Double-blind, randomized, crossover trial of 3 hand rub formulations: fast-track evaluation of tolerability and acceptability

Evaluating the tolerability and acceptability of a locally produced alcohol-based handrub and hand hygiene behaviour among health workers in Sierra Leone: a longitudinal hospital-based intervention study

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) is the gold standard for hand hygiene (HH) and is a cornerstone of infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies. However, several factors influence the efficient use of ABHR by health workers. This study evaluated the tolerability and acceptability of a locally produced ABHR product and HH behaviour among health workers.

METHODS

A longitudinal hospital-based intervention study was conducted in accordance with the WHO's standardized protocol for evaluating ABHR tolerability and acceptability (Method 1). Sixty health workers across 4 hospitals in Sierra Leone were observed over a 30-day period at three separate visits (days 1, 3-5, and 30) by trained observers. The outcomes of interest included skin tolerability and product acceptabilityevaluated using subjective and objective measures.

RESULTS

Objective and subjective evaluations demonstrated strong skin tolerability and high acceptability with the product. At all three visits, the skin tolerability score assessed by trained observers was < 2 in ≥ 97% of participants, exceeding the WHO benchmark score (BMS = < 2 in ≥ 75%). Participants' self-evaluations of overall skin integrity were 97% (visit 2) and 98% (visit 3) for scores > 4 (BMS = > 4 in ≥ 75%). The primary acceptability criteria increased up to 95% (colour) and 88% (smell) at visit 3 (BMS = > 4 in ≥ 50%). Despite high acceptability, the product's drying effect remained low at 52% and 58% during visits 2 and 3, respectively (BMS = > 4 in ≥ 75%). There were positive HH behaviours (n = 53, 88%), with more than half (n = 38, 63%) of them exhibiting HH at almost every HH moment. The mean ABHR was notably high (76.1 ml, SD ± 35), especially among nurses (mean = 80.1 ml) and doctors (mean = 74.0 ml).

CONCLUSION

The WHO-formulated, locally produced ABHR was well tolerated and accepted by health workers. These findings support the continuous utilization of evidence-based, cost-effective hand hygiene interventions in resource-limited settings. High handrub consumption and frequent HH practices were noticeable HH behaviours. Further research is recommended to optimize product formulations for skin dryness and investigate the association between ABHR consumption and hand hygiene compliance.

Rinse, gel, and foam - is there any evidence for a difference in their effectiveness in preventing infections?

BACKGROUND

Following publication of the 2009 World Health Organizations Guidelines for Hand Hygiene in Health Care, a debate has emerged regarding the relative antimicrobial efficacy of the different formats (rinse, gel, foam) of ABHRs and their ability to contribute to reduction of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs).

METHODS

Data regarding the in-vivo antimicrobial efficacy of ABHRs and other factors that likely affect their effectiveness in reducing HAIs were reviewed, and a comprehensive review of studies that reported the effectiveness of each of the three ABHR formats to improve hand hygiene compliance and reduce HAIs was conducted.

RESULTS

The amount of rubbing time it takes for hands to feel dry (dry time) is the major driver of ABHR antimicrobial efficacy. ABHR format is not a major factor, and several studies found that rinse, gel, and foam ABHRs have comparable in-vivo antimicrobial efficacy. Other factors that likely impact the ability of ABHRs to reduce transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens and HAIs include ABHR formulation, the volume applied to hands, aesthetic characteristics, skin tolerance, acceptance by healthcare personnel, and hand hygiene compliance rates. When accompanied by complementary strategies, promoting the use of each of the three ABHR formats has been associated with improvements in hand hygiene compliance rates. A review of 67 studies failed to identify an ABHR format that was significantly more effective in yielding statistically significant reductions in transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens or HAIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is insufficient to definitively determine if one ABHR format is more effective in reducing transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens and HAIs. More rigorous studies such as multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing the different formats are needed to establish if one format is significantly more effective in reducing HAIs.

Addressing the global challenge of access to supplies during COVID-19

The current COVID-19 pandemic has presented unprecedented challenges for health care facilities worldwide. Global production and shipping routes were disrupted, and health care institutions, even in high resource areas, found themselves lacking the basic supplies for effective infection prevention and control. One major hurdle was the global access to supplies, particularly N95/FFP2 masks and alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) for performing hand hygiene.

This chapter explores how the lack of masks and ABHR were addressed through local production and the disinfection and reuse of disposable N95 masks. Although the global situation is no longer dire, the pandemic is currently still underway, and access to sufficient and high-quality supplies still is an important challenge faced by health care institutions.

Previously, local production was mainly promoted by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a social business venture for helping developing countries. Disposable mask reuse was barely studied until this pandemic, because there was never really a need to. Thus the literature in these fields are mostly quite new. This chapter reviews the introduction and state of the art of the field, the evidence for hand hygiene and masking in the literature, the global situation since the pandemic and strategies that countries have taken to adapt. It then concentrates further on the specifics of local production, both for ABHR and for masks, and on the issues surrounding mask reuse. The chapter concludes with putting these technologies in the larger context of the pandemic, and how learning how the world tried to implement solutions can teach us lessons for future emergencies.

How irritant are n-propanol and isopropanol? - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of alcoholic-based hand rubs (ABHRs) is an important tool for hand hygiene, especially in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Possible irritant effects of ABHR may prevent their use by persons at risk of infection.

METHODS

This systematic review is based on a PubMed search of articles published between January 2000 and September 2019 in English and German, and a manual search, related to the irritation potential of alcohol-based disinfectants restricted to n-propanol (1-propanol) and its structural isomer isopropanol (isopropyl alcohol, 2-propanol).

RESULTS

The majority of the included studies show a low irritation potential of n-propanol alone. However, recent studies provide evidence for significant barrier damage effects of repeated exposure to 60% n-propanol in healthy, as well as atopic skin in vivo. The synergistic response of combined irritants, (ie, a combination of n-propanol or isopropanol with detergents such as sodium lauryl sulfate) is greater, compared with a quantitatively identical application of the same irritant alone.

CONCLUSION

While recent studies indicate a higher risk of skin irritation for n-propanol and isopropanol than reported in the past, this risk still seems to be lower than that for frequent handwashing with detergents, as recommended by some to prevent COVID-19 infections.

Assessment of tolerability and acceptability of an alcohol-based hand rub according to a WHO protocol and using apparatus tests

Background

The effectiveness of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs) depends substantially on their acceptability and tolerability. In this study, we assessed the acceptability and tolerability of a new ABHR (product EU 100.2018.02).

Methods

Among physicians, nurses, and cosmetologists who used the ABHR for 30 days, we assessed the product's acceptability and tolerability according to a WHO protocol. Additionally, we used instrumental skin tests. Participants assessed the product's color, smell, texture, irritation, drying effect, ease of use, speed of drying, and application, and they gave an overall evaluation. Moreover, they rated the tolerability, i.e. their skin condition, on the following dimensions: intactness, moisture content, sensation, and integrity of the skin. The tolerability was also assessed by an observer as follows: redness, scaliness, fissures, and overall score for the skin condition. Instrumental skin tests included transepidermal water loss, skin hydration, sebum secretion, and percentage of skin affected by discolorations. All assessments were made at baseline (visit 1), and 3-5 days (visit 2) and 30 days (visit 3) later.

Results

We enrolled 126 participants (110 [87%] women) with a mean age of 34.3 ± 11.65 years. Sixty-five participants (52%) were healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses), and 61 (48%) were cosmetologists. During visit 2 and visit 3, about 90% of participants gave responses complying with the WHO's benchmark for acceptability and tolerability. Similarly, the ABHR met the WHO criteria for observer-assessed tolerability: on all visits, in more than 95% of participants, the observer gave scores complying with the WHO benchmark. Transepidermal water loss decreased from baseline to visit 3 (p < 0.001), whereas skin hydration, sebum secretion, and the percentage of skin affected by discolorations did not change significantly during the study (p ≥ 130).

Conclusions

The EU 100.2018.02 had both high acceptability and tolerability, meeting the WHO criteria. The WHO protocol proved useful in the analysis of acceptability and tolerability of ABHRs.

Acceptability and tolerability of alcohol-based hand hygiene products for elderly residents in long-term care: a crossover study

Background

Hand hygiene is a critical component of infection control. Much of the focus on improving hand hygiene in healthcare settings has been directed towards healthcare worker compliance but its importance for patients, including those in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), is increasingly being recognised. Alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) can lead to improved compliance. We aimed to determine acceptability and tolerability of two ABHRs for hand hygiene of elderly LTCF residents using a modified version of the WHO protocol.

Methods

Thirty six elderly LTCF residents participated in this crossover study. A modified and translated (Chinese) version of the WHO protocol for evaluation of two or more ABHRs was used to determine product acceptability and tolerability for one gel (bottle with reclosable cap) and one foam (pump). During the 3-day testing period, participants were provided with their own portable bottle of ABHR. A research nurse objectively assessed the skin integrity of the hands at baseline and throughout the study. Skin moisture content was determined using a Scalar Moisture Checker Probe (Science Technology Resources, Ca, USA). Participants rated ABHR tolerability and acceptability using the WHO checklist at the end of each test period.

Results

Both products passed the WHO criteria for acceptability and tolerability. The foam (86%) scored higher than the gel (51%) for ease of use possibly because some participants found the cap of the gel bottle difficult to open due to finger stiffness. No evidence of damage to skin integrity was observed. Overall, skin moisture content had improved by the end of the study. Residents preferred either of the test products to the liquid formulation currently in use by the LTCF.

Conclusions

Overall, the elderly were willing to use ABHR for hand hygiene. Both products were well tolerated and preferred over the usual product provided by the LTCF. However, forgetfulness and difficulty rubbing the product over the hands due to finger stiffness posed a challenge for some residents. This could be overcome by using healthcare worker-assisted hand hygiene at specified times each day and prompts to serve as reminders to perform hand hygiene.

Nursing preference for alcohol-based hand rub volume

Background:

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Glycerol content within the WHO ethanol-based handrub formulation: balancing tolerability with antimicrobial efficacy

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) ethanol-based handrub (EBHR) formulation contains 1.45% glycerol as an emollient to protect healthcare workers' (HCWs) skin against dryness and dermatitis. However, glycerol seems to negatively affect the antimicrobial efficacy of alcohols. In addition, the minimal concentration of glycerol required to protect hands remain unknown. We aim to evaluate the tolerance of HCWs to the WHO EBHR formulation using different concentrations of glycerol in a tropical climate healthcare setting.

Methods

We conducted a cluster-randomized, double-blind, crossover study among 40 HCWs from an intensive care unit of a tertiary-care hospital in Brazil, from June 1st to September 30, 2017. We tested the WHO EBHR original formulation containing 1.45% glycerol against three other concentrations (0, 0.5, and 0.75%). HCWs used one formulation at a time for seven working days during their routine practice and then had their hands evaluated by an external observer using the WHO scale for visual inspection. Participants also used a WHO self-evaluation tool to rate their own skin condition. We used a generalized estimating equations of the logit type to compare differences between the tolerability to different formulations.

Results

According to the independent observation, participants had 2.4 times (95%CI: 1.12-5.15) more chance of having a skin condition considered good when they used the 0.5% compared to the 1.45% glycerol formulation. For the self-evaluation scale, participants were likely to have a worst evaluation (OR: 0.23, 95%CI: 0.11-0.49) when they used the preparation without glycerol compared to the WHO standard formulation (1.45%), and there were no differences between the other formulations used.

Conclusion

In a tropical climate setting, the WHO-modified EBHR formulation containing 0.5% glycerol led to better ratings of skin tolerance than the original formulation, and, therefore, may offer the best balance between skin tolerance and antimicrobial efficacy.

Hand hygiene in low- and middle-income countries

A panel of experts was convened by the International Society for Infectious Diseases (ISID) to overview evidence based strategies to reduce the transmission of pathogens via the hands of healthcare workers and the subsequent incidence of hospital acquired infections with a focus on implementing these strategies in low- and middle-income countries. Existing data suggests that hospital patients in low- and middle-income countries are exposed to rates of healthcare associated infections at least 2-fold higher than in high income countries. In addition to the universal challenges to the implementation of effective hand hygiene strategies, hospitals in low- and middle-income countries face a range of unique barriers, including overcrowding and securing a reliable and sustainable supply of alcohol-based handrub. The WHO Multimodal Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy and its associated resources represent an evidence-based framework for developing a locally-adapted implementation plan for hand hygiene promotion.

Shortening the Application Time of Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs to 15 Seconds May Improve the Frequency of Hand Antisepsis Actions in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND For alcohol-based hand rubs, the currently recommended application time of 30 seconds is longer than the actual time spent in clinical practice. We investigated whether a shorter application time of 15 seconds is microbiologically safe in neonatal intensive care and may positively influence compliance with the frequency of hand antisepsis actions. METHODS We conducted in vitro experiments to determine the antimicrobial efficacy of hand rubs within 15 seconds, followed by clinical observations to assess the effect of a shortened hand antisepsis procedure under clinical conditions in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). An independent observer monitored the frequency of hand antisepsis actions during shifts. RESULTS All tested hand rubs fulfilled the requirement of equal or even significantly higher efficacy within 15 seconds when compared to a reference alcohol propan-2-ol 60% (v/v) within 30 seconds. Microbiologically, reducing the application time to 15 seconds had a similar effect when compared to 30-second hand rubbing, but it resulted in significantly increased frequency of hand antisepsis actions (7.9±4.3 per hour vs 5.8±2.9 per hour; P=.05). CONCLUSION Time pressure and workload are recognized barriers to compliance. Therefore, reducing the recommended time for hand antisepsis actions, using tested and well-evaluated hand rub formulations, may improve hand hygiene compliance in clinical practice. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1430-1434.

Evaluating the tolerability and acceptability of an alcohol-based hand rub - real-life experience with the WHO protocol

BACKGROUND

Optimizing user satisfaction with alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHR) may be vital to enhance hand hygiene performance. This study tested the tolerability and acceptability of a new ABHR (EVO9; Ecolab) in healthcare workers under daily working conditions and evaluated the practicability of the corresponding WHO protocol.

METHODS

We strictly applied the WHO single product ABHR evaluation protocol. A trained observer assessed hand skin conditions of healthy volunteers using at least 30 ml ABHR per day during their clinical work at baseline, day 3-5 and one month (visit 1-3). Participants rated ABHR tolerability and acceptability at visit 2 and 3. Additionally, we registered study time for participants and study team.

RESULTS

Among 46 volunteers, 76% were female; 37% nurses, 28% physicians. Skin was observer-rated "not" or "incidentally" dry in 64.4%, 77.8%, and 90.9% participants at visit 1, 2, and 3, respectively. EVO9 was scored ≥5 (progressive scale, 1-7) for appearance, intactness, moisture content, and sensation by 95.7%, 97.7%, 88.9%, and 97.8% participants at visit 3, respectively. All WHO benchmarks were exceeded except for "speed of drying" at visit 2, and "texture" at visit 2 and 3. Cumulative study time expenditure was 14 days for the observer and four days for participants.

CONCLUSIONS

EVO9 was well tolerated and accepted according to the WHO single ABHR evaluation protocol with the potential for improvement for stickiness. The WHO protocol is feasible but requires considerable time and logistics. It does not preclude bias, in this case especially due to the necessary switch to personal dispensers.

Factors influencing field testing of alcohol-based hand rubs

BACKGROUND

According to the World Health Organization guidelines, field tests, in the context of a bid for the supply of alcohol-based hand rubs, should take into account climatic region, test period, products already in use, and type of use (hygienic or surgical) when assessing tolerance. This laborious method is often contested.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a post hoc analysis of the data of a large bid, including 5 factors, to validate the relevance of their inclusion.

METHODS

For the purposes of the bid, products were compared in terms of the 4 World Health Organization tolerance criteria (appearance, intactness, moisture content, sensation) during product testing and were separated into groups on the basis of the studied factors. The post hoc analysis method included (1) comparison of the mean before-and-after difference based on the self-evaluation of the skin with the 4 World Health Organization tolerance criteria, between climatic regions, periods, products in use, test product, and the type of use; (2) generalized linear models, taking into account all studied factors.

RESULTS

The analysis included data for 1,925 pairs of professionals. The means of the differences observed were independently and significantly associated with the test period (P<.001), the hygienic or surgical use (P=.010 to .041, not significant for appearance), the product already in use (significant for appearance P=.021), and the test product (P<.001). The association with climatic region was found to be significant only in the nonadjusted analysis.

CONCLUSION

The type of use, the test period, and the product in use should be taken into account when designing field tests of alcohol-based hand rubs.

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.

Local production of WHO-recommended alcohol-based handrubs: feasibility, advantages, barriers and costs

PROBLEM

Reduction of health-care-associated infections in low- and middle-income countries is hampered by inadequate supplies of soap and water and the lack or high cost of alcohol-based handrubs (ABHs).

APPROACH

In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed and tested two formulations for ABHs that were suitable for production in health-care facilities. In 2011, the feasibility, advantages and costs of the local production of the two formulations - and the barriers to such production - were evaluated in an online survey.

LOCAL SETTING

The survey included 34 health-care facilities and 5 private companies in 29 countries.

RELEVANT CHANGES

Local production of one of the WHO formulations was feasible in every participating site. Twenty-one (54%) of the sites had replaced a previously used ABH with one of the WHO formulations. In 32 sites, the WHO formulation that had been produced was well tolerated and accepted by health-care workers. The WHO formulations were found to be less expensive than marketed ABHs. Barriers to local production included difficulty in identifying staff with adequate skills, the need for staff training, and constraints in ingredient and dispenser procurement.

LESSONS LEARNT

The WHO formulations can be easily produced locally at low cost. They are well tolerated and accepted by health-care workers. Potential barriers to their local production - such as their smell and problems in the procurement of ingredients and dispensers and in performing quality control - require further investigation.

Infection control knowledge, attitudes, and practices among healthcare workers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

OBJECTIVE

To better understand hospital infection control practices in Ethiopia.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional evaluation of healthcare worker (HCW) knowledge, attitudes, and practices about hand hygiene and tuberculosis (TB) infection control measures.

METHODS

An anonymous 76-item questionnaire was administered to HCWs at 2 university hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Knowledge items were scored as correct/incorrect. Attitude and practice items were assessed using a Likert scale.

RESULTS

In total, 261 surveys were completed by physicians (51%) and nurses (49%). Fifty-one percent of respondents were male; mean age was 30 years. While hand hygiene knowledge was fair, self-reported practice was suboptimal. Physicians reported performing hand hygiene 7% and 48% before and after patient contact, respectively. Barriers for performing hand hygiene included lack of hand hygiene agents (77%), sinks (30%), and proper training (50%) as well as irritation and dryness (67%) caused by hand sanitizer made in accordance with the World Health Organization formulation. TB infection control knowledge was excellent (more than 90% correct). Most HCWs felt that they were at high risk for occupational acquisition of TB (71%) and that proper TB infection control can prevent nosocomial transmission (92%). Only 12% of HCWs regularly wore a mask when caring for TB patients. Only 8% of HCWs reported that masks were regularly available, and 76% cited a lack of infrastructure to isolate suspected/known TB patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Training HCWs about the importance and proper practice of hand hygiene along with improving hand sanitizer options may improve patient safety. Additionally, enhanced infrastructure is needed to improve TB infection control practices and allay HCW concerns about acquiring TB in the hospital.

Acceptability and tolerability of liquid versus gel and standard versus virucidal alcohol-based hand rub formulations among dental students

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene is effective to prevent the transmission of microorganisms in health care settings, but compliance remains low, even when easy access to hand cleaning agents is provided.

OBJECTIVE

Formulation of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHRs) may influence staff compliance to hand hygiene. The aim of this prospective longitudinal study (1 week) was to investigate possible differences of 4 different gel or liquid ABHR formulations, with or without virucidal claim among dental students.

METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned to dental treatment cubicles, equipped with either a gel or a liquid based ABHRs, with our without a virucidal claim. Participants assessed the subjective acceptability and the tolerability of test formulations on their hands over a period of 1 week using the 14 item, 7-point Lickert scale World Health Organization questionnaire.

RESULTS

All tested ABHRs passed the subjective acceptability criteria of ≥50% above 4 for the items "color and fragrance" and for all other items of >75% above 4 and may be regarded as "good." Significant differences were observed between the 2 gels but not between the 2 liquid ABHRs. For subjective skin tolerability, no significant difference was observed between the liquid formulations after 1 consecutive week of application. However, the difference between the 2 gels was highly significant.

CONCLUSION

Virucidal ABHR formulations may be better accepted and tolerated over prolonged periods by dental students than anticipated. The user acceptability of ABHRs depend more on the specific product's formula than its general category.

Global implementation of WHO's multimodal strategy for improvement of hand hygiene: a quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

Health-care-associated infections are a major threat to patient safety worldwide. Transmission is mainly via the hands of health-care workers, but compliance with recommendations is usually low and effective improvement strategies are needed. We assessed the effect of WHO's strategy for improvement of hand hygiene in five countries.

METHODS

We did a quasi-experimental study between December, 2006, and December, 2008, at six pilot sites (55 departments in 43 hospitals) in Costa Rica, Italy, Mali, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. A step-wise approach in four 3-6 month phases was used to implement WHO's strategy and we assessed the hand-hygiene compliance of health-care workers and their knowledge, by questionnaire, of microbial transmission and hand-hygiene principles. We expressed compliance as the proportion of predefined opportunities met by hand-hygiene actions (ie, handwashing or hand rubbing). We assessed long-term sustainability of core strategy activities in April, 2010.

FINDINGS

We noted 21,884 hand-hygiene opportunities during 1423 sessions before the intervention and 23,746 opportunities during 1784 sessions after. Overall compliance increased from 51.0% before the intervention (95% CI 45.1-56.9) to 67.2% after (61.8-72.2). Compliance was independently associated with gross national income per head, with a greater effect of the intervention in low-income and middle-income countries (odds ratio [OR] 4.67, 95% CI 3.16-6.89; p<0.0001) than in high-income countries (2.19, 2.03-2.37; p<0.0001). Implementation had a major effect on compliance of health-care workers across all sites after adjustment for main confounders (OR 2.15, 1.99-2.32). Health-care-workers' knowledge improved at all sites with an increase in the average score from 18.7 (95% CI 17.8-19.7) to 24.7 (23.7-25.6) after educational sessions. 2 years after the intervention, all sites reported ongoing hand-hygiene activities with sustained or further improvement, including national scale-up.

INTERPRETATION

Implementation of WHO's hand-hygiene strategy is feasible and sustainable across a range of settings in different countries and leads to significant compliance and knowledge improvement in health-care workers, supporting recommendation for use worldwide.

FUNDING

WHO, University of Geneva Hospitals, the Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Society of Public Health Administration and Hospital Pharmacists.

[Risk factors for dryness or irritation of staff hands in nine healthcare institutions]

OBJECTIVE

We performed a prospective multicenter study to assess dryness and irritation of hands of staff in care facilities, and to show that disinfection with alcohol-based hand rub is better tolerated than classic hand washing with mild soap.

METHOD

Dryness and irritation were self-evaluated by volunteers and hetero-evaluated by a team of investigators. The study took into account most of the individual and environmental risk factors of dryness and irritation (season, age, gender, use of protective agent, constitutional, personal and external factors, institution, function, number of consecutive working days).

RESULTS

The results from the 1932 assessments collected showed that traditional hand washing was a risk factor for dryness or irritation, while alcohol-based hand rubs caused no skin deterioration and had a protective effect even when used intensively.

COMMENT

These results should help to fight non-adherence to the use of alcohol-based hand rubs.

Successful implementation of the World Health Organization hand hygiene improvement strategy in a referral hospital in Mali, Africa

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the World Health Organization hand hygiene improvement strategy in a low-income African country.

DESIGN

A before-and-after study from December 2006 through June 2008, with a 6-month baseline evaluation period and a follow-up period of 8 months from the beginning of the intervention.

SETTING

University Hospital, Bamako, Mali. Participants. Two hundred twenty-four healthcare workers.

METHODS

The intervention consisted of introducing a locally produced, alcohol-based handrub; monitoring hand hygiene compliance; providing performance feedback; educating staff; posting reminders in the workplace; and promoting an institutional safety climate according to the World Health Organization multimodal hand hygiene improvement strategy. Hand hygiene infrastructure, compliance, healthcare workers' knowledge and perceptions, and handrub consumption were evaluated at baseline and at follow-up.

RESULTS

Severe deficiencies in the infrastructure for hand hygiene were identified before the intervention. Local handrub production and quality control proved to be feasible, affordable, and satisfactory. At follow-up, handrubbing was the quasi-exclusive hand hygiene technique (93.3%). Compliance increased from 8.0% at baseline to 21.8% at follow-up (P < .001). Improvement was observed across all professional categories and medical specialities and was independently associated with the intervention (odds ratio, 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-3.5). Knowledge enhanced significantly (P < .05), and perception surveys showed a high appreciation of each strategy component by staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal hand hygiene promotion is feasible and effective in a low-income country. Access to handrub was critical for its success. These findings motivated the government of Mali to expand the intervention nationwide. This experience represents a significant advancement for patient safety in developing countries.

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.