Comparison of different regimens for surgical hand preparation

Theranostic gold-in-gold cage nanoparticles enable photothermal ablation and photoacoustic imaging in biofilm-associated infection models

Biofilms are structured communities of microbial cells embedded in a self-produced matrix of extracellular polymeric substances. Biofilms are associated with many health issues in humans, including chronic wound infections and tooth decay. Current antimicrobials are often incapable of disrupting the polymeric biofilm matrix and reaching the bacteria within. Alternative approaches are needed. Here, we described a complex structure of a dextran-coated gold-in-gold cage nanoparticle that enabled photoacoustic and photothermal properties for biofilm detection and treatment. Activation of these nanoparticles with a near infrared laser could selectively detect and kill biofilm bacteria with precise spatial control and in a short timeframe. We observed a strong biocidal effect against both Streptococcus mutans and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in mouse models of oral plaque and wound infections, respectively. These effects were over 100 times greater than those seen with chlorhexidine, a conventional antimicrobial agent. Moreover, this approach did not adversely affect surrounding tissues. We concluded that photothermal ablation using theranostic nanoparticles is a rapid, precise, and nontoxic method to detect and treat biofilm-associated infections.

Theranostic gold in a gold cage nanoparticle for photothermal ablation and photoacoustic imaging of skin and oral infections

Biofilms are structured communities of microbial cells embedded in a self-produced matrix of extracellular polymeric substances. Biofilms are associated with many health issues in humans, including chronic wound infections and tooth decay. Current antimicrobials are often incapable of disrupting the polymeric biofilm matrix and reaching the bacteria within. Alternative approaches are needed. Here, we describe a unique structure of dextran coated gold in a gold cage nanoparticle that enables photoacoustic and photothermal properties for biofilm detection and treatment. Activation of these nanoparticles with a near infrared laser can selectively detect and kill biofilm bacteria with precise spatial control and in a short timeframe. We observe a strong biocidal effect against both Streptococcus mutans and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in mouse models of oral plaque and wound infections respectively. These effects were over 100 times greater than that seen with chlorhexidine, a conventional antimicrobial agent. Moreover, this approach did not adversely affect surrounding tissues. We conclude that photothermal ablation using theranostic nanoparticles is a rapid, precise, and non-toxic method to detect and treat biofilm-associated infections.

Sustainable Hand Surgery: Incorporating Water Efficiency Into Clinical Practice

Introduction Public health and well-being outcomes are intimately connected with the health of our planet. Climate change has numerous far-reaching effects. Managing and mitigating these risks to human health presents one of the next challenges to global healthcare. The current usage of planetary resources is unsustainable. Surgical procedures are particularly resource-intensive, often utilising vast amounts of single-use consumables, like water. In the last 100 years global usage of fresh water has increased six-fold and continues to rise by 1% year on year. It is well established that initial hand sterilization and maintenance of hand sterility during the surgical list are essential for preventing hospital-acquired infections and associated morbidity and mortality. This study aims to estimate the current daily water usage of two typical hand surgery lists from a District General Hospital in North Wales, to determine potential water savings by switching exclusively to an alcohol-based hand rub for subsequent scrubs, in line with current national guidelines. Methods Observational study estimation of water consumption from a temperature-controlled manual tap required using a 1 litre volumetric jug where the time taken to fill was recorded. Three separate observational samples were taken, and a mean was calculated. This mean determined the amount of water dispensed from the tap in a standard 3 min scrub and subsequent 1 min scrub. Two different theatre schedules were analysed: 1. A trauma list (five cases) and 2. A higher volume minor elective procedure schedule (16 cases), in this case a wide-awake local anaesthetic no tourniquet (WALANT) carpal tunnel release (CTR). Results Each case regardless of procedure had approximately three persons scrubbed. 20.57L of water is used for one person to scrub for 3 mins and an extra 6.8574L for each subsequent 1 min scrub. Therefore, current daily water consumption could reach 143.99L during the major hand trauma list and 411.4L during a high-volume carpal tunnel release list. Conclusion Simply following current guidelines by switching to alcohol-based hand rub just for subsequent scrubs could reduce water consumption by 57.2% for hand trauma lists and 70.2% for high-volume CTR lists.

Comparative antimicrobial efficacy of 4 surgical hand-preparation procedures prior to application of an alcohol-based hand rub in veterinary students

OBJECTIVE

To determine the influence of skin preparations before application of an alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) on bacterial counts before and after elective surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical prospective study.

SAMPLE POPULATION

Veterinary students (n = 103) performing ovariohysterectomies on 140 dogs.

METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned to 1 initial surgical preparation on the day of surgery: A - hand preparation with medicated solution (4% w/v chlorhexidine bigluconate followed by an ABHR; B - application of a medication solution (benzalkonium chloride 0.1%-1% and polymeric biguanide hydrochloride 0.01%-0.1%) followed by an ABHR; C - nonmedicated pH-neutral soap hand wash followed by ABHR, and D - direct application of an ABHR. Samples were taken by pressing the distal finger tips to an agar plate before the hand preparation, after the hand preparation (n = 3), after ABHR application, and 120 minutes later. Colony-forming units (CFUs) for samples were determined. Total log CFU and CFU log10 reduction were calculated and used for comparison with P < .05.

RESULTS

Two hours after surgery commenced, the participants of groups that performed a hand preparation had lower total CFUs than those that did not perform a hand preparation (P = .001). In particular, the number of CFUs was lower when ABHR was performed after application of pHN compared to direct ABHR (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

In this population, performing a hand preparation with pHN prior to applying an ABHR had better antimicrobial effect for the duration of surgery than not performing a hand preparation.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Surgeons should wash their hands prior to ABHR before starting their first surgery of the day, even when hands appear clean.

Surgical hand hygiene and febrile urinary tract infections in endourological surgery: a single-centre prospective cohort study

Surgical hand hygiene reduces the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs). SSIs are not considered an issue in endourological surgery, whereas febrile urinary tract infections (f-UTIs) and urological sepsis are becoming problematic. We wondered whether surgical hand hygiene is necessary for endourological surgery. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the influence of surgical hand hygiene on f-UTI onset in endourological surgery by comparing procedures in which surgical hand hygiene with double gloving was used with those in which regular hand hygiene with double gloving was used between April 2016 and July 2020. In this prospective cohort study of 477 patients who underwent endourological surgeries, surgeons in the surgical hand hygiene and regular hygiene groups performed surgery on 259 and 218 patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in patient background, and multivariate analyses revealed no significant differences in f-UTI onset (odds ratio, 0.87; p = 0.74) between the two groups. In conclusion, regular hand hygiene with double gloving may be considered an alternative to surgical hand hygiene to prevent endourological f-UTIs, which could alter operational protocols for endourological surgery. Further studies are needed to validate our findings.

Two-Layer Wound Sealing before Surgical Hand Washing for Surgeons with a Minor Cut Injury on the Hand

Background: There is a lack of evidence-based recommendations for surgical hand washing when there is a minor cut on the hand. We sought to evaluate whether two-layer wound sealing functions as a barrier to prevent the spread of micro-organisms. Methods: We randomly categorized 20 surgeons into subjects with either a right- or left-hand injury. Each subject was assumed to have a minor injury on the assigned hand and the other hand was used as a control. Subjects applied a waterproof topical dressing as a first layer, then protected the injured area with a second layer using an antimicrobial drape, and finally performed surgical hand rubbing. Subjects stamped each hand onto an agar plate. The injured hands were checked by an investigator to confirm the wounded area remained properly sealed after hand rubbing. Colonies were counted and the micro-organisms were identified after 48 hours of incubation. Results: There was no leak found from two-layer wound sealing after hand washing. Mean number of the colonies was 0.2 on the injured hand and 0.25 on the uninjured hand (p = 0.772). The micro-organisms cultured from both the injured and uninjured hands were coagulase-negative staphylococci. Conclusions: Using a model for a minor cut injury on the hand this study demonstrated that two-layer wound sealing is an effective barrier not only to prevent the spread of micro-organisms but also to protect surgeons.

Operating Room Hand Preparation: To Scrub or to Rub?

BACKGROUND

The alcohol rub has been proposed as an alternative to the traditional surgical scrub in preparing the hands for surgical procedures. Few reviews have examined critically the evidence that favors or discredits the use of the alcohol rub instead of the traditional scrub.

METHODS

A review of available published literature was undertaken to define the evidence for the best methods for hand preparation before surgical procedures. The focus of this literature review was to compare the bacteriologic and clinical outcomes of conventional surgical scrubbing of the hands compared with alcohol rubs.

RESULTS

The bacteriologic studies of the hands after the conventional scrub versus the alcohol rub demonstrated consistently comparable or superior reductions in bacterial presence on the hand with the alcohol rub. Only four clinical studies were identified that compared the scrub versus the rub in the frequency of surgical site infections. No difference in surgical site infections were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The alcohol rub appears to have comparable results to the surgical scrub and is a reasonable alternative in preparation of the hands for surgical procedures.

Antiseptic efficacies of waterless hand rub, chlorhexidine scrub, and povidone-iodine scrub in surgical settings: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Presurgical hand washing is crucial for preventing surgical site infections (SSIs). Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and povidone-iodine (PI) products have been conventionally used as hand scrubs for presurgical hand preparation. However, waterless hand rub (WHR) products have been developed for operating room staff.

AIM

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the antiseptic efficacies of WHR, CHG, and PI in surgical settings.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases as well as the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for studies published before October 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes of the use of WHRs, CHG, or PI for presurgical hand washing were included. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Colony-forming unit (cfu) counts, SSI rates, and preference and compliance were determined to measure efficacies.

FINDINGS

Eleven RCTs involving 5135 participants were included. Residual cfu counts were significantly lower in the WHR and CHG groups than in the PI group. The differences in cfu counts between the WHR and CHG groups were non-significant. No significant differences were observed in the SSI rates between the WHR and traditional hand scrub groups. Moreover, WHRs were considered most favourable and were associated with higher compliance rates than the other products.

CONCLUSION

WHRs and CHG exhibited higher antiseptic efficacies than PI. However, additional studies with consistent outcome measurements and accurate grouping are required to obtain comprehensive results. Moreover, preference, compliance, and the cost determine the selection of hand wash products.

Waterless Hand Rub Versus Traditional Hand Scrub Methods for Preventing the Surgical Site Infection in Orthopedic Surgery

MINI: Fourteen hundred consecutive patients were investigated for evaluating the utility of waterless hand rub before orthopaedic surgery. The risk in the surgical site infection incidence was the same, but costs of liquids used for hand hygiene were cheaper and the hand hygiene time was shorter for waterless protocol, compared with traditional hand scrub.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare SSI incidences, the cost of hand hygiene agents, and hand hygiene time between the traditional hand scrub and the waterless hand rub protocols before orthopedic surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical site infections (SSI) prolong hospitalization and are a leading nosocomial cause of morbidity and a source of excess cost. Recently, a waterless hand rub protocol comprising alcohol based chlorhexidine gluconate for use before surgery was developed, but no studies have yet examined its utility in orthopedic surgery.

METHODS

Fourteen hundred consecutive patients who underwent orthopedic surgery (spine, joint replacement, hand, and trauma surgeries) in our hospital since April 1, 2012 were included. A total of 712 cases underwent following traditional hand scrub between April 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013 and 688 cases underwent following waterless hand rub between June 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014. We compared SSI incidences within all and each subcategory between two hand hygiene protocols. All patients were screened for SSI within 1 year after surgery. We compared the cost of hand hygiene agents and hand hygiene time between two groups.

RESULTS

The SSI incidences were 1.3% (9 of 712) following the traditional protocol (2 deep and 7 superficial infections) and 1.1% (8 of 688) following the waterless protocol (all superficial infections). There were no significant differences between the two groups. The costs of liquids used for one hand hygiene were about $2 for traditional hand scrub and less than $1 for waterless hand rub. The mean hand hygiene time was 264 seconds with the traditional protocol and 160 seconds with the waterless protocol.

CONCLUSION

Waterless hand rub with an alcohol based chlorhexidine gluconate solution can be a safe, quick, and cost-effective alternative to traditional hand scrub.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Preoperative Hand Decontamination in Ophthalmic Surgery: A Comparison of the Removal of Bacteria from Surgeons' Hands by Routine Antimicrobial Scrub versus an Alcoholic Hand Rub

PURPOSE

The goal of this experiment was to evaluate and compare the antimicrobial efficacy of routine preoperative hand washing using commercial medicated sponge brushes versus an alcoholic hand rub, by comparing bacterial growth on ophthalmic surgeons' hands after application of each of these methods.

METHODS

Twenty ophthalmic surgeons were recruited at the Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center in Jerusalem, Israel. Samples were collected twice from the hands of each surgeon after hand decontamination using two different protocols during routine surgical practice. The routine preparation consisted of a 3-minute surgical scrub using commercial brush-sponges incorporating either 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) or 1% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) formulations with detergent, followed by drying the hands with a sterile towel, while the 70% ethanol solution was applied for 60-seconds and allowed to air dry. Half of the group was randomly assigned to provide samples first after the routine method and the alcoholic solution a week later, and the other half of the group was sampled in the reverse order. Viable counts of bacteria were evaluated using a modified glove juice method. Bacterial colonies were enumerated after incubation for 24 hours and expressed as colony forming units (CFU)/mL for each pair of hands.

RESULTS

Geometric mean counts were 1310 and 39 CFU/mL, in the routine and alcohol rub groups, respectively, representing a mean log₁₀ reduction in 1.53. The difference between the paired bacterial counts for the routine versus the alcohol rub was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between log₁₀ reductions for CHG and PVP-I (p = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that an alcohol rub protocol is more effective in reducing bacterial counts on hands than routine surgical hand preparation with PVP-I and CHG in a population of practicing ophthalmic surgeons in the operative clinical setting. Thus, it provides a safe alternative as a preoperative hand disinfection method.

The Association of Shelter Veterinarians' 2016 Veterinary Medical Care Guidelines for Spay-Neuter Programs

As community efforts to reduce the overpopulation and euthanasia of unwanted and unowned cats and dogs have increased, many veterinarians have increasingly focused their clinical efforts on the provision of spay-neuter services. Because of the wide range of geographic and demographic needs, a wide variety of spay-neuter programs have been developed to increase delivery of services to targeted populations of animals, including stationary and mobile clinics, MASH-style operations, shelter services, community cat programs, and services provided through private practitioners. In an effort to promote consistent, high-quality care across the broad range of these programs, the Association of Shelter Veterinarians convened a task force of veterinarians to develop veterinary medical care guidelines for spay-neuter programs. These guidelines consist of recommendations for general patient care and clinical procedures, preoperative care, anesthetic management, surgical procedures, postoperative care, and operations management. They were based on current principles of anesthesiology, critical care medicine, infection control, and surgical practice, as determined from published evidence and expert opinion. They represent acceptable practices that are attainable in spay-neuter programs regardless of location, facility, or type of program. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians envisions that these guidelines will be used by the profession to maintain consistent veterinary medical care in all settings where spay-neuter services are provided and to promote these services as a means of reducing sheltering and euthanasia of cats and dogs.

The Effects of Surgical Hand Scrubbing Protocols on Skin Integrity and Surgical Site Infection Rates: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to critically appraise and synthesize updated evidence regarding the effect of surgical-scrub techniques on skin integrity and the incidence of surgical site infections. Databases searched include the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central. Our review was limited to eight peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials and two nonrandomized controlled trials published in English from 1990 to 2015. Comparison models included traditional hand scrubbing with chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone-iodine against alcohol-based hand rubbing, scrubbing with a brush versus without a brush, and detergent-based antiseptics alone versus antiseptics incorporating alcohol solutions. Evidence showed that hand rubbing techniques are as effective as traditional scrubbing and seem to be better tolerated. Hand rubbing appears to cause less skin damage than traditional scrub protocols, and scrub personnel tolerated brushless techniques better than scrubbing using a brush.

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.

Antimicrobial considerations in the perioperative patient

Surgical site infections are among the complications that can be reduced with the timely implementation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy. A 3-D approach to judicious antimicrobial use focuses on the de-escalation of systemic antimicrobial therapy, design of dosing regimens, and decontamination of the surgeon, patient, and environment. De-escalation can be accomplished in part through proper antimicrobial prophylaxis. Dosing regimens should be designed to maximize efficacy and minimize resistance. Decontamination includes disinfection of inanimate surfaces and timely application of appropriate antiseptics at concentrations that maximize efficacy.

Evaluation of an Alcohol-Based Surgical Hand Disinfectant Containing a Synergistic Combination of Farnesol and Benzethonium Chloride for Immediate and Persistent Activity Against Resident Hand Flora of Volunteers and With a Novel In Vitro Pig Skin Model

Objective.

To evaluate the immediate, persistent and sustained in vivo activity of an alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectant, consisting of a zinc gel and a preservative system containing a synergistic combination of farnesol and benzethonium chloride (ZBF disinfectant), and to develop a pig skin model for in vitro evaluation of the immediate and persistent efficacy of alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectants against resident hand flora.

Design.

The in vivo immediate, persistent, and sustained activity of ZBF disinfectant was evaluated using human volunteers and the “glove-juice” method described in the US Food and Drug Administration's Tentative Final Monograph (FDA-TFM) for Healthcare Antiseptic Products. A novel in vitro pig skin model was developed to compare the immediate and persistent activity of alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectants against resident flora usingStaphylococcus epidermidisas the test organism. Four alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectants were evaluated using this model.

Results.

The results for the ZBF disinfectant exceed the FDA-TFM criteria for immediate, persistent, and sustained activity required for surgical hand disinfectants. The reduction factors for the 4 hand disinfectants obtained using the pig skin model show good agreement with the log10reductions in concentrations of hand flora obtained using human volunteers to test for immediate and persistent activity.

Conclusion.

The ZBF disinfectant we evaluated met the FDA-TFM criteria for surgical hand disinfectants. The immediate and persistent efficacy of the surgical hand disinfectants evaluated with the novel pig skin model described in this study shows good agreement with the results obtained in vivo.

Population Kinetics of the Skin Flora on Gloved Hands Following Surgical Hand Disinfection With 3 Propanol-Based Hand Rubs: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

Objective.

To study the bacterial population kinetics on gloved hands following hand treatment with 3 optically indistinguishable, alcohol-based surgical hand rubs, with and without supplements to delay bacterial regrowth.

Design.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, balanced quasi-Greco-Latin square design.

Setting.

Microbiology laboratory of the Medical University Vienna, Austria.

Participants.

Twenty-four healthy adult volunteers without skin lesions.

Surgical Hand Rubs.

The following hand rubs, all stained blue, were applied to the hands for 3 minutes: 1-propanol 60% vol/vol (A); 2-propanol 70% m/m plus chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5% wt/wt (B); 2-propanol 45% wt/wt plus 1-propanol 30% wt/wt plus mecetronium etilsulfate 0.2% wt/wt (C). As a reference formulation (R), 1-propanol 60% vol/vol, unstained, was applied for the same amount of time.

Method.

In 8 once-weekly tests, 24 subjects randomly assigned to use the 4 hand rubs in groups of 6 persons each performed hand hygiene according to the method described in European Norm 12791. Every subject used one preparation at a time, the antimicrobial effect of which was evaluated at 2 sampling times. After week 8, each volunteer had tested every preparation at every preset sampling time. All preparations were tested in parallel.

Results.

The mean pretreatment counts of viable bacteria (in colony-forming units per milliliter) in fluid samples were not significantly different between week 1 and week 8, nor between the right and left hands (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P > .1). Immediately after applying the formulation (t0), bactericidal effects of the blinded formulations A and C were equivalent to that of the reference formulation R, whereas the effect of B was questionable. The population kinetics of the flora on the hands proceeded from large and fast initial reductions of the skin flora by 2.7 log units (A), 3.1 log units (B), 3.3 log units (reference formulation), and 3.5 log units (C), to slow regrowth. However, even after 6 hours wearing gloves viable bacterial counts remained significantly (P < .01) below the baseline values (by 0.9 log [reference formulation], 1.1 log [A and B], and 1.5 log [C]). The slowest regrowth 1 and 3 hours after application (∆ from t0, 0.1 log and 0.7 log respectively) was seen with formulation C, and the slowest regrowth after 6 hours was seen with formulation B (∆ from t0, 1.6 log). These differences did, however, not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions.

With respect to the rapid and dramatic antibacterial action of suitable alcohols at high concentrations and with appropriate neutralizers, the contribution of supplements to the delay of bacterial regrowth on gloved hands appears rather minor, if a product only exerts an immediate effect equivalent to that of the reference disinfection procedure described in EN 12791.

Impact of a Single Plain Finger Ring on the Bacterial Load on the Hands of Healthcare Workers

Objective.

To investigate the impact of a single plain finger ring on the number and types of bacteria on the hands of healthcare workers (HCWs).

Design.

Nonequivalent control groups, posttest only (preexperimental).

Methods.

A total of 121 HCWs wearing 1 plain ring and 113 HCWs wearing no rings had both hands sampled by the “glove juice” technique. Quantitative culture of the samples was performed and microorganisms were identified.

Setting.

Two Norwegian acute care hospitals.

Participants.

A total of 234 HCWs who had physical contact with patients.

Results.

Total bacterial counts did not differ when hands with rings and hands without rings were compared, both according to nonpaired analysis (which compared the ring-bearing hands of ring-wearing HCWs to the hands of HCWs who did not wear rings [P= .661]) and according to paired analysis (which compared the ring-bearing and ring-free hands of ring-wearing HCWs [P= .071]).Staphylococcus aureuswas recovered from 18.6% of the hands sampled, belonging to 26.9% of the HCWs, but neither paired nor nonpaired analysis showed any association with ring wearing. Gram-negative bacteria were recovered from 20.3% of the hands sampled, belonging to 28.6% of the HCWs. Ring-wearing HCWs were significantly more likely to be carriers of Enterobacteriaceae (P= .006), but paired comparison of the ring-bearing and ring-free hands of these HCWs did not show significant differences (P= .180). Carriage of nonfermentative gram-negative rods did not differ between the 2 groups, by either paired or nonpaired analysis.

Conclusions.

Wearing a single plain finger ring did not increase the total bacterial load on the hands, nor was it associated with an increased rate of carriage ofS. aureusor nonfermentative gram-negative rods. However, plain rings were associated with an increased rate of Enterobacteriaceae carriage.

Influence of Rings on the Efficacy of Hand Sanitization and Residual Bacterial Contamination

Background.

Previous studies, conducted before widespread use of scrubless, alcohol-based hand sanitizers, demonstrated increased residual bacterial counts after hand hygiene on hands with jewelry.

Objective.

To compare the impact of finger rings on the effectiveness of scrubless and water-aided alcohol-based hand sanitization methods with that of povidone-iodine scrub.

Design.

Randomized, controlled study.

Setting.

University hospital.

Participants.

Sixty volunteer subjects from a pool of perioperative staff and medical students.

Intervention.

After recruitment, participants wore a ring on one hand and no ring on the other hand. They were randomly assigned to perform hand hygiene with a povidone-iodine scrub, an alcohol wash, or a waterless alcohol-chlorhexidine lotion (n = 20 subjects per method). After subjects completed hand hygiene, gloves were placed on their hands by means of sterile methods, and a “glove juice” technique was used to obtain samples for culture. The number of colony-forming units in each culture was counted, and the data were compared.

Results.

There was no significant difference in the number of bacteria between hands with and hands without rings for the groups that used alcohol wash or alcohol-chlorhexidine lotion. However, for the povidone-iodine group, the number of bacteria on hands with rings was greater than the number on hands without rings (P < .05). The hands of participants who used waterless alcohol-chlorhexidine had the lowest bacterial count, regardless of the presence of rings (P < .01).

Conclusions.

The presence of rings does not negatively impact the effectiveness of alcohol-based hand sanitizers. Use of waterless alcohol-chlorhexidine lotion resulted in the lowest bacterial count.

Comparative antimicrobial efficacy of alcohol-based hand rub and conventional surgical scrub in a medical center

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene is the cornerstone of aseptic techniques to reduce surgical site infection. Conventional surgical scrub is effective for disinfecting a surgeon's hands. However, the compliance of conventional scrub may be hindered by skin damage, allergy, and time. Alcohol-based hand rub has a satisfactory antimicrobial effect, but mostly in laboratory settings. Our aim was to compare a conventional surgical scrub with an alcohol-based hand rub to evaluate antimicrobial efficacy.

METHODS

From June 1, 2010 to July 31, 2011, 128 healthcare workers were enrolled in the study. They used an alcohol-based hand rub or a conventional surgical scrub as preoperative hand antisepsis during their routine practice. Hand sampling for cultures were performed before and after operations. Positive culture plates were further processed for pathogen identification.

RESULTS

The culture positive rate of the alcohol-based hand rub was 6.2% before operations and 10.8% after operations. Both rates were lower than the conventional surgical scrub [47.6% before operations (p < 0.001) and 25.4% after operations (p = 0.03)]. The most identified pathogens were Gram-positive with coagulase-negative staphylococci being the major pathogen. Multivariate analysis showed that prior hand condition (p = 0.21) and type of surgery such as cardiovascular surgery (p = 0.12) were less relevant, but the alcohol-based hand rub was a significant protective factor for positive hand cultures.

CONCLUSION

The alcohol-based hand rub was more efficacious for surgical antisepsis and had sustained efficacy, compared to conventional surgical scrub. We suggest that alcohol-based hand rubs could be an alternative surgical antiseptic in the operative theater.

Effect of surgical site infections with waterless and traditional hand scrubbing protocols on bacterial growth

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-based antiseptic scrub formulation has long been used for hand cleansing in the operating room. Recently, a waterless surgical scrub formulation containing 1% chlorhexidine gluconate was developed to provide a comparable antiseptic effect. The present study explored the scrub time required when using waterless hand scrub and traditional hand scrub formulations for operating room staff and compared bacterial growth on the hands after surgical hand scrubbing in the 2 groups.

METHODS

Operating room staff members (n = 100) were recruited randomly from medical centers in Taiwan. Two days in July 2010 were chosen for testing in advance, and the participants were assigned equally to use either a waterless scrub or traditional scrub formulation on 2 separate days. Scrub times were recorded and microorganisms on hands after scrubbing were sampled on 2 separate days. Two days after sampling, the colonies grown on bacterial culture plates were counted and expressed as colony-forming units (CFU) per plate.

RESULTS

At 48 hours after sampling, microorganisms were found on 7 of the 50 plates in the waterless scrub group (1-9 CFU) and on 7 of the 50 plates in the traditional scrub group (1-5 CFU). The difference between the groups was no statistically significant (95% CI, 0.85-1.71). Nine surgical patients were found to have contact with the 14 participants with microorganisms found after scrubbing in the operating room. Among these 9 patients, 1 patient with diabetes who underwent amputation developed local reddish swelling suggestive of surgical site infection necessitating a 7-day course of cefalexin. The incidence of surgical site infection was not signifcantly different in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that waterless hand scrub is as effective as traditional hand scrub in cleansing the hands of microorganisms and more efficient in terms of scrub time.

Prospective, randomized in vivo comparison of a dual-active waterless antiseptic versus two alcohol-only waterless antiseptics for surgical hand antisepsis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to demonstrate the value of adding an active level of a persistent antimicrobial agent, such as chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), to an alcohol-based surgical hand antiseptic.

METHODS

The persistence of 3 waterless, brushless alcohol-based surgical hand antiseptics, including one product containing CHG, was compared. The test products were applied a total of 12 times over 5 days. Samples of aerobic bacteria were collected on days 1 and 5, on both days immediately after drying and 6 hours later, using the glove juice technique. Relative suppression of regrowth was compared using t tests.

RESULTS

Using an equivalence margin of 20%, the alcohol plus CHG product showed noninferiority to the alcohol-only products at all sampling points and, based on significantly lower bacterial regrowth (P = .026), superior persistence to the alcohol-only products after 6 hours of glove wear.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the primary objective of surgical hand antisepsis of reducing resident skin flora for the duration of the surgical procedure, using an alcohol-based hand antiseptic containing CHG appears to be the most appropriate choice for maintaining microbial levels as low as possible for as long as possible.

Cluster-randomized, crossover trial of the efficacy of plain soap and water versus alcohol-based rub for surgical hand preparation in a rural hospital in Kenya

Background

The aim of this cluster-randomized, crossover trial was to compare the efficacy of plain soap and water with an alcohol-based handrub for surgical hand preparation and prevention of surgical-site infection (SSI) in a Kenyan rural hospital.

Methods

A total of 3317 patients undergoing clean and clean-contaminated surgery were included. Follow-up data 30 days after discharge were available for 3133 patients (94·5 per cent).

Results

SSI occurred in 255 patients (8·1 per cent), with similar rates for both study arms: 8·3 per cent for alcohol-based handrub versus 8·0 per cent for plain soap and water (odds ratio 1·03, 95 per cent confidence interval 0·80 to 1·33). After adjustment for imbalances between study arms and clustering effects, the main outcome measure remained unchanged (adjusted odds ratio 1·06, 0·81 to 1·38). The duration of surgery and wound contamination class independently predicted SSI. The cost difference between the methods was small (€4·60 per week for alcohol-based handrub compared with €3·30 for soap and water).

Conclusion

There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in SSI rates, probably because more important factors contribute to SSI development. However, this study demonstrated the feasibility and affordability of alcohol-based handrubs for hand preparation before surgery in settings without continuous, clean water. Registration number: NCT00987402 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

The World Health Organization Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care and their consensus recommendations

The World Health Organization's Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care have been issued by WHO Patient Safety on 5 May 2009 on the occasion of the launch of the Save Lives: Clean Your Hands initiative. The Guidelines represent the contribution of more than 100 international experts and provide a comprehensive overview of essential aspects of hand hygiene in health care, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations, and lessons learned from testing their Advanced Draft and related implementation tools.

Improving adherence to surgical hand preparation

At present, no universal agreement on detailed practice for surgical hand preparation exists. In order to fill this gap, in 2002 a Franco-German recommendation for surgical hand preparation was published as a first step towards a generally accepted European recommendation. Based on an assessment of the actual literature, a protocol for surgical hand preparation is discussed with the aim to recommend evidence-based standard procedures including prerequisites, washing and disinfection phase, and its practical implementation. In contrast to hygienic hand disinfection, for surgical hand preparation compliance is not an issue, since it mostly is regarded as a ceremony which is carried out without exception. Nevertheless, the following factors influence acceptance and efficacy: skin tolerance, ease of use, duration of procedure, and recommended time), potential for impaired efficacy due to incorrect performance of the procedure, possibility of systemic risks and irritating potential by applied preparations, religious restrictions, ecological aspects, costs and safety. Here, we report our experience with the introduction of a new hand preparation regime in all surgical disciplines in our university hospital based on the above factors. The following statements were evaluated: 1) The immediate efficacy of an alcohol-based hand disinfectant is impaired by a preceding hand wash for up to 10 minutes. Therefore hands should not be routinely washed before the disinfection period unless there is a good reason for it such as visible soiling. 2) A shortened application time (1.5 minutes) is equal to 3 min in terms of efficacy. 3) Hands should be air dried before gloves are put on, otherwise the perforation rate of gloves will increase. 4) The efficacy of alcohol-based disinfectants is significantly higher when hands are allowed to dry for 1 minute after the washing phase and before the disinfection phase. To clarify the above questions before the establishment of the modified technique, the surgical team was invited to a meeting. As a result, the heads of surgical departments supported the new technique and decided to change their practice.

The Association of Shelter Veterinarians veterinary medical care guidelines for spay-neuter programs

As efforts to reduce the overpopulation and euthanasia of unwanted and unowned dogs and cats have increased, greater attention has been focused on spay-neuter programs throughout the United States. Because of the wide range of geographic and demographic needs, a wide variety of programs have been developed to increase delivery of spay-neuter services to targeted populations of animals, including stationary and mobile clinics, MASH-style operations, shelter services, feral cat programs, and services provided through private practitioners. In an effort to ensure a consistent level of care, the Association of Shelter Veterinarians convened a task force of veterinarians to develop veterinary medical care guidelines for spay-neuter programs. The guidelines consist of recommendations for preoperative care (eg, patient transport and housing, patient selection, client communication, record keeping, and medical considerations), anesthetic management (eg, equipment, monitoring, perioperative considerations, anesthetic protocols, and emergency preparedness), surgical care (eg, operating-area environment; surgical-pack preparation; patient preparation; surgeon preparation; surgical procedures for pediatric, juvenile, and adult patients; and identification of neutered animals), and postoperative care (eg, analgesia, recovery, and release). These guidelines are based on current principles of anesthesiology, critical care medicine, microbiology, and surgical practice, as determined from published evidence and expert opinion. They represent acceptable practices that are attainable in spay-neuter programs.

Chlorhexidine - Pharmacology and Clinical Applications

chlorhexidine is a widely used skin antisepsis preparation and is an ingredient in toothpaste and mouthwash. It is an especially effective antiseptic when combined with alcohol. Its antimicrobial effects persist because it is binds strongly to proteins in the skin and mucosa, making it an effective antiseptic ingredient for handwashing, skin preparation for surgery and the placement of intravascular access. Catheters impregnated with chlorhexidine and antimicrobial agents can reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections. Contact dermatitis related to chlorhexidine is not common in health care workers. The incidence of contact dermatitis to chlorhexidine in atopic patients is approximately 2.5 to 5.4%. Acute hypersensitivity reactions to chlorhexidine are often not recognised and therefore may be underreported. This review discusses the pharmacology, microbiology, clinical applications and adverse effects of chlorhexidine.

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.

Quantity of ethanol absorption after excessive hand disinfection using three commercially available hand rubs is minimal and below toxic levels for humans

Background

Despite the increasing promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs and the worldwide use of ethanol-based hand rubs in hospitals only few studies have specifically addressed the issue of ethanol absorption when repeatedly applied to human skin. The aim of this study was to assess if ethanol absorption occurs during hygienic and surgical hand disinfection using three different alcohol-based hand-rubs, and to quantify absorption levels in humans.

Methods

Twelve volunteers applied three hand-rubs containing 95% (hand-rub A), 85% (hand-rub B) and 55% ethanol (hand-rub C; all w/w). For hygienic hand disinfection, 4 mL were applied 20 times for 30 s, with 1 minute break between applications. For surgical hand disinfection, 20 mL of each hand rub was applied to hands and arms up to the level of the elbow 10 times for 3 minutes, with a break of 5 minutes between applications. Blood concentrations of ethanol and acetaldehyde were determined immediately prior and up to 90 minutes after application using head space gas chromatography.

Results

The median of absorbed ethanol after hygienic hand disinfection was 1365 mg (A), 630 mg (B), and 358 mg (C). The proportion of absorbed ethanol was 2.3% (A), 1.1% (B), and 0.9% (C). After surgical hand disinfection, the median of absorbed ethanol was 1067 mg (A), 1542 mg (B), and 477 mg (C). The proportion of absorbed ethanol was 0.7% (A), 1.1% (B), and 0.5% (C). The highest median acetaldehyde concentration after 20 hygienic hand disinfections was 0.57 mg/L (hand-rub C, after 30 min), after 10 surgical hand disinfections 3.99 mg/L (hand-rub A, after 20 minutes).

Conclusion

The overall dermal and pulmonary absorption of ethanol was below toxic levels in humans and allows the conclusion that the use of the evaluated ethanol-based hand-rubs is safe.

An in-use microbiological comparison of two surgical hand disinfection techniques in cardiothoracic surgery: hand rubbing versus hand scrubbing

Surgical site infection after heart surgery increases morbidity and mortality. The method of presurgical hand disinfection could influence the infection risk. From February to April 2003, we compared the microbiological efficacy of hand-rubbing (R) and hand-scrubbing (S) procedures. The surgical team alternately used hand-scrubbing or hand-rubbing techniques every two weeks. Fingertip impressions were taken before and immediately after hand disinfection, every 2h and at the end of the operation. Acceptability of hand rubbing was assessed by a questionnaire. Mean durations of surgical procedures were 259+/-68 and 244+/-69min for groups S and R respectively (P=0.43). Bacterial counts immediately after hand disinfection were comparable with the two techniques, but significantly lower in group R at the end of surgery. No differences were observed between the percentages of negative samples taken after 2h, 4h and at the end of surgery between the two groups. Bacterial skin flora reduction immediately after hand disinfection, after 2h and 4h of operating time and at the end of surgery was better in group R, but the difference was not statistically significant. Before surgery, the hand-rubbing method with alcohol solution preceded by hand washing with mild neutral soap is as effective as hand scrubbing to reduce bacterial counts on hands. It decreased the bacterial counts both immediately after hand disinfection and at the end of long cardiothoracic surgical procedures. The acceptability of hand rubbing was excellent and it can be considered to be a valid alternative to the conventional hand-scrubbing protocol.

Comparative of a new and innovative 2% chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated cloth with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as topical antiseptic for preparation of the skin prior to surgery

BACKGROUND

Decreasing the microbial skin burden reduces the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). The present study compares the activity of an innovative 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-impregnated preoperative skin preparation cloth (PC) with a standard application procedure with a 4% CHG surgical skin preparation (SP).

METHODS

A paired, randomized, parallel phase III study was conducted adhering to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) design criteria for evaluating preoperative skin preparations. Subjects' left and right sides of the inguinal and abdominal skin sites (n = 30) were randomized to either PC or SP treatment. Following baseline cultures, PC sites were prepped for 3 minutes, and SP sites were prepped for 4 minutes. Skin site cultures were obtained at 10 minutes, 30 minutes, and 6 hours postpreparation. Bacterial recovery was expressed as log(10) colony-forming units (cfu)/cm(2) for baseline and postapplication microbial recovery.

RESULTS

Mean microbial baseline for the abdominal and inguinal skin sites were as follows: PC = 3.36 cfu/cm(2) and 6.15 cfu/cm(2); SP = 3.51 cfu/cm(2) and 6.16 cfu/cm(2), respectively. Log(10) reduction for PC abdominal and inguinal prepped sites at 10 minutes, 30 minutes, and 6 hours postpreparation were 2.50, 2.33, and 2.54; 3.45, 3.50, and 3.64, respectively. Log(10) reductions for SP abdominal and inguinal prepped sites at 10 minutes, 30 minutes, and 6 hours were 2.18, 2.19, and 2.77; 2.78, 2.63, and 3.15, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Microbial reductions from abdominal-inguinal PC prepped sites were significantly reduced (P < .05) compared with baseline, exceeding the FDA log-reduction criteria for a preoperative topical skin preparation. Compared with baseline, microbial reductions at the SP-prepped abdominal-inguinal sites were significant (P < .05). SP abdominal-prepped sites met the FDA log-reduction criteria; inguinal sites, however, failed to meet expected FDA log-reduction criteria at 10 minutes postpreparation. The PC-treated inguinal sites at 10 minutes, 30 minutes, and 6 hours post-skin preparation demonstrated significantly greater microbial reductions than did the SP-treated inguinal sites (P < .01).

Comparison of two alcohol-based surgical scrub solutions with an iodine-based scrub brush for presurgical antiseptic effectiveness in a community hospital

The antiseptic effectiveness and acceptability of a commercial alcohol-based waterless (ABWL) and an alcohol-based water-aided (ABWA) scrub solution were compared with a brush-based iodine solution (BBIS) under conditions encountered in community hospital operating rooms. This randomized partially blinded study was based on guidelines from the American Society for Testing and Methods. The three scrub solutions were compared for antimicrobial efficacy, using criteria within the Food and Drug Administration's Tentative Final Monograph for Healthcare Antiseptic Products (FDA-TFM), and for participants' acceptance of the products. Volunteer surgical staff that worked daily in the same operating room for the entire duration of the study were enrolled. In total, 1126 surgical scrub procedures were performed over the duration of the study. Only the ABWL met all of the FDA-TFM criteria. The BBIS performed better than both of the alcohol-based solutions at the end of Day 1 (P=0.03), but the ABWL was more efficacious than the ABWA and the BBIS at the end of Days 2 and 5 (P=0.02 and 0.01, respectively). When colony-count reductions were compared over the entire duration of the study, there was no significant difference between the three solutions (P=0.2). The participants found the ABWL easiest to use (P<0.001), with the fewest adverse effects on skin (P=0.007), and it was their preferred product (P<0.001). Although both of the commercially available alcohol-based solutions may be considered as acceptable alternatives to the BBIS for presurgical antisepsis, the ABWL was found to have significantly higher user acceptability.

In vivo efficacy of an alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectant containing a synergistic combination of ethylhexylglycerin and preservatives

Alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectants are widely available in healthcare settings. Some currently marketed alcohol-based products use active concentrations of antimicrobials to achieve the required efficacy, raising the risk for exposure to potentially irritating levels of antimicrobials. This study compares the in vitro and in vivo efficacy of an alcohol-based surgical hand preparation containing 70% ethanol and preservative levels of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and benzalkonium chloride (BZK) in synergistic combination with ethylhexylglycerin (Surgicept) with a surgical hand disinfectant containing 61% ethanol and 1% CHG (Avagard). The in vivo efficacy of Surgicept and Avagard was evaluated in volunteers using the Tentative Final Monograph method of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and their prolonged effect against transient pathogens was compared using a pig skin model. Surgicept exceeded the FDA requirements for surgical hand antiseptic with mean log(10) reductions of 2.36, 3.3 and 3.54 in resident flora 1 min after initial application, and showed a persistent effect with mean log(10) reductions of 2.23, 2.73 and 3.3, 6h post application on days 1, 2 and 5, respectively. Surgicept showed a superior prolonged effect against transient bacteria compared with Avagard. Surgicept (70% alcohol and preservative levels of CHG and BZK) may provide similar in vivo efficacy as Avagard (61% ethanol and 1% CHG).

Surgical hand scrubs in relation to microbial counts: systematic literature review

AIM

This paper reports a systematic review whose objective was to determine the effectiveness of surgical hand scrubs in relation to bacterial growth on the hands of operating room staff members.

BACKGROUND

Despite the need for surgical hand scrubs, evidence shows that frequent and prolonged use of antiseptics and brushes may damage the skin. Consequently, lesions may appear, become more heavily colonized by microorganisms and increase the risk of transmitting infection to patients. Recommendations about surgical hand scrubs vary widely and their effectiveness in relation to microbial counts is unknown.

METHOD

A variety of healthcare databases were searched covering the period between January 1990 and December 2004. Based on selection criteria, the abstracts of studies identified were checked to determine whether they fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All studies were assessed as having adequate methodological quality. Using Cochrane Review Manager 4.2 software, weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

FINDINGS

Three studies were included in this review. Two studies compared the effectiveness of surgical hand scrubs using an alcohol-based product and a 6-minute scrub using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate; meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference (weighted mean difference = -0.63, 95% confidence intervals = -0.99 to -0.27, P = 0.0006). One study compared the effectiveness of 2- and 3-minute surgical hand scrubs using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate; meta-analysis showed no difference (weighted mean difference = 0.29, 95% confidence intervals = -0.13 to 0.71, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

Surgical hand scrubs using an alcohol-based product were more effective than a 6-minute scrub using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate. There is no evidence to support a 2-minute surgical hand scrub as being more effective than a 3-minute one using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate.

Surgical hand rubbing compared with surgical hand scrubbing: comparison of efficacy and costs

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of surgical hand rubbing (SHR) with the efficacy of surgical hand scrubbing (SHS), and to determine the costs of both techniques for surgical hand disinfection. A review of studies reported in the literature that compared the efficacy of SHS and SHR was performed using MEDLINE. The costs of SHR and SHS were estimated based on standard hospital costs. The literature showed that SHR had immediate efficacy that was similar to that of SHS, but SHR had a more lasting effect. SHR reduced costs by 67%. In conclusion, SHR is a cost-effective alternative to SHS.

[Hygienic and dermatologic aspects of hand disinfection and prophylactic skin antisepsis]

Hygienic hand disinfection must be carried out after all patient-care activities associated with contamination risks, as well as when moving from contaminated to clean body sites, after contact with environmental surfaces in the immediate vicinity of patients, after glove removal and before aseptic procedures. Preparatory handwashing (for about 10 seconds) to mechanically remove soil and bacterial spores should be performed at least 10 minutes before surgical hand disinfection. This allows time for the normalization of increased skin hydration, a prerequisite for effective hand disinfection. Depending on the manufacturer's instructions, application times of 1.5, 3 or 5 minutes can be observed. The regular use of skin care and skin protection products can help to prevent toxic skin irritation. For skin antisepsis the recommended exposure times are > or =15 seconds before subcutaneous injections, > or =1 minute before puncture of joints and body cavities as well as preoperatively, and > or =10 minutes on skin areas rich in sebaceous glands. For all 3 indications, alcohol-based formulations are the agents of choice.

Hand hygiene: an evidence-based review for surgeons

This review of the literature discusses the scientific evidence behind using different hand hygiene agents on the surgical ward, and in theatre for preoperative disinfection. It considers the mechanism of action of the agents and their effectiveness against different pathogens, as well as possible future agents, and how they are tested. It addresses problems such as the poor compliance with hand hygiene guidelines by healthcare workers (especially doctors) and investigates what can be done to improve compliance. Finally, it demonstrates the reduction in hospital acquired infection (HAI) rate that can be achieved by improving hand hygiene compliance, and shows that the savings associated with this easily outweigh the cost.

Efficacy of two distinct ethanol-based hand rubs for surgical hand disinfection -- a controlled trial according to prEN 12791

Background

Aim of the study was to determine the efficacy of two distinct ethanol-based hand rubs for surgical hand disinfection in a controlled cross-over trial according to prEN 12791.

Methods

20 subjects were included. Hands were washed for 1 min with soap. The bacterial prevalue was obtained by rubbing finger tips in TSB for 1 min. Then, each subject treated the hands with the reference procedure (n-propanol, 60% v/v) or the product (Sterillium^® Rub, based on 80% ethanol; Avagard, based on 61% ethanol and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate) which were all applied in 3 to 4 portions each of 3 ml for a total of 3 min. Bacterial postvalues (immediate effect) were taken from one hand, the other hand was gloved for 3 h. After gloves were taken off the second postvalue was taken for the assessment of a sustained effect.

Results

Bacterial pre-values were between 4.38 ± 0.66 and 4.46 ± 0.71. Sterillium^® Rub achieved the required immediate (mean log₁₀-reduction of 2.59 ± 1.19) and sustained effect (1.73 ± 1.08) compared with the reference treatment (immediate effect: 2.58 ± 1.16; sustained effect: 1.67 ± 0.96). Avagard, however, did not achieve the required immediate (1.82 ± 1.40) and sustained effect (1.41 ± 1.08) in comparison to the reference disinfection (immediate effect: 2.98 ± 0.90; sustained effect: 2.56 ± 1.17; p < 0.01; Wilcoxon test).

Conclusion

Based on our data, Sterillium^® Rub can be regarded to be effective for surgical hand disinfection, but Avagard can not. The addition of 1% chlorhexidine gluconate to 61% ethanol (w/w) did not outweigh an ethanol concentration of 80% (w/w).

Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs

The etiology of nosocomial infections, the frequency of contaminated hands with the different nosocomial pathogens, and the role of health care workers' hands during outbreaks suggest that a hand hygiene preparation should at least have activity against bacteria, yeasts, and coated viruses. The importance of efficacy in choosing the right hand hygiene product is reflected in the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline on hand hygiene (J. M. Boyce and D. Pittet, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 51:1-45, 2002). The best antimicrobial efficacy can be achieved with ethanol (60 to 85%), isopropanol (60 to 80%), and n-propanol (60 to 80%). The activity is broad and immediate. Ethanol at high concentrations (e.g., 95%) is the most effective treatment against naked viruses, whereas n-propanol seems to be more effective against the resident bacterial flora. The combination of alcohols may have a synergistic effect. The antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine (2 to 4%) and triclosan (1 to 2%) is both lower and slower. Additionally, both agents have a risk of bacterial resistance, which is higher for chlorhexidine than triclosan. Their activity is often supported by the mechanical removal of pathogens during hand washing. Taking the antimicrobial efficacy and the mechanical removal together, they are still less effective than the alcohols. Plain soap and water has the lowest efficacy of all. In the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline, promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs containing various emollients instead of irritating soaps and detergents is one strategy to reduce skin damage, dryness, and irritation. Irritant contact dermatitis is highest with preparations containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, less frequent with nonantimicrobial soaps and preparations containing lower concentrations of chlorhexidine gluconate, and lowest with well-formulated alcohol-based hand rubs containing emollients and other skin conditioners. Too few published data from comparative trials are available to reliably rank triclosan. Personnel should be reminded that it is neither necessary nor recommended to routinely wash hands after each application of an alcohol-based hand rub. Long-lasting improvement of compliance with hand hygiene protocols can be successful if an effective and accessible alcohol-based hand rub with a proven dermal tolerance and an excellent user acceptability is supplied, accompanied by education of health care workers and promotion of the use of the product.

In-use efficacy of a chlorhexidine in alcohol surgical rub: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Although full surgical scrubs are performed prior to each case on an operating list, optimum regimens for hand cleaning have yet to be determined, and in-use efficacy evaluations are very limited.

METHODS

A crossover study was undertaken comparing a chlorhexidine in detergent/alcohol regimen with povidine-iodine detergent scrub, within an orthopaedic operating environment. Depending on the skin asepsis regimen used, five surgical team members scrubbed or rubbed prior to each case for a complete operating list. Bactericidal efficacy was measured using the 'glove-juice' technique before and after hand asepsis, and at the completion of each case.

RESULTS

The chlorhexidine regimen caused substantial and sustained reductions in hand bacterial counts (>50-fold prior to case 1) during surgical cases. Application of alcoholic chlorhexidine prior to each subsequent case reduced bacterial counts to the same level as the original scrub. In contrast, the povidine-iodine scrub reduced counts <3-fold prior to the first case and <2-fold in subsequent cases. The chlorhexidine regimen also resulted in persistent bactericidal effects between cases, as counts prior to application of cases 2 and higher were significantly lower than prior to case 1 (>7-fold for case 2 vs case 1).

CONCLUSIONS

The chlorhexidine regimen demonstrated excellent bactericidal efficacy throughout an operating list, and was superior to povidine-iodine scrubbing in all aspects. The alcoholic chlorhexidine regimen is simpler and should have wide surgical application.

Assessing Nurses’ Hand Hygiene Practices by Direct Observation or Self-Report

Methods of obtaining data on hand hygiene practices have not been well validated. The purpose of this study was to compare two methods of assessment of hand hygiene practices—direct observation and self-report using diaries. For 22 months, nursing staff (n= 119) from two neonatal ICUs recorded their hand hygiene practices on a diary card one shift/month (n= 1,071 diary cards). The same data were collected in monthly 1-hour direct observation sessions (n= 206 hours). Amount of time in gloves and total hand hygiene episodes/hour did not differ significantly by diary or observation, but four other specific parameters were significantly different. If hand hygiene practices are to be assessed over time, the same method must be used. Given these measurement limitations, more valid, practical, and less costly methods are needed.

The Asthma Belief Survey: Development and Testing

Accurate evaluation of asthma self-efficacy is essential to the effective management of asthma. This article describes the development and testing of the Asthma Belief Survey (ABS). The instrument is a 15-item tool that uses a 5-point self-report scale to measure asthma self-efficacy in relation to daily asthma maintenance and an asthma crisis. This instrument was tested with a sample of 79 African American school children, who attended eight inner-city elementary schools. The mean age of the sample was 11.05 years with a range of 8 to 14 years. The majority of students had been diagnosed with asthma prior to the age of 5 years. The Asthma Belief Survey demonstrated good psychometric properties: good Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient (.83), coherence as a single scale measuring children’s self-efficacy in treating their own asthma, and significant relationships with scales of asthma knowledge (r= .51,p< .000) and asthma self-care practices (r= .52,p< .001). The Asthma Belief Survey has sound reliability and validity evidence to support its use to measure a child’s asthma self-management self-efficacy. The practitioner can use this instrument to assess a child’s self-efficacy in the areas of asthma health maintenance and avoidance of asthma episodes.

A systematic review on the effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions for hand hygiene

The use of alcohol has been proposed as an option for hand hygiene. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the clinical evidence supporting the use of alcohol-based solutions in hospitals as an option for hand hygiene. Studies published between January 1992 and April 2002 in English and Thai, related to the effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions, were reviewed. The databases searched included Medline, DARE, CINAHL and Dissertation Abstracts International. All studies were assessed as having adequate methodological quality. Results of this systematic review supported that alcohol-based hand rubbing removes microorganisms effectively, requires less time and irritates hands less often than does handwashing with soap or other antiseptic agents and water. Furthermore, the availability of bedside alcohol-based solutions increases compliance with hand hygiene among health care workers.

One Hospital's Clinical Evaluation of Brushless Scrubbing

BRUSHLESS SCRUBBING rapidly is becoming an accepted method for surgical hand scrubbing. AN EVALUATION was undertaken at an acute care hospital in the southeastern United States to examine brushless scrubbing before laminectomy, craniotomy, and colectomy procedures. PATIENTS DID NOT SHOW an increase in postoperative surgical site infections when the brushless scrubbing product was used. SATISFACTION AND COMPLIANCE among users of the product was positive.