How long is enough? Identification of product dry-time as a primary driver of alcohol-based hand rub efficacy

Clinical Effectiveness of a 3-Step Versus a 6-Step Hand Hygiene Technique: A Randomized Controlled Cross-over Study

Background

The aim of this study is to assess the clinical effectiveness of the 3-step hand hygiene (HH) technique (3-HT) compared with the 6-step HH technique (6-HT; World Health Organization 6-step technique) using an alcohol-based hand rub.

Methods

A randomized controlled crossover trial was conducted from November to December 2023 in 10 wards of a tertiary A-level hospital according to CONSORT guidelines. The 240 healthcare workers (HCWs) were randomly divided into the 3-HT intervention group or the 6-HT control group. The trial was conducted in 2 stages, and the effectiveness of each indicator in the 2 groups was compared after a washout period of 2 weeks.

Results

Compared with the 6-HT, the 3-HT has demonstrated significant superiority in all indicators of HH compliance as well as the accuracy rate of HH practices. The total HH median times for the 3-HT and 6-HT were 16.00 (interquartile range, 15.00-20.00) and 32.50 (30.00-40.00) seconds, respectively (P < .05). The reduction factors for bacterial colony-forming unit counts did not differ and the colony-forming unit counts were not significantly different. Bacillus, Staphylococcus, and Micrococcus were detected before and after the use of hand rubs. HCWs preferred the 3-HT over the 6-HT. There were no significant difference in healthcare-associated infections rate between the 2 techniques.

Conclusions

The 3-HT was significantly superior to the 6-HT in terms of the HH eligibility rate, compliance, and HH time. The safety and feasibility of the 3-HT were verified by assessing microorganism count.

S2k-Guideline hand antisepsis and hand hygiene

The consensus-based guideline "hand antisepsis and hand hygiene" for Germany has the following sections: Prevention of nosocomial infections by hygienic hand antisepsis, prevention of surgical site infections by surgical hand antisepsis, infection prevention in the community by hand antisepsis in epidemic or pandemic situations, hand washing, selection of alcohol-based hand rubs and wash lotions, medical gloves and protective gloves, preconditions for hand hygiene, skin protection and skin care, quality assurance of the implementation of hand hygiene measures and legal aspects. The guideline was developed by the German Society for Hospital Hygiene in cooperation with 22 professional societies, 2 professional organizations, the German Care Council, the Federal Working Group for Self-Help of People with Disabilities and Chronic Illness and their Family Members, the General Accident Insurance Institution Austria and the German-speaking Interest Group of Infection Prevention Experts and Hospital Hygiene Consultants.

Alcohol-based hand rubs can fulfil efficacy requirements of EN 1500 in 15 seconds

Aim

Correct hand hygiene is widely regarded as an important measure to prevent healthcare-associated infections. Guidelines on how to perform hand antisepsis are often inspired by laboratory tests that focus on reproducibility rather than ease of use. These cumbersome recommendations can become barriers to hand hygiene, as optimal user acceptance requires a small rub volume and a short application time with an intuitive rubbing technique. Here we modified the EN 1500 to test the efficacy of hand rubs under more user-friendly conditions, using a highly intuitive rubbing technique in 15 seconds.

Methods

The efficacy of an ethanolic and a propanolic hand rub in inactivating E. coli on the hands of volunteers was tested according to EN 1500 with modifications in rubbing technique and time. Pre-tests were conducted to find a suitable volume for "responsible application", a procedure without clearly defined steps. Finally, 20 volunteers applied both rubs for 15 seconds using 3 mL and "responsible application" and 5 mL using the WHO 6-step technique.

Results

Both hand rubs, ethanolic and propanolic, were non-inferior to an unmodified EN 1500 reference for both application methods, 3 mL with "responsible application" and 5 mL with the WHO 6-step method.

Conclusion

Reducing the complexity of hand rub application can have a positive impact on hand hygiene adherence. With our results showing that antimicrobial efficacy comparable to an unmodified EN 1500 can be achieved in 15 seconds using an intuitive rubbing technique, further barriers to more user-friendly hand rub application have been removed.

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.

Updates and future directions regarding hand hygiene in the healthcare setting: insights from the 3rd ICPIC alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) task force

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) pose threats to global health. Effective hand hygiene is essential for preventing HAIs and the spread of AMR in healthcare. We aimed to highlight the recent progress and future directions in hand hygiene and alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) use in the healthcare setting. In September 2023, 42 experts in infection prevention and control (IPC) convened at the 3rd International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control (ICPIC) ABHR Taskforce in Geneva, Switzerland. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a synthesis of recent evidence and formulate a research agenda on four critical areas for the implementation of effective hand hygiene practices: (1) ABHR formulations and hand rubbing techniques, (2) low-resource settings and local production of ABHR, (3) hand hygiene monitoring and technological innovations, and (4) hand hygiene standards and guidelines.

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.

Evidence-based hand hygiene: Liquid or gel handrub, does it matter?

BACKGROUND

Recent studies put under scrutiny the prevailing hand hygiene guidelines, which incorporate quantitative parameters regarding handrub volume and hand size. Understanding the criticality of complete (i.e., efficient) hand hygiene in healthcare, objectivization of hand hygiene related parameters are paramount, including the formulation of the ABHR. Complete coverage can be achieved with optimal Alcohol-Based Hand Rub (ABHR) provided. The literature is limited regarding ABHR formulation variances to antimicrobial efficiency and healthcare workers' preference, while public data on clinically relevant typical application differences is not available. This study was designed and performed to compare gel and liquid format ABHRs (the two most popular types in Europe) by measuring several parameters, including application time, spillage and coverage.

METHODOLOGY

Senior medical students were invited, and randomly assigned to receive pre-determined ABHR volumes (1.5 or 3 ml). All the 340 participants were given equal amounts of gel and liquid on two separate hand hygiene occasions, which occurred two weeks apart. During the hand hygiene events, by employing a digital, fully automated system paired with fluorescent-traced ABHRs, disinfectant hand coverage was objectively investigated. Furthermore, hand coverage in relation to the participants' hand sizes was also calculated. Additional data collection was performed regarding volume differences and their effect on application time, participants' volume awareness (consciousness) and disinfectant spillage during the hand hygiene events.

RESULTS

The 1.5 ml ABHR volume (commonly applied in healthcare settings) is insufficient in either formulation, as the non-covered areas exceeded significant (5%+) of the total hand surface area. 3 ml, on the contrary, resulted in almost complete coverage (uncovered areas remained below 1.5%). Participants typically underestimated the volume which they needed to apply. While the liquid ABHR spreads better in the lower, 1.5 ml volume compared to the gel, the latter was easier handled at larger volume. Drying times were 30/32 s (gel and liquid formats, respectively) when 1.5 ml handrub was applied, and 40/42 s when 3 ml was used. As the evaporation rates of the ABHR used in the study are similar to those available on the market, one can presume that the results presented in the study apply for most WHO conform ABHRs.

CONCLUSION

The results show that applying 1.5 ml volume was insufficient, as large part of the hand surface remained uncovered (7.0 ± 0.7% and 5.8 ± 1.0% of the hand surface in the case of gel and liquid, respectively) When 3 ml handrub was applied drying times were 40 and 42 s (gel and liquid, respectively), which is a very long time in daily clinical practice. It looks like we cannot find a volume that fits for everyone. Personalized, hand size based ABHR volumes may be the solution to find an optimal balance between maximize coverage and minimise spillage and drying time. 3 ml can be a good volume for those who have medium size hands. Large handed people should use more handrub to reach appropriate coverage, while small-handed ones may apply less to avoid massive spillage and not to take unrealistically long to dry.

Comparison of two alcohol hand rubbing techniques regarding hand surface coverage among hospital workers: a quasi-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The adapted 6-step without interlock (A6Sw/oI) hand rub technique, commonly practiced in Japan, adds the "wrist" but omits the "interlock" step compared to the WHO 6-step technique (WHO6S). The first objective of this study was to assess the differences of the two techniques regarding surface coverage. The second objective was to analyze the coverage differences between hand sizes.

METHODS

Hospital workers went under stratified quasi-randomization by glove size. The overall mean coverage, and the coverage of the sections of the hands were evaluated by fluorescent dye-based coverage assessment using a digital device with artificial intelligence technology.

RESULTS

Total of 427 workers were randomly allocated to WHO6S (N = 215) or the A6Sw/oI (N = 212). The overall mean dorsum coverage by WHO6S and A6Sw/oI was 90.6% versus 88.4% (p < 0.01), and the percentage of the participants with insufficient coverage of the backs of the four fingers ranged from 0.0-7.4% versus 28.2-51.4% (p < 0.001). Dorsum coverage varied largely between hand size for both techniques, and significant differences were found between small and large hands.

CONCLUSION

The WHO6S was superior to the locally adapted technique regarding hand surface coverage. Hand size should be considered when assessing coverage differences between procedures. No trial registrations or fundings.

Pilot study of using thermal imaging to assess hand hygiene technique

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no standard method for assessing hand hygiene (HH) technique. We explored the use of thermal imaging to determine if alcohol-based sanitizer (ABHS) has been applied to fingertips and thumbs, areas often missed by healthcare personnel.

METHODS

A FLIR thermal camera attached to an iPhone with FLIR app was used to obtain thermal images of volunteers' dominant hand before and after performing HH with an ABHS. Temperature readings of the mid-palm area, and tips of 3rd finger and thumb were recorded before and at multiple time points after hand hygiene.

RESULTS

In 11 of 12 volunteers, thermal images revealed significant decreases in mid-palm, finger and thumb temperatures after performing HH (P < .01 for all sites), confirming visual assessment of coverage. When HH was performed without including the thumb, a lack of colorimetric change in the thumb was visible. For persons with "cold" fingers at baseline, assessing ABHS coverage of the fingers was more difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

Thermal imaging of HH performance shows promise for assessing HH technique. Additional studies involving a larger number of persons under varying conditions are needed to establish if thermal imaging can be a practical modality for teaching or monitoring HH technique.

Comparing the effectiveness of hand hygiene techniques in reducing the microbial load and covering hand surfaces in healthcare workers: Updated systematic review

BACKGROUND

This review, commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO), examined the effectiveness of the WHO 6-step hand hygiene (HH) technique in reducing microbial load on hands and covering hand surfaces, and compared its effectiveness to other techniques.

METHODS

Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, Web of Science, Mednar, and Google Scholar were searched for primary studies, published in English (1978-February 2021), evaluating the microbiological effectiveness or hand surface coverage of HH techniques in healthcare workers. Reviewers independently performed quality assessment using Cochrane tools. The protocol for the narrative review was registered (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021236138).

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. Evidence demonstrated that the WHO technique reduced microbial load on hands. One study found the WHO technique more effective than the 3-step technique (P = .02), while another found no difference between these 2 techniques (P = .08). An adapted 3-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique in laboratory settings (P = .021), but not in clinical practice (P = .629). One study demonstrated that an adapted 6-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique (P = .001). Evidence was heterogeneous in application time, product, and volume. All studies were high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Eight studies found that the WHO 6-step technique reduced microbial load on healthcare workers' hands; but the studies were heterogeneous and further research is required to identify the most effective, yet feasible technique.

The application of normative documents for determination of biocidal activity of disinfectants and antiseptics dedicated for medical area: a narrative review

Disinfectants and antiseptics are important weapons to reduce the number of microorganisms and thus to limit the number of infections. Different methods of antimicrobial activity testing, often not standardised, without appropriate controls and not validated are applied. To address these issues, several European Standards (EN) have been developed, describing the test methods to determine whether chemical disinfectants or antiseptic products have appropriate bactericidal, sporicidal, mycobactericidal or tuberculocidal activity; fungicidal or yeasticidal activity; or virucidal activity. In this narrative review, the 17 EN concerning evaluation of the above-mentioned antimicrobial activity of preparations dedicated to the medical area are briefly reviewed, together with recent publications on this topic. Suspension and carrier tests have been performed in clean and dirty conditions simulating the medical area. In addition, a wide range of applications of these standards has been presented in the research of biocides for hand antisepsis, surfaces disinfection, including airborne disinfection as well as medical device and medical textile disinfection. The role of normative documents in the investigation of antimicrobial activity of disinfectants and antiseptics to limit infections has been underestimated. This narrative review aims to persuade researchers to conduct antimicrobial activity testing in line with validated EN and highlights an existing gap in ongoing research. It also aims to raise awareness of the wide range of biocidal activity tests with standardised methods in medical area. We also pay attention to the recently developed European Pharmacopoeia monography concerning the testing of bactericidal and fungicidal activity of antiseptics classified as medicinal products.

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.

Systematic review on factors influencing the effectiveness of alcohol-based hand rubbing in healthcare

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of hand rubbing with alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) is impacted by several factors. To investigate these, World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a systematic review.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of ABHR volume, application time, rubbing friction and hand size on microbiological load reduction, hand surface coverage or drying time.

METHODS

Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science and ScienceDirect databases were searched for healthcare or laboratory-based primary studies, published in English, (1980- February 2021), investigating the impact of ABHR volume, application time, rubbing friction or hand size on bacterial load reduction, hand coverage or drying time. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. The results are presented narratively.

FINDINGS

Twenty studies were included in the review. Categories included: ABHR volume, application time and rubbing friction. Sub-categories: bacterial load reduction, hand size, drying time or hand surface coverage. All used experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Findings showed as ABHR volume increased, bacterial load reduced, and drying times increased. Furthermore, one study showed that the application of sprayed ABHR without hand rubbing resulted in significantly lower bacterial load reduction than poured or sprayed ABHR with hand rubbing (- 0.70; 95%CI: - 1.13 to - 0.28). Evidence was heterogeneous in application time, volume, technique, and product. All studies were assessed as high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to change WHO recommendation of a palmful of ABHR in a cupped hand applied for 20-30 s or manufacturer-recommended volume applied for about 20 s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Future hand hygiene research should standardise volume, application time, and consider hand size.

Hand Hygiene, an Update

Hand hygiene by health care personnel is an important measure for preventing health care-associated infections, but adherence rates and technique remain suboptimal. Alcohol-based hand rubs are the preferred method of hand hygiene in most clinical scenarios, are more effective and better tolerated than handwashing, and their use has facilitated improved adherence rates. Obtaining accurate estimates of hand hygiene adherence rates using direct observations of personnel is challenging. Combining automated hand hygiene monitoring systems with direct observations is a promising strategy, and is likely to yield the best estimates of adherence. Greater attention to hand hygiene technique is needed.

Hand hygiene behavior among Sri Lankan medical students during COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Poor compliance with hand hygiene practices among medical students poses a risk for cross-infection. It has become more critical during the COVID-19 pandemic than ever before. This study aimed to determine the knowledge, attitudes, practices of hand hygiene among final-year medical students. It also explored reported hand hygiene behavior before the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for educational strategies to correct the deficiencies.

METHODS

A concurrent mixed-method approach was used. In the quantitative strand, a cross-sectional online survey was carried out via a Google form. Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-squared test were used for comparisons. In the qualitative strand, twelve participants were interviewed, based on a semi-structured interview guide and audio recorded. Transcribed data were evaluated with thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 225 final-year medical students were studied in the quantitative strand. Most were females. The mean score for knowledge was 3.35 ± 0.795 out of six. Of them, 31.6 % of participants scored below 3 points (< 50 % of the total). Most (78.9 %) had positive attitudes (score of > 80 %). Only 36.4 % reported "adequate" hand hygiene performance in all eight dimensions of the behavior domain. Noticeably, fewer participants reported to clean their hands after checking blood pressure (55.6 %), and only 66.2 % stated carrying a hand sanitizer in their pocket. Significant correlations were not found between reported behavior and attitudes (p = 0.821) or knowledge (p = 0.794). The qualitative strand with 12 respondents revealed the positive influence of both hierarchical and non-hierarchal role models. Time constraints, skin irritation, and workload pressures were the main barriers. Frequent reminders, supervision, and interactive teaching were suggested as methods to improve hand hygiene compliance. They also stated that increased enthusiasm was noted on hand hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the participants had positive attitudes towards hand hygiene. Yet, a considerable gap between attitudes and knowledge and reported hand hygiene behavior was evident. Coupling educational programs that use cognitive and behavioral methods, including role modeling, supervision, and frequent reminders, is recommended to bridge the knowledge-attitude-behavior gap.

Bactericidal efficacy of two modified WHO-recommended alcohol-based hand rubs using two types of rub-in techniques for 15 s

We evaluated the bactericidal efficacy of two modified WHO-recommended alcohol-based hand rubs (3 mL) after a 15-s rubbing period using two different rub-in techniques (three vs six steps). The formulation based on 80% w/w ethanol and 0.5% v/v glycerol (modified WHO I) showed a mean log₁₀-reduction of 3.63 ± 0.87 (six steps) and 3.80 ± 0.71 (three steps) which was inferior to the reference treatment (4.27 ± 0.98; six steps). The efficacy of the formulation based on 75% w/w isopropanol and 0.5% v/v glycerol (modified WHO II) was not inferior to the reference treatment for either rub-in technique.

A large-scale investigation of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) volume: hand coverage correlations utilizing an innovative quantitative evaluation system

BACKGROUND

Current hand hygiene guidelines do not provide recommendations on a specific volume for the clinical hand rubbing procedure. According to recent studies volume should be adjusted in order to achieve complete coverage. However, hand size is a parameter that highly influences the hand coverage quality when using alcohol-based handrubs (ABHR). The purpose of this study was to establish a quantitative correlation between applied ABHR volume and achieved hand coverage.

METHOD

ABHR based hand hygiene events were evaluated utilizing a digital health device, the Semmelweis hand hygiene system with respect to coverage achieved on the skin surface. Medical students and surgical residents (N = 356) were randomly selected and given predetermined ABHR volumes. Additionally, hand sizes were calculated using specialized software developed for this purpose. Drying time, ABHR volume awareness, as well spillage awareness were documented for each hand hygiene event.

RESULTS

Hand coverage achieved during a hand hygiene event strongly depends on the applied ABHR volume. At a 1 ml dose, the uncovered hand area was approximately 7.10%, at 2 ml it decreased to 1.68%, and at 3 ml it further decreased to 1.02%. The achieved coverage is strongly correlated to hand size, nevertheless, a 3 ml applied volume proved sufficient for most hand hygiene events (84%). When applying a lower amount of ABHR (1.5 ml), even people with smaller hands failed to cover their entire hand surface. Furthermore, a 3 ml volume requires more than the guideline prescribed 20-30 s to dry. In addition, results suggest that drying time is not only affected by hand size, but perhaps other factors may be involved as well (e.g., skin temperature and degree of hydration). ABHR volumes of 3.5 ml or more were inefficient, as the disinfectant spilled while the additional rubbing time did not improve hand coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand sizes differ a lot among HCWs. After objectively measuring participants, the surface of the smallest hand was just over half compared to the largest hand (259 cm2 and 498 cm2, respectively). While a 3 ml ABHR volume is reasonable for medium-size hands, the need for an optimized volume of handrub for each individual is critical, as it offers several advantages. Not only it can ensure adequate hand hygiene quality, but also prevent unnecessary costs. Bluntly increasing the volume also increases spillage and therefore waste of disinfectant in the case of smaller hands. In addition, adherence could potentially decrease due to the required longer drying time, therefore, adjusting the dosage according to hand size may also increase the overall hand hygiene compliance.

Product dose considerations for real-world hand sanitiser efficacy

BACKGROUND

Alcohol based hand rubs (ABHR) are extremely effective at reducing microbial contamination and have an essential role in best practice hand hygiene described by the World Health Organization.

METHODS

We determined ABHR drying time when performing hand hygiene in a laboratory setting. Which was followed by identifying the amount of ABHR needed for complete hand coverage. When the aforementioned was analyzed real-time data were gathered to examine the amount used for hand hygiene in a hospital setting. In parallel hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) were monitored for drying time and perception on ABHR use.

RESULTS

In 86% (24,446,397/28,280,383) of the events a single dose of ABHR was used on clinical wards. Twenty-four HCWs expected hand hygiene to take 7.5 seconds (median; range 3-30 seconds). Forty-three HCWs show that 1.5 mL ABHR dose achieves the desired drying time according to World Health Organization guidelines (av. median 26 seconds), but is consistently perceived to have a longer drying time than expected (av. median 18 seconds). In-vivo results (n = 10) indicate that 2.25 mL ABHR is required for adequate coverage (82%-90%) of both sides of the hand.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that set standards for the use of ABHR do not match "in-vivo" behaviour of HCWs. Perceived drying times are shorter than actual drying time. The needed drying time to reach acceptable antimicrobial efficacy of ABHRs should be revisited.

Nursing preference for alcohol-based hand rub volume

Background:

The effectiveness of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) is correlated with drying time, which depends on the volume applied. Evidence suggests that there is considerable variation in the amount of ABHR used by healthcare providers.

Objective:

We sought to identify the volume of ABHR preferred for use by nurses.

Methods:

A prospective observation study was performed in 8 units at a tertiary-care hospital. Nurses were provided pocket-sized ABHR bottles with caps to record each bottle opening. Nurses were instructed to use the volume of ABHR they felt was best. The average ABHR volume used per hand hygiene event was calculated using cap data and changes in bottle mass.

Results:

In total, 53 nurses participated and 140 nurse shifts were analyzed. The average ABHR dose was 1.09 mL. This value was greater for non-ICU nurses (1.18 mL) than ICU nurses (0.96 mL), but this difference was not significant. We detected no significant association between hand surface area and preferred average dose volume. The ABHR dose volume was 0.006 mL less per use as the number of applications per shift increased (P = .007).

Conclusions:

The average dose of ABHR used was similar to the dose provided by the hospital’s automated dispensers, which deliver 1.1 mL per dose. The volume of ABHR dose was inversely correlated with the number of applications of ABHR per shift and was not correlated with hand size. Further research to understand differences and drivers of ABHR volume preferences and whether automated ABHR dosing may create a risk for people with larger hands is warranted.

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.