Does hand care ruin hand disinfection?

Impact of hand sanitizer format (gel/foam/liquid) and dose amount on its sensory properties and acceptability for improving hand hygiene compliance

BACKGROUND

Effective alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs) and healthcare worker compliance with hand hygiene guidelines are important in the prevention of infection transmission in healthcare settings. Compliance to hand hygiene guidelines is affected by many factors including education, ABHR availability, time pressure, skin health, and user acceptance of the sensory properties of ABHRs during and after application.

AIM

To examine the effect of ABHR format (gel/foam/liquid) and dose (0.7 mL, 1.5 mL, 3 mL) on its sensory properties and acceptability, and to consider how this might affect healthcare workers' hand hygiene compliance.

METHODS

Sensory descriptive analysis established key sensory differences between ten market-leading ABHRs (three gels, four foams, two liquids, one aerosol foam). Focus groups reinforced these differences.

FINDINGS

All formats were less desirable at the highest dose as they were more difficult to handle than the lower doses. Foams and gels became stickier, less clean-feeling and slower to dry at higher doses. Liquids gave a cleaner, smoother, more moisturized feel, but the increased difficulty in handling and applying the product negated these benefits. Overall, the gel and foam formats were more desirable than the liquid. The key desirable properties include: fast absorption, soft/moisturized hand feel, not sticky, clean feel, and low smell.

CONCLUSION

The 1.5 mL dose yielded the most acceptable properties with no extreme negative consequences. The foam provided the benefits of both the liquid and gel and combined them into a more widely acceptable format that may lead to greater hand hygiene compliance.

Implementation of WHO multimodal strategy for improvement of hand hygiene: a quasi-experimental study in a Traditional Chinese Medicine hospital in Xi'an, China

Background

Hand hygiene (HH) is an essential component for preventing and controlling of healthcare-associated infection (HAI), whereas compliance with HH among health care workers (HCWs) is frequently poor. This study aimed to assess compliance and correctness with HH before and after the implementation of a multimodal HH improvement strategy launched by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Methods

A quasi-experimental study design including questionnaire survey generalizing possible factors affecting HH behaviors of HCWs and direct observation method was used to evaluate the effectiveness of WHO multimodal HH strategy in a hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Multimodal HH improvement strategy was drawn up according to the results of questionnaire survey. Compliance and correctness with HH among HCWs were compared before and after intervention. Also HH practices for different indications based on WHO “My Five Moments for Hand Hygiene” were recorded.

Results

In total, 553 HCWs participated in the questionnaire survey and multimodal HH improvement strategy was developed based on individual, environment and management levels. A total of 5044 observations in 23 wards were recorded in this investigation. The rate of compliance and correctness with HH improved from 66.27% and 47.75% at baseline to 80.53% and 88.35% after intervention. Doctors seemed to have better compliance with HH after intervention (84.04%) than nurses and other HCWs (81.07% and 69.42%, respectively). When stratified by indication, compliance with HH improved for all indications after intervention (P < 0.05) except for “after body fluid exposure risk” and “after touching patient surroundings”.

Conclusion

Implementing the WHO multimodal HH strategy can significantly improve HH compliance and correctness among HCWs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-017-0254-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hand Hygiene: An Update

The medical field has long recognized the importance of hand hygiene in preventing health care-associated infections, yet studies indicate that this important task is performed only 40% of the time. Health care workers cite several barriers to optimal performance of hand hygiene, but the time required to perform this task is foremost among them. Introduction of alcohol-based hand rubs, bundled interventions, and incorporation of technologies designed to monitor and promote hand hygiene all represent promising advances in this field.

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.

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.

Nurses' perceptions of the benefits and adverse effects of hand disinfection: alcohol-based hand rubs vs. hygienic handwashing: a multicentre questionnaire study with additional patch testing by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group

BACKGROUND

Nurses have a high risk of developing hand eczema due to hand disinfection procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the perception of nurses regarding the adverse effects of hand washing (HW) and alcoholic disinfection (ADI), and to obtain data on the prevalence of hand dermatitis and sensitization to alcohols and alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs).

METHODS

A self-administered questionnaire survey, carried out as a pilot study (PS), followed by a modified multicentre study (MC) in five hospitals. Patch tests to ethanol (80%), 1-propanol (60%), 2-propanol (70%) and ABHRs were performed in a subsample.

RESULTS

The majority (PS 60.1%; MC 69.5%) of nurses considered ADI to be more damaging than HW. Mostly, ADI and HW were suspected to have irritant effects (ADI 79.2%/52.1%; HW 65.5%/36.2%) compared with an allergenic potential (ADI 10.4%/5.8%; HW 7.8%/3.9%). The prevalence of hand dermatitis in the MC was 13.4% by self-diagnosis and 22.4% by symptom-based questions. In 50 tested individuals no sensitization and only two irritant reactions to alcohols and three single-positive reactions to ABHRs were observed, none of the latter related to alcohols.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ADI is known to cause less skin irritation than HW, nurses perceive ADI as more damaging, resulting in: (i) a low compliance with ADI and (ii) a higher prevalence of hand dermatitis because the more deleterious HW is preferred. This may result in an increase in occupational disease and nosocomial infections. Educational programmes should promote ADI as a procedure with good efficiency and skin tolerability to reduce the prevalence of hand eczema in nurses and to enhance compliance with hand hygiene standards.

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.

Regular use of a hand cream can attenuate skin dryness and roughness caused by frequent hand washing

BACKGROUND

Aim of the study was to determine the effect of the regular use of a hand cream after washing hands on skin hydration and skin roughness.

METHODS

Twenty-five subjects washed hands and forearms with a neutral soap four times per day, for 2 minutes each time, for a total of two weeks. One part of them used a hand cream after each hand wash, the others did not (cross over design after a wash out period of two weeks). Skin roughness and skin hydration were determined on the forearms on days 2, 7, 9 and 14. For skin roughness, twelve silicon imprint per subject and time point were taken from the stratum corneum and assessed with a 3D skin analyzer for depth of the skin relief. For skin hydration, five measurements per subject and time point were taken with a corneometer.

RESULTS

Washing hands lead to a gradual increase of skin roughness from 100 (baseline) to a maximum of 108.5 after 9 days. Use of a hand cream after each hand wash entailed a decrease of skin roughness which the lowest means after 2 (94.5) and 14 days (94.8). Skin hydration was gradually decreased after washing hands from 79 (baseline) to 65.5 after 14 days. The hand wash, followed by use of a hand cream, still decreased skin hydration after 2 days (76.1). Over the next 12 days, however, skin hydration did not change significantly (75.6 after 14 days).

CONCLUSION

Repetitive and frequent hand washing increases skin dryness and roughness. Use of a hand cream immediately after each hand wash can confine both skin dryness and skin roughness. Regular use of skin care preparations should therefore help to prevent both dry and rough skin among healthcare workers in clinical practice.

Short-term effects of alcohol-based disinfectant and detergent on skin irritation

The most important risk factor for occupational contact dermatitis in hospital personnel is the exposure to irritants such as water, detergents and alcohol-based solutions. This study was undertaken to evaluate the short-term effects of repeated exposure to an alcohol-based disinfectant, to a detergent and to an alcohol-based disinfectant/detergent alternately. The hardening effect in preirritated skin after a 4-week interval was also evaluated. Detergent, disinfectant and disinfectant/detergent alternately were applied daily every 15 min for 6 h for 2 days to the flexor upper arms and forearms of 15 volunteers. A control area was included. After 4 weeks, a sodium lauryl sulfate patch was applied to each area. Irritant reactions were quantified by visual score, transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin colour at baseline, D3, D8, D35 and D37. As evaluated by clinical assessment, detergent caused more redness of the skin than both disinfectant applied alone and disinfectant/detergent alternately at D3 and D8, P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively. An increased irritant response for detergent as compared to disinfectant alone and disinfectant/detergent was confirmed by TEWL and colour evaluations, P = 0.001 and P = 0.001 and P = 0.006 and P = 0.009, respectively. No hardening effect in preirritated skin was found after a 4-week interval. In conclusion, hand disinfection with alcohol-based disinfectant or alternate use of disinfectant/detergent causes less skin irritation than hand disinfection with a detergent. This study evaluated the short-term effects of disinfectant and detergent exposure only, and more long-term studies are necessary before recommendations can be made.

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.

Effectiveness of Alcohol-based solutions for Hand Hygiene: A Systematic Review

: Hand hygiene is an important measure in reducing the transmission of nosocomial infections in hospitals, but adherence is poor among health care workers (HCWs).More rapid and effective hand disinfection procedures have been proposed, such as rubbing with alcohol.Hand rubbing with alcohol-based products is commonly used in some countries instead of handwashing. This review evaluates the scientific and clinical evidence on the use of alcohol-based hand rubs in health care settings as a new option for hand hygiene.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to determine the best available evidence related to effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions for hand hygiene. The specific review questions addressed were: the effectiveness in reducing microorganisms, compliance with hand hygiene, and the incidence of skin problems. Application time (consumption) addressed efficiency.

CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES IN THIS REVIEW

This review considered all studies that included alcohol-based solutions that related to the objectives of the review. Outcomes included measures for the reduction of organisms, compliance with hand hygiene, the types of skin problems, and application time. The review primarily considered any intra-individual trials (IITs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) relating to the effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions but also included quasi-experimental designs.

SEARCH STRATEGY FOR IDENTIFICATION OF STUDIES

The search sought to find published and unpublished studies. The databases searched included: Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest and Dissertation Abstracts International. Studies were additionally identified from reference lists of all studies retrieved.

ASSESSMENT AND DATA EXTRACTION

All studies were checked for methodological quality by two reviewers and data were extracted using a tool.

DATA ANALYSIS

The study results were pooled in statistical meta-analysis using Review Manager software and summarized in narrative form where statistical pooling was not appropriate or possible.

RESULTS

This systematic review included thirty seven studies that supports the use of alcohol-based solutions for routine hand hygiene and surgical hand scrub. Alcohol-based hand rub removes microorganisms from hands of personnel more effectively, requires less time, and irritates hands less often than traditional handwashing with nonmedicated soap or other antiseptic agents and water. The combination of 61% ethanol and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is even more effective in producing residual antibacterial properties on the skin. Furthermore, the availability of bedside alcohol-based solutions increased compliance with hand hygiene among HCWs.

CONCLUSION

Rubbing hands with alcohol-based agents has been proved to be effective in the reduction of microorganisms from hands. Alcohols are effective for preoperative cleaning of the hands of surgical personnel. Addition of CHG to alcohol-based solution can produce residual antibacterial properties on the skin. The use of alcohol-based solutions containing emollients causes less skin irritation and dryness and requires less time than washing hands with soap or other disinfectants. The promotion of bedside, alcohol-based hand rubs contributes to the increase in compliance with hand hygiene by HCWs.

SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and enterococcus

BACKGROUND

Infection control programs were created three decades ago to control antibiotic-resistant healthcare-associated infections, but there has been little evidence of control in most facilities. After long, steady increases of MRSA and VRE infections in NNIS System hospitals, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Board of Directors made reducing antibiotic-resistant infections a strategic SHEA goal in January 2000. After 2 more years without improvement, a SHEA task force was appointed to draft this evidence-based guideline on preventing nosocomial transmission of such pathogens, focusing on the two considered most out of control: MRSA and VRE.

METHODS

Medline searches were conducted spanning 1966 to 2002. Pertinent abstracts of unpublished studies providing sufficient data were included.

RESULTS

Frequent antibiotic therapy in healthcare settings provides a selective advantage for resistant flora, but patients with MRSA or VRE usually acquire it via spread. The CDC has long-recommended contact precautions for patients colonized or infected with such pathogens. Most facilities have required this as policy, but have not actively identified colonized patients with surveillance cultures, leaving most colonized patients undetected and unisolated. Many studies have shown control of endemic and/or epidemic MRSA and VRE infections using surveillance cultures and contact precautions, demonstrating consistency of evidence, high strength of association, reversibility, a dose gradient, and specificity for control with this approach. Adjunctive control measures are also discussed.

CONCLUSION

Active surveillance cultures are essential to identify the reservoir for spread of MRSA and VRE infections and make control possible using the CDC's long-recommended contact precautions.

Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force

The Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings provides health-care workers (HCWs) with a review of data regarding handwashing and hand antisepsis in health-care settings. In addition, it provides specific recommendations to promote improved hand-hygiene practices and reduce transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to patients and personnel in health-care settings. This report reviews studies published since the 1985 CDC guideline (Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:231-43) and the 1995 APIC guideline (Larson EL, APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69) were issued and provides an in-depth review of hand-hygiene practices of HCWs, levels of adherence of personnel to recommended handwashing practices, and factors adversely affecting adherence. New studies of the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs and the low incidence of dermatitis associated with their use are reviewed. Recent studies demonstrating the value of multidisciplinary hand-hygiene promotion programs and the potential role of alcohol-based hand rubs in improving hand-hygiene practices are summarized. Recommendations concerning related issues (e.g., the use of surgical hand antiseptics, hand lotions or creams, and wearing of artificial fingernails) are also included.

Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force

The Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings provides health-care workers (HCWs) with a review of data regarding handwashing and hand antisepsis in health-care settings. In addition, it provides specific recommendations to promote improved hand-hygiene practices and reduce transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to patients and personnel in health-care settings. This report reviews studies published since the 1985 CDC guideline (Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:231-43) and the 1995 APIC guideline (Larson EL, APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69) were issued and provides an in-depth review of hand-hygiene practices of HCWs, levels of adherence of personnel to recommended handwashing practices, and factors adversely affecting adherence. New studies of the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs and the low incidence of dermatitis associated with their use are reviewed. Recent studies demonstrating the value of multidisciplinary hand-hygiene promotion programs and the potential role of alcohol-based hand rubs in improving hand-hygiene practices are summarized. Recommendations concerning related issues (e.g., the use of surgical hand antiseptics, hand lotions or creams, and wearing of artificial fingernails) are also included.