What's on your keyboard? A systematic review of the contamination of peripheral computer devices in healthcare settings

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent and type of microbial contamination of computer peripheral devices used in healthcare settings, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce contamination of these devices and establish the risk of patient and healthcare worker infection from contaminated devices.

DESIGN

Systematic review METHODS: We searched four online databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and Scopus for articles reporting primary data collection on contamination of computer-related equipment (including keyboards, mice, laptops and tablets) and/or studies demonstrating the effectiveness of a disinfection technique. Pooling of contamination rates was conducted where possible, and narrative synthesis was used to describe the rates of device contamination, types of bacterial and viral contamination, effectiveness of interventions and any associations between device contamination and human infections.

RESULTS

Of the 4432 records identified, a total of 75 studies involving 2804 computer devices were included. Of these, 50 studies reported contamination of computer-related hardware, and 25 also measured the effects of a decontamination intervention. The overall proportion of contamination ranged from 24% to 100%. The most common microbial contaminants were skin commensals, but also included potential pathogens including methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus, Clostridiumdifficile, vancomycin-resistantenterococci and Escherichia coli. Interventions demonstrating effective decontamination included wipes/pads using isopropyl alcohol, quaternary ammonium, chlorhexidine or dipotassium peroxodisulfate, ultraviolet light emitting devices, enhanced cleaning protocols and chlorine/bleach products. However, results were inconsistent, and there was insufficient data to demonstrate comparative effectiveness. We found little evidence on the link between device contamination and patient/healthcare worker colonisation or infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Computer keyboards and peripheral devices are frequently contaminated; however, our findings do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about their relative impact on the transmission of pathogens or nosocomial infection. Additional studies measuring the incidence of healthcare-acquired infections from computer hardware, the relative risk they pose to healthcare and evidence for effective and practical cleaning methods are needed.

Compliance with infection prevention and control in oral health-care facilities: a global perspective

Many publications are available on the topic of compliance with infection prevention and control in oral health-care facilities all over the world. The approaches of developing and developed countries show wide variation, but the principles of infection prevention and control are the same globally. This study is a systematic review and global perspective of the available literature on infection prevention and control in oral health-care facilities. Nine focus areas on compliance with infection-control measures were investigated: knowledge of infectious occupational hazards; personal hygiene and care of hands; correct application of personal protective equipment; use of environmental barriers and disposable items; sterilisation (recirculation) of instruments and handpieces; disinfection (surfaces) and housekeeping; management of waste disposal; quality control of dental unit waterlines, biofilms and water; and some special considerations. Various international studies from developed countries have reported highly scientific evidence-based information. In developed countries, the resources for infection prevention and control are freely available, which is not the case in developing countries. The studies in developing countries also indicate serious shortcomings with regard to infection prevention and control knowledge and education in oral health-care facilities. This review highlights the fact that availability of resources will always be a challenge, but more so in developing countries. This presents unique challenges and the opportunity for innovative thinking to promote infection prevention and control.