marcescens associated mastitis outbreaks in Finnish dairy farms and a review of literature

Background

Infection with Serratia spp. have been associated with mastitis outbreaks in dairy cattle herds. Environmental contamination or a point source, like a teat dip product, have often been observed to be potential sources of such outbreaks. We describe two Serratia marcescens associated mastitis outbreaks associated with a contaminated teat dip containing a tertiary alkyl amine, n,n-bis (3-aminopropyl) dodecylamine in two dairy cattle farms in Finland. S. marcescens strains isolated from milk and environmental samples were identified by the MALDI-TOF method.

Results

Six specimens (n = 19) on Herd 1 and all specimens (n = 9) on Herd 2 were positive for S. marcescens. Positive specimens were from mastitis milk and teat dip liquid and equipment. Bacteria were not isolated from the unopened teat dip canister. The same clone of S. marcescens was isolated from milk samples and teat dip samples within the farms. Pulsed field gel electrophoresis results to the S. marcescens isolates from these two different herds were tested with unweighted pair-group method using arithmetic average clustering analysis. The isolates were not same clone in both herds, because similarity in that test was only 75% when cut-off value to similarity is 85%.

Conclusions

Our investigation showed that the post milking teat dip and/or temporary containers were contaminated with S. marcescens and these were most likely the sources for new mastitis cases. The negative result from the unopened teat dip canister and positive results from refillable containers demonstrated that the product itself was not contaminated with S. marcescens at the production unit, but became contaminated at the farm level.

Achromobacter xylosoxidans resistance to antiseptics and disinfectants is far from obvious

BACKGROUND

Achromobacter xylosoxidans is described as being resistant to antiseptics and disinfectants. We studied in vitro the ability of five strains to survive and grow in such solutions, with and without starvation.

METHODS

Bacterial suspensions in rich media and in distilled water were inoculated into eight antiseptics or disinfectants under conditions of use.

RESULTS

All strains from cultures in distilled water survived in aqueous chlorhexidine and only environmental strains survived in a quaternary ammonium-based disinfectant. Survival did not exceed 30 min and no growth was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights a relationship between starvation and survival in antiseptics and disinfectants.

Effectiveness of cleaning-disinfection wipes and sprays against multidrug-resistant outbreak strains

BACKGROUND

Hospital rooms play an important role in the transmission of several health care-associated pathogens. During the last few years, a number of innovative cleaning-disinfecting products have been brought to market. In this study, commercially available products combining cleaning and disinfection were compared, using 2 different application methods. The aim was to determine which product was most effective in simultaneous cleaning and disinfection of surfaces.

METHODS

Seven cleaning-disinfecting wipes and sprays based on different active ingredients were tested for their efficacy in removal of microbial burden and proteins. Efficacy was tested with known Dutch outbreak strains: vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), Klebsiella pneumoniae OXA-48, or Acinetobacter baumannii.

RESULTS

For all bacteria, ready-to-use cleaning-disinfecting products reduced the microbial count with a log₁₀ reduction >5 with a 5-minute exposure time, with the exception of a spray based on hydrogen peroxide. Omitting the aforementioned hydrogen peroxide spray, there were no significant differences between use of a wipe or spray in bacterial load reduction. Using adenosine triphosphate (ATP) measurements, a significant difference in log₁₀ relative light units (RLU) reduction between various bacteria (P ≤ .001) was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, a >5 log₁₀ reduction of colony forming units (CFU) for tested wipes and sprays was obtained for all tested bacteria strains, with exception of hydrogen peroxide spray and VRE. Although ATP may show a difference between pre- and postcleaning, RLU reduction does not correlate with actual CFU reductions.

Pseudobacteremia outbreak of biofilm-forming Achromobacter xylosoxidans - environmental transmission

Background

Achromobacter xylosoxidans (AX) is known for intrinsic resistance to disinfectants. Our laboratory routine surveillance system detected an unexpected rise in AX bloodstream infections in a 2200-bed hospital. An epidemiological investigation was conducted to find the source and disrupt further transmission.

Methods

Outbreak cases were defined as patients with at least one positive blood culture positive for AX from May 2014 to May 2015. Medical records were reviewed, affected wards, as well as the microbiology laboratory were audited. Additionally, microbiologic culture and biofilm staining for suspected antiseptic reusable tissue dispensers were performed, and isolated AX strains were typed using RAPD PCR and PFGE.

Results

During the outbreak period, AX were isolated from blood cultures from 26 patients. The retrospective cohort study did not reveal common risk factors. The clinical features of the case patients suggested a pseudobacteremia. The reusable tissue dispensers containing Incidin® Plus solution product were found to be contaminated with biofilm-forming AX. Typing of the isolates revealed that blood culture isolates were identical with the strains found in the dispensers.

Conclusions

After changing the usage of the product to single-use and educating staff, the outbreak was terminated. Contamination of dispensers occurred due to insufficient reprocessing, since biofilm disrupting steps were not included in the process.

Bacterial and viral contamination of breathing circuits after extended use - an aspect of patient safety?

BACKGROUND

In the past, anaesthetic breathing circuits were identified as a source of pathogen transmission. It is still debated, whether breathing circuits combined with breathing system filters can be safely used for more than 1 day. The aim of this study was to evaluate the transmission risk of bacteria and also viruses via breathing circuits after extended use.

METHODS

The inner and outer surface of 102 breathing circuits used for 1 day and of 101 circuits used for 7 days were examined for bacteria and viruses. Additionally, 10 and 20 breathing circuits each were examined after use on patients with pulmonary virus infection and with multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) colonisation/infection respectively. Bacteria were detected by standard microbiological procedures; PCR techniques were applied for herpes simplex virus, cytomegalovirus, influenza, parainfluenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

RESULTS

Endoluminal bacterial contamination of breathing circuits remained unchanged after 7-day vs. 1-day use (5.9% vs. 7.8%) [CI95%: -0.0886-0.0506, pnon-inferiority 0.0260]. Only outside surface contamination with bacteria belonging to environmental species or human flora increased (16.8 vs. 6.9%) [CI 95%: 0.0118 - 0.1876, pnon-inferiority 0.8660]. Viruses occurred on the patient side, but not in breathing circuits. No MDRO occurred in the 20 circuits after use on patients harbouring such germs.

CONCLUSION

Endoluminal contamination of breathing circuits with bacteria did not increase after extended use. No viruses were detected in the breathing circuits using filters. Based on our results, the extended use of ABC without exceptions appears safe, if a high level of anaesthesia workplace cleaning is secured.

Correlating Cleaning Thoroughness with Effectiveness and Briefly Intervening to Affect Cleaning Outcomes: How Clean Is Cleaned?

Objectives

The most efficient approach to monitoring and improving cleaning outcomes remains unresolved. We sought to extend the findings of a previous study by determining whether cleaning thoroughness (dye removal) correlates with cleaning efficacy (absence of molecular or cultivable biomaterial) and whether one brief educational intervention improves cleaning outcomes.

Design

Before-after trial.

Setting

Newly built community hospital.

Intervention

90 minute training refresher with surface-specific performance results.

Methods

Dye removal, measured by fluorescence, and biomaterial removal and acquisition, measured with culture and culture-independent PCR-based assays, were clandestinely assessed for eight consecutive months. At this midpoint, results were presented to the cleaning staff (intervention) and assessments continued for another eight consecutive months.

Results

1273 surfaces were sampled before and after terminal room cleaning. In the short-term, dye removal increased from 40.3% to 50.0% (not significant). For the entire study period, dye removal also improved but not significantly. After the intervention, the number of rooms testing positive for specific pathogenic species by culturing decreased from 55.6% to 36.6% (not significant), and those testing positive by PCR fell from 80.6% to 53.7% (P = 0.016). For nonspecific biomaterial on surfaces: a) removal of cultivable Gram-negatives (GN) trended toward improvement (P = 0.056); b) removal of any cultivable growth was unchanged but acquisition (detection of biomaterial on post-cleaned surfaces that were contaminant-free before cleaning) worsened (P = 0.017); c) removal of PCR-based detection of bacterial DNA improved (P = 0.046), but acquisition worsened (P = 0.003); d) cleaning thoroughness and efficacy were not correlated.

Conclusion

At this facility, a minor intervention or minimally more aggressive cleaning may reduce pathogen-specific contamination, but not without unintended consequences.

Modern technologies for improving cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces in hospitals

Experts agree that careful cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces are essential elements of effective infection prevention programs. However, traditional manual cleaning and disinfection practices in hospitals are often suboptimal. This is often due in part to a variety of personnel issues that many Environmental Services departments encounter. Failure to follow manufacturer’s recommendations for disinfectant use and lack of antimicrobial activity of some disinfectants against healthcare-associated pathogens may also affect the efficacy of disinfection practices.

Improved hydrogen peroxide-based liquid surface disinfectants and a combination product containing peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide are effective alternatives to disinfectants currently in widespread use, and electrolyzed water (hypochlorous acid) and cold atmospheric pressure plasma show potential for use in hospitals. Creating “self-disinfecting” surfaces by coating medical equipment with metals such as copper or silver, or applying liquid compounds that have persistent antimicrobial activity surfaces are additional strategies that require further investigation.

Newer “no-touch” (automated) decontamination technologies include aerosol and vaporized hydrogen peroxide, mobile devices that emit continuous ultraviolet (UV-C) light, a pulsed-xenon UV light system, and use of high-intensity narrow-spectrum (405 nm) light. These “no-touch” technologies have been shown to reduce bacterial contamination of surfaces. A micro-condensation hydrogen peroxide system has been associated in multiple studies with reductions in healthcare-associated colonization or infection, while there is more limited evidence of infection reduction by the pulsed-xenon system. A recently completed prospective, randomized controlled trial of continuous UV-C light should help determine the extent to which this technology can reduce healthcare-associated colonization and infections.

In conclusion, continued efforts to improve traditional manual disinfection of surfaces are needed. In addition, Environmental Services departments should consider the use of newer disinfectants and no-touch decontamination technologies to improve disinfection of surfaces in healthcare.

Lesser-known or hidden reservoirs of infection and implications for adequate prevention strategies: Where to look and what to look for

In developing hygiene strategies, in recent years, the major focus has been on the hands as the key route of infection transmission. However, there is a multitude of lesser-known and underestimated reservoirs for microorganisms which are the triggering sources and vehicles for outbreaks or sporadic cases of infection. Among those are water reservoirs such as sink drains, fixtures, decorative water fountains and waste-water treatment plants, frequently touched textile surfaces such as private curtains in hospitals and laundry, but also transvaginal ultrasound probes, parenteral drug products, and disinfectant wipe dispensers. The review of outbreak reports also reveals Gram-negative and multiple-drug resistant microorganisms to have become an increasingly frequent and severe threat in medical settings. In some instances, the causative organisms are particularly difficult to identify because they are concealed in biofilms or in a state referred to as viable but nonculturable, which eludes conventional culture media-based detection methods. There is an enormous preventative potential in these insights, which has not been fully tapped. New and emerging pathogens, novel pathogen detection methods, and hidden reservoirs of infection should hence be given special consideration when designing the layout of buildings and medical devices, but also when defining the core competencies for medical staff, establishing programmes for patient empowerment and education of the general public, and when implementing protocols for the prevention and control of infections in medical, community and domestic settings.

Efficacy of surface disinfectant cleaners against emerging highly resistant gram-negative bacteria

Background

Worldwide, the emergence of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria is a clinical problem. Surface disinfectant cleaners (SDCs) that are effective against these bacteria are needed for use in high risk areas around patients and on multi-touch surfaces. We determined the efficacy of several SDCs against clinically relevant bacterial species with and without common types of multidrug resistance.

Methods

Bacteria species used were ATCC strains; clinical isolates classified as antibiotic-susceptible; and multi-resistant clinical isolates from Klebsiella oxytoca, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Serratia marcescens (all OXA-48 and KPC-2); Acinetobacter baumannii (OXA-23); Pseudomonas aeruginosa (VIM-1); and Achromobacter xylosoxidans (ATCC strain). Experiments were carried out according to EN 13727:2012 in quadruplicate under dirty conditions. The five evaluated SDCs were based on alcohol and an amphoteric substance (AAS), an oxygen-releaser (OR), surface-active substances (SAS), or surface-active-substances plus aldehydes (SASA; two formulations). Bactericidal concentrations of SDCs were determined at two different contact times. Efficacy was defined as a log₁₀ ≥ 5 reduction in bacterial cell count.

Results

SDCs based on AAS, OR, and SAS were effective against all six species irrespective of the degree of multi-resistance. The SASA formulations were effective against the bacteria irrespective of degree of multi-resistance except for one of the four P. aeruginosa isolates (VIM-1). We found no general correlation between SDC efficacy and degree of antibiotic resistance.

Conclusions

SDCs were generally effective against gram-negative bacteria with and without multidrug resistance. SDCs are therefore suitable for surface disinfection in the immediate proximity of patients. Single bacterial isolates, however, might have reduced susceptibility to selected biocidal agents.