A close look at alcohol gel as an antimicrobial sanitizing agent

A Membrane Biophysics Perspective on the Mechanism of Alcohol Toxicity

Motivations for understanding the underlying mechanisms of alcohol toxicity range from economical to toxicological and clinical. On the one hand, acute alcohol toxicity limits biofuel yields, and on the other hand, acute alcohol toxicity provides a vital defense mechanism to prevent the spread of disease. Herein the role that stored curvature elastic energy (SCE) in biological membranes might play in alcohol toxicity is discussed, for both short and long-chain alcohols. Structure-toxicity relationships for alcohols ranging from methanol to hexadecanol are collated, and estimates of alcohol toxicity per alcohol molecule in the cell membrane are made. The latter reveal a minimum toxicity value per molecule around butanol before alcohol toxicity per molecule increases to a maximum around decanol and subsequently decreases again. The impact of alcohol molecules on the lamellar to inverse hexagonal phase transition temperature (T_H) is then presented and used as a metric to assess the impact of alcohol molecules on SCE. This approach suggests the nonmonotonic relationship between alcohol toxicity and chain length is consistent with SCE being a target of alcohol toxicity. Finally, in vivo evidence for SCE-driven adaptations to alcohol toxicity in the literature are discussed.

[Infection prevention in the operating theater: practice-oriented recommendations for anesthesiologists]

This article is intended to provide clinically working anesthesiologists with a practice-oriented overview of selected important current guidelines and recommendations pertaining to intraoperative prevention of infection. The contents of this article are based on the guidelines or recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) as well as the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). The authors' objective is to foster and support the standard of infection prevention and control in the operating theater by optimizing the standard of hygiene in daily practice to reduce the number of perioperative infections.

Disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2: A Review

The pandemic due to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged as a serious global public health issue. Besides the high transmission rate from individual to individual, indirect transmission from inanimate objects or surfaces poses a more significant threat. Since the start of the outbreak, the importance of respiratory protection, social distancing, and chemical disinfection to prevent the spread of the virus has been the prime focus for infection control. Health regulatory organizations have produced guidelines for the formulation and application of chemical disinfectants to manufacturing industries and the public. On the other hand, extensive literature on the virucidal efficacy testing of microbicides for SARS-CoV-2 has been published over the past year and a half. This review summarizes the studies on the most common chemical disinfectants and their virucidal efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, including the type and concentration of the chemical disinfectant, the formulation, the presence of excipients, the exposure time, and other critical factors that determine the effectiveness of chemical disinfectants. In this review, we also critically appraise these disinfectants and conduct a discussion on the role they can play in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Effects of local handwashing agents on microbial contamination of the hands in a rural setting in Northwest Ethiopia: a cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of handwashing with water and wood ash in reducing faecal contamination of the hands.

DESIGN

A cluster randomised controlled trial was employed with two arms: handwashing with water and wood ash versus handwashing with water alone.

SETTING

Rural households of East Dembiya District, Central Gondar Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia.

PARTICIPANTS

440 mothers and caregivers of children younger than 5 years assigned (1:1, 220 in each group) in clusters, with buffer zones between each cluster.

INTERVENTION

Health education on effective handwashing was given to the intervention and control groups. Participants in the intervention group used wood ash of the same quantity (ie, one closed palm).

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was microbial contamination of the hands, measured by means of Escherichia coli counts before and after handwashing.

RESULTS

At baseline, 75.9% and 67.7% of the participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively, had dirt on their fingernails, and the hands of all participants in both groups were contaminated with E. coli. The mean E. coli counts recovered at baseline were 3.07 log10 colony forming unit (CFU)/swab in the intervention group and 3.03 log10 CFU/swab in the control group, while at endline it was 1.4 log10 CFU/swab in the intervention group and 3.02 log10 CFU/swab in the control group. The mean E.coli counts was reduced by 1.65 log10 due to the intervention (difference-in-differences: β= -1.65, 95% CI= -1.84 to -1.46).

CONCLUSION

Two-thirds of the swab samples tested positive for E. coli after handwashing with water and wood ash, which indicates wood ash is not very effective in terms of completely removing micro-organisms on the hands. However, wood ash was significantly better than water alone in reducing the concentration of faecal coliform organisms on the hands. Local health authorities should primarily promote handwashing with soap. However, in the absence of soap, use of wood ash over water alone might be appropriate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PACTR202011855730652.

Effective Handwashing Practice in Dilla University Referral Hospital; Duration of Hand Rubbing and the Amount of Water as Key Enablers

BACKGROUND

Ineffective hand hygiene in healthcare settings is a global challenge that is associated with a high rate of nosocomial infections. The study aimed to measure the effectiveness of handwashing at Dilla University referral hospital.

METHOD

This study consisted of 2 parts; the survey work and laboratory analysis. A total of 63 participants were selected to take surveys using an interviewer-administered questionnaire to collect the data regarding the socio-demographic and hand hygiene-related practices. A laboratory tests (swab test) was used to assess handwashing effectiveness from 63 participants by taking 126 swab test (63 before and after hand washing sessions). A swab test was collected from the palms of each participant before and after hand washing using a sterile technique. The cultures were then incubated aerobically overnight at 37°C, and examined for microbial growth. The bacterial load was reported as the number of colony-forming units (CFU).

RESULT

The proportion of effective hand washing in Dilla University Referral Hospital was 82.5%. The mean colony-forming unit before and after handwashing were 55 and 2 CFU/ml, respectively with an average reduction of 94.6% in terms of CFU/ml. The mean amount of water used for effective handwashing was 336.03 (±219.46) ml. There was a significant mean difference in the amount of water used and duration of hand rubbing between effective and non-effective handwashing among the participants (P < 0.01). The bacterial load before and after handwashing indicated that there was a significant (53.3 mean CFU) reduction in bacterial load after handwashing practice which indicated that the handwashing intervention in the Referral hospital was effective (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of effective Hand washing in Dilla University referral Hospital was 82.5% with a 94.6% reduction in terms of (CFU/ml). The amount of water use and the duration of hand rubbing showed a significant difference in the reduction of the microbial load.

Comparative Assessment of the Efficacy of Commercial Hand Sanitizers Against Human Norovirus Evaluated by an in vivo Fingerpad Method

Human noroviruses (hNoV) are the leading cause of acute non-bacterial gastroenteritis worldwide and contaminated hands play a significant role in the spread of disease. Some hand sanitizers claim to interrupt hNoV transmission, but their antiviral efficacy on human hands is poorly characterized. The purpose of this work was to characterize the efficacy of representative commercial hand sanitizers against hNoV using an in vivo fingerpad method (ASTM E1838-17). Eight products [seven ethanol-based and one benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-based], and a benchmark 60% ethanol solution, were each evaluated on 10 human volunteers using the epidemic GII.4 hNoV strain. Virus titers before and after treatment were evaluated by RT-qPCR preceded by RNase treatment; product efficacy was characterized by log₁₀ reduction (LR) in hNoV genome equivalent copies after treatment. The benchmark treatment produced a 1.7 ± 0.5 LR, compared with Product A (containing 85% ethanol) which produced a 3.3 ± 0.3 LR and was the most efficacious (p < 0.05). Product B (containing 70% ethanol), while less efficacious than Product A (p < 0.05), performed better than the benchmark with a LR of 2.4 ± 0.4. Five of the other ethanol-based products (labeled ethanol concentration ranges of 62–80%) showed similar efficacy to the 60% ethanol benchmark with LR ranging from 1.3 to 2.0 (p > 0.05). Product H (0.1% BAK) was less effective than the benchmark with a LR of 0.3 ± 0.2 (p < 0.05). None of the products screened were able to completely eliminate hNoV (maximum assay resolution 5.0 LR). Product performance was variable and appears driven by overall formulation. There remains a need for more hand sanitizer formulations having greater activity against hNoV, a virus that is comparatively recalcitrant relative to other pathogens of concern in community, healthcare, and food preparation environments.

Safety Recommendations for Forensic Laboratory Staff During COVID-19 Pandemic

In the 21st century, the crime rate and viral infectious diseases are on peak and seems to be the real enemies of humanity. Forensic science and its various branches especially biology have a key role in modern-day justice. Forensic scientists and laboratory staffs are of great significance for elucidating the biological exhibits and generating the biological evidence which are required for criminal justice. Owing to the profession and like other medical health workers, forensic laboratory staffs are also at a greater risk in the era of COVID-19. Therefore, the safety of forensic laboratory staff is of utmost importance during this pandemic. The article emphasizes on the safety guidelines and regulations that need to be adopted by the forensic staff in connection with daily laboratory practices. Thus, the article may offer a reference or help one to implement COVID-19 advisory to forensic scientists and other laboratory staff working in forensic institutions and laboratories during the current pandemic.

Effects of local handwashing agents on microbial contamination of hands in the rural settings of northwest Ethiopia: protocol for a two-arm, clustered-randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Hands play a part in the transmission of infections. Handwashing with soap sufficiently reduces the level of hand contamination and the spread of infections. As soap is not usually available due to cost, ash is often used as a zero-cost alternative to soap in the rural settings of developing countries. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of ash to reduce microbial contamination of hands. This study is, therefore, designed to assess the effect of ash on microbial contamination of hands in the rural settings of northwest Ethiopia.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A two-arm clustered-randomised controlled trial will be employed. A total of 11 clusters per arm will be selected using simple random sampling technique. A total of 220 mothers or caregivers of under-5 children will be included in each arm. After providing health education on effective handwashing process, we will ask study subjects to do the usual activities. We will then take swab samples from the dominant hand before washing. After swabbing, participants will be asked to wash their hands with water only and with ash by following effective handwashing procedures. We will again take swab samples from the dominant hand after washing and drying. Finally, we will compare each intervention arm against the control. A generalised estimating equation (GEE) with robust SE estimation will be used to account the cluster nature of data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Results will be published in peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. The protocol is approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Gondar, Ethiopia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Pan African Clinical Trial Registry; PACTR202011855730652.

Scientific Evidence Supports the Use of Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers as an Effective Alternative to Hand Washing in Retail Food and Food Service Settings When Heavy Soiling Is Not Present on Hands

ABSTRACT

Suboptimal food worker health and hygiene has been a common contributing factor in foodborne disease outbreaks for many years. Despite clear U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Model Food Code recommendations for hand washing and glove use, food worker compliance with hand washing recommendations has remained poor for >20 years. Food workers' compliance with recommended hand washing guidelines is adversely impacted by a number of barriers, including complaints of time pressure, inadequate number and/or location of hand washing sinks and hand washing supplies, lack of food knowledge and training regarding hand washing, the belief that wearing gloves obviates the need for hand washing, insufficient management commitment, and adverse skin effects caused by frequent hand washing. Although many of the issues related to poor hand washing practices in food service facilities are the same as those in health care settings, a new approach to health care hand hygiene was deemed necessary >15 years ago due to persistently low compliance rates among health care personnel. Evidence-based hand hygiene guidelines for health care settings were published by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2002 and by the World Health Organization in 2009. Despite similar low hand washing compliance rates among retail food establishment workers, no changes in the Food Code guidelines for hand washing have been made since 2001. In direct contrast to health care settings, where frequent use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHSs) in lieu of hand washing has improved hand hygiene compliance rates and reduced infections, the Food Code continues to permit the use of ABHSs only after hands have been washed with soap and water. This article provides clear evidence to support modifying the FDA Model Food Code to allow the use of ABHSs as an acceptable alternative to hand washing in situations where heavy soiling is not present. Emphasis on the importance of hand washing when hands are heavily soiled and appropriate use of gloves is still indicated.

HIGHLIGHTS

Alcohol-based hand sanitisers as first line of defence against SARS-CoV-2: a review of biology, chemistry and formulations

The pandemic due to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged as a serious global public health issue. Since the start of the outbreak, the importance of hand-hygiene and respiratory protection to prevent the spread of the virus has been the prime focus for infection control. Health regulatory organisations have produced guidelines for the formulation of hand sanitisers to the manufacturing industries. This review summarises the studies on alcohol-based hand sanitisers and their disinfectant activity against SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses. The literature shows that the type and concentration of alcohol, formulation and nature of product, presence of excipients, applied volume, contact time and viral contamination load are critical factors that determine the effectiveness of hand sanitisers.

Associations Between Hand Hygiene Education and Self-Reported Hand-Washing Behaviors Among Korean Adults During MERS-CoV Outbreak

BACKGROUND

Hand washing is an effective way to prevent transmission of infectious diseases. Education and promotional materials about hand washing may change individuals' awareness toward hand washing. Infectious disease outbreak may also affect individuals' awareness.

AIMS

Our study aimed to examine associations between hand-washing education and self-reported hand-washing behaviors among Korean adults during the year of the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) outbreak.

METHODS

Data from the 2015 Community Health Survey were used for this study. The total study population comprised 222,599 individuals who were older than 20 years of age. A multiple linear regression model was used to investigate associations between hand hygiene education and self-reported hand-washing behaviors. Subgroup analyses stratified by age, sex, income, and MERS outbreak regions were also performed.

RESULTS

Individuals who received hand-washing education or saw promotional materials related to hand washing had significantly higher scores for self-reported use of soap or sanitizer (β = 0.177, P < .0001) and self-reported frequency of hand washing (β = 0.481, P < .0001) than those who did not have such experiences. The effect of hand-washing education on self-reported behavior change was greater among older adults, women, and lower income earners. The effect of hand hygiene education on self-reported use of soap or sanitizer was similar regardless of whether the participants lived in MERS regions.

CONCLUSION

Our findings emphasize the importance of education or promotions encouraging hand washing, especially for older adults, women, and lower income earners. In addition, MERS outbreak itself affected individuals' awareness of hand-washing behaviors. Well-organized campaigns that consider these factors are needed to prevent infectious diseases.

The epic project. Updating the evidence-base for national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England: a report with recommendations

The evidence underpinning infection prevention and control guidelines requires updating at regular intervals as advances in technology and new research findings may influence guideline recommendations. The evidence-base for national guidelines published in 20011 for preventing healthcare-associated infections in hospitals in England has recently been updated using systematic review methods. A critical assessment of the updated evidence indicates that the current guidelines remain robust, relevant and appropriate, but that adjustments need to be made to some guideline recommendations. Periodically updating the evidence base and making necessary adjustments to guideline recommendations is essential, in order to maintain their validity and authority.

Impact of Alcohol-Based, Waterless Hand Antiseptic on the Incidence of Infection and Colonization With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

Objective:

Colonized and infected inpatients are major reservoirs for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and transient carriage of these pathogens on the hands of healthcare workers remains the most common mechanism of patient-to-patient transmission. We hypothesized that use of alcohol-based, waterless hand antiseptic would lower the incidence of colonization and/or infection with MRSA and VRE.

Methods.

On June 19, 2001, alcohol hand antiseptic was introduced at the University campus and not the nearby Memorial campus of the University of Massachusetts Medical School (Worcester, MA), allowing us to evaluate the impact of this antiseptic on the incidence of MRSA and VRE colonization and infection. From January 1 through December 31, 2001, the incidence of MRSA colonization or infection was compared between the 2 campuses before and after the hand antiseptic was introduced. Its effect on VRE colonization and infection was only studied in the medical intensive care unit at the University campus.

Results.

At the University campus, the incidence of MRSA colonization or infection decreased from 1.26 cases/1,000 patient-days before the intervention to 0.75 cases/1,000 patient-days after the intervention, for a 1.46-fold decrease (95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.58; P = .037). At the Memorial campus, the incidence of MRSA colonization or infection remained virtually unchanged, from 0.34 cases/1,000 patient-days to 0.49 cases/1,000 patient-days during the same period. However, a separate analysis of the University campus data that controlled for proximity to prevalent cases did not show a significant improvement in the rates of infection or colonization. The incidence of nosocomial VRE colonization or infection before and after the hand antiseptic decreased from 12.0 cases/1,000 patient-days to 3.0 cases/1,000 patient-days, a 2.25-fold decrease (P = .018). Compliance with rectal surveillance for detection of VRE was 86% before and 84% after implementation of the hand antiseptic intervention. The prevalences of VRE cases during these 2 periods were 25% and 29%, respectively (P = .017).

Conclusions.

Alcohol hand antiseptic appears to be effective in controlling the transmission of VRE. However, after controlling for proximity to prevalent cases (ie, for clustering), it does not appear to be more effective than standard methods for controlling MRSA. Further controlled studies are needed to evaluate its effectiveness.

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.

epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England

National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England were originally commissioned by the Department of Health and developed during 1998-2000 by a nurse-led multi-professional team of researchers and specialist clinicians. Following extensive consultation, they were first published in January 2001(1) and updated in 2007.(2) A cardinal feature of evidence-based guidelines is that they are subject to timely review in order that new research evidence and technological advances can be identified, appraised and, if shown to be effective for the prevention of HCAI, incorporated into amended guidelines. Periodically updating the evidence base and guideline recommendations is essential in order to maintain their validity and authority. The Department of Health commissioned a review of new evidence and we have updated the evidence base for making infection prevention and control recommendations. A critical assessment of the updated evidence indicated that the epic2 guidelines published in 2007 remain robust, relevant and appropriate, but some guideline recommendations required adjustments to enhance clarity and a number of new recommendations were required. These have been clearly identified in the text. In addition, the synopses of evidence underpinning the guideline recommendations have been updated. These guidelines (epic3) provide comprehensive recommendations for preventing HCAI in hospital and other acute care settings based on the best currently available evidence. National evidence-based guidelines are broad principles of best practice that need to be integrated into local practice guidelines and audited to reduce variation in practice and maintain patient safety. Clinically effective infection prevention and control practice is an essential feature of patient protection. By incorporating these guidelines into routine daily clinical practice, patient safety can be enhanced and the risk of patients acquiring an infection during episodes of health care in NHS hospitals in England can be minimised.

Topical antibacterial agents

Decreased systemic toxicity, ease of application, and increased concentrations at the target site are some of the important advantages topical antibacterial agents offer. This article reviews the literature on selected indications for these agents and provides in-depth examination of specific agents for the prophylaxis and treatment of skin and wound infections.

Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 10. Alcohol-based antiseptics for hand disinfection and a comparison of their effectiveness with soaps

Alcohol compounds are increasingly used as a substitute for hand washing in health care environments and some public places because these compounds are easy to use and do not require water or hand drying materials. However, the effectiveness of these compounds depends on how much soil (bioburden) is present on the hands. Workers in health care environments and other public places must wash their hands before using antiseptics and/or wearing gloves. However, alcohol-based antiseptics, also called rubs and sanitizers, can be very effective for rapidly destroying some pathogens by the action of the aqueous alcohol solution without the need for water or drying with towels. Alcohol-based compounds seem to be the most effective treatment against gram-negative bacteria on lightly soiled hands, but antimicrobial soaps are as good or better when hands are more heavily contaminated. Instant sanitizers have no residual effect, unlike some antimicrobial soaps that retain antimicrobial activity after the hygienic action has been completed, e.g., after hand washing. Many alcohol-based hand rubs have antimicrobial agents added to them, but each formulation must be evaluated against the target pathogens in the environment of concern before being considered for use. Wipes also are widely used for quick cleanups of hands, other body parts, and surfaces. These wipes often contain alcohol and/or antimicrobial compounds and are used for personal hygiene where water is limited. However, antiseptics and wipes are not panaceas for every situation and are less effective in the presence of more than a light soil load and against most enteric viruses.

Topical antibacterial agents

Decreased systemic toxicity, ease of application, and increased concentrations at the target site are some of the important advantages topical antibacterial agents offer. This article reviews the literature on selected indications for these agents and provides in-depth examination of specific agents for the prophylaxis and treatment of skin and wound infections.

Prospective, controlled, cross-over trial of alcohol-based hand gel in critical care units

BACKGROUND

There are limited data from prospective studies to indicate whether improvement in hand hygiene associated with the use of alcohol-based hand hygiene products results in improved patient outcomes.

DESIGN

A 2-year, prospective, controlled, cross-over trial of alcohol-based hand gel.

SETTING

The study was conducted in 2 medical-surgical ICUs for adults, each with 12 beds, from August 2001 to September 2003 at a university-associated, tertiary care teaching hospital.

METHODS

An alcohol-based hand gel was provided in one critical care unit and not provided in the other. After 1 year, the assignment was reversed. The hand hygiene adherence rate and the incidence of nosocomial infection were monitored. Samples for culture were obtained from nurses' hands every 2 months.

RESULTS

During 17,994 minutes of observation, which included 3,678 opportunities for hand hygiene, adherence rates improved dramatically after the introduction of hand gel, increasing from 37% to 68% in one unit and from 38% to 69% in the other unit (P< .001). Improvement was observed among all groups of healthcare workers. Hand hygiene rates were better at higher workloads when hand gel was available in the unit (P= .02). No substantial change in the rates of device-associated infection, infection due to multidrug-resistant pathogens, or infection due to Clostridium difficile was observed. Culture of samples from the hands of nursing staff revealed that an increased number of microbes and an increased number of microbe species was associated with longer fingernails (ie, more than 2 mm long), the wearing of rings, and/or lack of access to hand gel.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of alcohol-based gel resulted in a significant and sustained improvement in the rate of hand hygiene adherence. Fingernail length greater than 2 mm, wearing rings, and lack of access to hand gel were associated with increased microbial carriage on the hands. This improvement in the hand hygiene adherence rate was not associated with detectable changes in the incidence of healthcare-associated infection.

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.

SARS, avian flu, bioterror: infection control awareness for the optometrist

The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 alerted the world to the new face of pandemic disease: highly contagious and fatal infections for which no vaccines are available and current drugs are largely ineffective. As a practitioner providing primary care, the optometrist must be familiar with new and evolving infections present in today’s society. Though they may be viewed as extreme events, scenarios such as the re‐emergence of SARS, the affliction posed by the H5N1 strain of avian influenza and the threat of a bioterrorist attack have all been described. In the event that such events occur, there is the potential for the spread of some highly virulent, transmissible disease.

This paper highlights these public health threats and discusses several areas that the optometrist may want to consider regarding infection control in an era in which a highly transmissible disease is being spread from person to person.

Safety, Acceptability, and Tolerability of 3 Topical Microbicides Among Heterosexual Kenyan Men

OBJECTIVES

To compare the acceptability, tolerability, and safety of 3 topical microbicide formulations (62% ethyl alcohol in emollient gel and 0.1% and 0.4% benzalkonium chloride on a sanitary wipe) for use on male genitalia.

DESIGN

This triple-randomized crossover study among men attending a sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic in Nairobi, Kenya assigned individuals without clinical evidence of an STD to apply products to the penis in a predetermined random order, each for a 2-week period with a 1-week washout period between each product. Men recorded side effects and were examined for adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 39 participants, 33 (84%) completed 6 clinic visits plus 3 home visits by community health workers. Participants reported use of 62% ethanol gel and 0.1% and 0.4% benzalkonium on 99%, 99%, and 96% of daily scheduled applications; 99%, 98%, and 97% of preintercourse applications, and 99%, 94%, and 98% of postintercourse applications. All participants said they would recommend all 3 products to a friend; 72% preferred the 62% ethanol gel, 17% the 0.1% benzalkonium, and 11% the 0.4% benzalkonium. One person developed objective signs of a genital ulcer after 14 days of 0.4% benzalkonium wipe use.

CONCLUSIONS

Two of the 3 topical microbicides had minimal reported adverse effects, and no adverse effects were observed during use of the ethanol gel, which was preferred by most men.

epic2: National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England

National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England were commissioned by the Department of Health (DH) and developed during 1998-2000 by a nurse-led multi-professional team of researchers and specialist clinicians. Following extensive consultation, they were published in January 2001. These guidelines describe the precautions healthcare workers should take in three areas: standard principles for preventing HCAI, which include hospital environmental hygiene, hand hygiene, the use of personal protective equipment, and the safe use and disposal of sharps; preventing infections associated with the use of short-term indwelling urethral catheters; and preventing infections associated with central venous catheters. The evidence for these guidelines was identified by multiple systematic reviews of experimental and non-experimental research and expert opinion as reflected in systematically identified professional, national and international guidelines, which were formally assessed by a validated appraisal process. In 2003, we developed complementary national guidelines for preventing HCAI in primary and community care on behalf of the National Collaborating Centre for Nursing and Supportive Care (National Institute for Healthand Clinical Excellence). A cardinal feature of evidence-based guidelines is that they are subject to timely review in order that new research evidence and technological advances can be identified, appraised and, if shown to be effective in preventing HCAI, incorporated into amended guidelines. Periodically updating the evidence base and guideline recommendations is essential in order to maintain their validity and authority. Consequently, the DH commissioned a review of new evidence published following the last systematic reviews. We have now updated the evidence base for making infection prevention and control recommendations. A critical assessment of the updated evidence indicated that the original epic guidelines published in 2001 remain robust, relevant and appropriate but that adjustments need to be made to some guideline recommendations following a synopsis of the evidence underpinning the guidelines. These updated national guidelines (epic2) provide comprehensive recommendations for preventing HCAI in hospitals and other acute care settings based on the best currently available evidence. Because this is not always the best possible evidence, we have included a suggested agenda for further research in each section of the guidelines. National evidence-based guidelines are broad principles of best practice which need to be integrated into local practice guidelines. To monitor implementation, we have suggested key audit criteria for each section of recommendations. Clinically effective infection prevention and control practice is an essential feature of protecting patients. By incorporating these guidelines into routine daily clinical practice, patient safety can be enhanced and the risk of patients acquiring an infection during episodes of healthcare in NHS hospitals in England can be minimised.

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.

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.

Topical antibacterial agents

Decreased systemic toxicity, ease of application, and increased concentration at the target site are some of the important advantages topical antibacterial agents offer. This article reviews the literature on selected indications of these agents and provides in-depth examination of specific agents for the prophylaxis and treatment of skin and wound infections.

The effects of test variables on the efficacy of hand hygiene agents

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene is essential to interrupting disease transmission in health care facilities. Multiple hand hygiene agents are currently available for use in the health care setting. To evaluate the utility of these agents, both the user acceptability and the efficacy need to be evaluated. Different hand hygiene test methodologies have been used to measure the efficacy of these agents, but efficacy results vary depending on variations to key parameters in these methodologies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of test variables on the efficacy of hand hygiene agents.

METHODS

Both a comprehensive literature review and original hand hygiene efficacy studies were undertaken. The literature review was conducted using a Medline search, and hand hygiene efficacy studies were conducted under the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). E 1174 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Health Care Personnel Handwash Formulation.

RESULTS

The literature review and our original data showed that the following variables affected the hand hygiene efficacy measurements: hand jewelry, experimental contamination versus normal flora, method of application of test organism, hand hygiene agent, concentration of active ingredient, volume of hand hygiene agent, duration of application of hand hygiene agent, method of application of hand hygiene agent, and study method (human challenge trial versus in vitro suspension test).

CONCLUSIONS

Although many methodological variables affect efficacy results, infection control professionals in their analysis of product information should always assess the results in light of the following key variables: concentration and type of active ingredient, duration of exposure to hand hygiene agent, volume of hand hygiene agent applied, test organism, and study method (ie, human challenge vs. in vitro suspension test).

Effect of education and performance feedback on handwashing: the benefit of administrative support in Argentinean hospitals

BACKGROUND

Patients admitted to hospitals are at risk of acquiring nosocomial infections. Many peer-reviewed studies show that handwashing (HW) significantly reduces hospital infections and mortality. Our objective was to evaluate the effects of HW by health care workers (HCW) before contact with patients in 3 Argentinean hospitals. We performed an observational study of HCW to measure the effect of 2 interventions: education alone and education plus performance feedback.

METHODS

A total of 3 hospitals were studied for adherence to a HW protocol. The observed HCW included physicians, nursing personnel, and ancillary staff. After initial observations to establish baseline rates of HW (phase 1), we evaluated the effect of education alone (phase 2), followed by education plus performance feedback (phase 3). We also evaluated the relationship between the administrative support and HW adherence.

RESULTS

We observed 15,531 patient contacts in 3 hospitals. The baseline rate of HW before contact with patients was 17%. With education, HW before contact with the patients increased to 44% (relative risk 2.65; 95% confidence interval 2.33-3.02; P <.001). Using education and performance feedback HW further increased to 58% (relative risk 1.86; 95% confidence interval 1.38-2.51; P <.001). In the private hospitals where administrative support for the HW program was significantly greater, HW compliance was significantly higher (logistic regression analysis: odds ratio 5.57; 95% confidence interval 5.25-6.31; P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, HW policies and education of HCW significantly improved HCW adherence to the HW protocol, however, when performance feedback was incorporated, the HW compliance increased to a greater degree. We identified that administrative support provides a positive influence in efforts to improve HW adherence.

Use of an alcohol-based hand rub and quality improvement interventions to improve hand hygiene in a Russian neonatal intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene (HH) is critical to infection control, but compliance is low. Alcohol-based antiseptics may improve HH. HH practices in Russia are not well described, and facilities are often inadequate.

SETTING

Four 6-bed units in a neonatal intensive care unit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

METHODS

Prospective surveillance of HH compliance, nosocomial colonization, and antibiotic administration was performed from January until June 2000. In February 2000, alcohol-based hand rub was provided for routine HH use. Eight weeks later, a quality improvement intervention was implemented, consisting of review of interim data, identification of opinion leaders, posting of colonization incidence rates, and regular feedback. Means of compliance, colonization, and antibiotic use were compared for periods before and after each intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 1,027 events requiring HH were observed. Compliance was 44.2% before the first intervention, 42.3% between interventions, and 48% after the second intervention. Use of alcohol rose from 15.2% of HH indications to 25.2% between interventions and 41.5% after the second intervention. The incidence of nosocomial colonization (per 1,000 patient-days) with Klebsiella pneumoniae was initially 21.5, decreased to 4.7, and then was 3.2 in the final period. Rates of antibiotic and device use also decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

HH may have increased slightly, but the largest effect was a switch from soap and water to alcohol which may have been associated with decreased cross-transmission of Klebsiella, although this may have been confounded by lower device use. Alcohol-based antiseptic may be an improvement over current practices, but further research is required.

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.

Efficacy of handrubbing with alcohol based solution versus standard handwashing with antiseptic soap: randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of handrubbing with an alcohol based solution versus conventional handwashing with antiseptic soap in reducing hand contamination during routine patient care.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial during daily nursing sessions of 2 to 3 hours.

SETTING

Three intensive care units in a French university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

23 healthcare workers.

INTERVENTIONS

Handrubbing with alcohol based solution (n=12) or handwashing with antiseptic soap (n=11) when hand hygiene was indicated before and after patient care. Imprints taken of fingertips and palm of dominant hand before and after hand hygiene procedure. Bacterial counts quantified blindly.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Bacterial reduction of hand contamination.

RESULTS

With handrubbing the median percentage reduction in bacterial contamination was significantly higher than with handwashing (83% v 58%, P=0.012), with a median difference in the percentage reduction of 26% (95% confidence interval 8% to 44%). The median duration of hand hygiene was 30 seconds in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

During routine patient care handrubbing with an alcohol based solution is significantly more efficient in reducing hand contamination than handwashing with antiseptic soap.

The impact of alcohol hand sanitizer use on infection rates in an extended care facility

BACKGROUND

Nosocomial infections are a major problem in health care facilities, resulting in extended durations of care and substantial morbidity. Since alcohol gel hand sanitizers combine high immediate antimicrobial efficacy with ease of use, this study was carried out to determine the effect of the use of alcohol gel hand sanitizer by caregivers on infection types and rates in an extended care facility.

METHOD

Infection rate and type data were collected in a 275-bed extended care facility for 34 months (July 1997 to May 2000), during which an alcohol gel hand sanitizer was used by the caregivers in 2 units of the facility.

RESULTS

The primary infection types found were urinary tract with Foley catheter, respiratory tract, and wound infections. Comparison of the infection types and rates for the units where hand sanitizer was used with those for the control units where the hand sanitizer was not used showed a 30.4% decrease in infection rates for the 34-month period in the units where hand sanitizer was used.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that use of an alcohol gel hand sanitizer can decrease infection rates and provide an additional tool for an effective infection control program.

Is it time for brushless scrubbing with an alcohol-based agent?

The practice of surgical scrubbing in perioperative settings is changing rapidly. This article presents information about eliminating the traditional scrub brush technique and using an alcohol formulation for surgical hand scrubs. Also covered are antimicrobial agents, relevant US Food and Drug Administration classifications, skin and fingernail care, and implementation of changes. The article challenges surgical team members to evaluate a new and different approach to surgical hand scrubbing.

An in-use evaluation of an alcohol-based pre-surgical hand disinfectant

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether alcohol hand disinfection is an effective alternative to traditional agents for the pre-surgical scrub.

DESIGN

A prospective clinical trial of a 70% isopropanol pre-surgical hand disinfectant.

SETTING

The operating room suites at two hospital sites in British Columbia.

METHODS

Cases were selected to evaluate both short and longer procedures. The hand disinfectant was compared to agents in current use as surgical scrubs (4% chlorhexidine and 7.5% povidone-iodine). Surgical technique and glove use were not modified. Pre- and postoperative fingertip impression and "glove-juice" cultures were used to determine microbial burden, and hands were evaluated for skin integrity.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference between the microbial hand counts following use of the alcohol-based product or the current agents, for cases less than 2 hours' duration. Comparison of longer surgical cases revealed significantly better pre- and postoperative culture results with the alcohol hand rinse, but analysis of matched pairs showed no significant difference in microbial counts. The alcohol hand rinse was equivalent to the operative scrub in terms of skin integrity and user acceptability.

CONCLUSION

An alcohol hand rinse was equivalently effective in reducing microbial hand counts as the traditional pre-surgical scrub, both immediately after hand disinfection and at the end of the surgical procedure.

The role of the infection control professional in the intensive care unit

By design, multiple invasive procedures are performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). Although great care is taken to control morbidity and forestall mortality, this invasive environment places ICU patients and staff at immense risk of nosocomial (hospital-acquired) infection. The role of the infection control professional (ICP) within the ICU involves data collection, dissemination of data with feedback, expertise in the investigation of outbreaks, product evaluation proficiency, and fluid consultation aptitude. This article provides an inside view of how specialty infection control staff and ICU staff can optimize infection control to decrease the incidence of nosocomial infections. A description of what the ICP does not do in the ICU is also given, providing a clear guideline for how these two disciplines can best provide a safe intensive care experience.

Assessment of two hand hygiene regimens for intensive care unit personnel

OBJECTIVE

To compare skin condition and skin microbiology among intensive care unit personnel using one of two randomly assigned hand hygiene regimens: a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-containing traditional antiseptic wash and a waterless handrub containing 61% ethanol with emollients (ALC).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Two critical care units (medical and surgical) in a large, metropolitan academic health center in Manhattan.

SUBJECTS

Fifty staff members (physicians, nurses, housekeepers, respiratory therapists) working full time in the intensive care unit.

INTERVENTIONS

One of two hand hygiene regimens randomly assigned for four consecutive weeks.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The two outcomes were skin condition (measured by two tools: Hand Skin Assessment form and Visual Skin Scaling form) and skin microbiology. Samples were obtained at baseline, on day 1, and at the end of wks 2 and 4. Participants in the ALC group had significant improvements in the Hand Skin Assessment scores at wk 4 (p = 0.04) and in Visual Skin Scaling scores at wks 3 (p = 0.01) and 4 (p = 0.0005). There were no significant differences in numbers of colony-forming units between participants in the CHG or ALC group at any time period. The ALC regimen required significantly less time than the CHG regimen (mean: 12.7 secs and 21.1 secs, respectively; p = 0.000) and resulted in a 50% reduction in material costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in hand hygiene practices in acute care settings from the traditional antiseptic wash to use of plain, mild soap and an alcohol-based product should be considered. Further research is needed to examine the association between use of antiseptic products for hand hygiene of staff and reductions in nosocomial infection rates among patients.

Effect of hand cleansing with antimicrobial soap or alcohol-based gel on microbial colonization of artificial fingernails worn by health care workers

This study was undertaken to determine differences in microflora on the nails of health care workers (HCWs) wearing artificial nails compared with control HCWs with native nails and to assess the effect on these microflora of hand cleansing with antimicrobial soap or alcohol-based gel. Cultures were obtained from 21 HCWs wearing artificial nails and 20 control HCWs before and after using antimicrobial soap or alcohol-based gel. Before cleansing with soap, 86% of HCWs with artificial nails had a pathogen (gram-negative bacilli, Staphylococcus aureus, or yeasts) isolated, compared with 35% of controls (P=.003); a similar difference was noted before hand cleansing with gel (68% vs. 28%; P=.03). Significantly more HCWs with artificial nails than controls had pathogens remaining after hand cleansing with soap or gel. Of HCWs with artificial nails, only 11% cleared pathogens with soap compared with 38% with gel. Of control HCWs, only 14% cleared with soap compared with 80% with gel. Artificial acrylic fingernails could contribute to the transmission of pathogens, and their use by HCWs should be discouraged.