Hand carriage of Candida occurs at lesser rates in hospital personnel who use antimicrobial hand disinfectant

The Association between Hand Disinfection Techniques and Their Barriers, as Well as the "Bare below the Elbows" Concept, among Healthcare Professionals-A Study Based on a Polish Population

Hand hygiene is the most effective way to prevent nosocomial infections. Nevertheless, the hands of healthcare professionals are still the primary route of transmission of pathogens responsible for such infections. The aim of this study was to evaluate hand disinfection techniques and investigate the risk factors that may explain the improper hand disinfection techniques among healthcare workers. We selected 7544 hospital workers directly involved in patient care. We recorded data based on the questionnaires, demographic data, and the preparation of hands for disinfection, including risk factors. Correct hand disinfection was verified by COUCOU BOX, with a UV camera. Proper hand disinfection was demonstrated among 4879 (64.7%) subjects, while 2665 (35.3%) subjects disinfected their hands incorrectly. In most places of work, nurses properly disinfected their hands more often than the physicians, particularly in general departments (62.1% vs. 69.2%; p = 0.0019). We observed that long nails and artificial/polished nails were more often observed in the group of nurses than in the group of physicians (7.3% vs. 4.7%, respectively; p = 0.0006 and 19.3% vs. 10.1%; p = 0.0000), while an inverse relationship was found in relation to watches (24.0% vs. 12.0%; p = 0.0000) and long sleeves (24.4% vs. 8.1%; p = 0.0000). Incorrect and less effective hand hygiene among some groups of hospital workers is still present. Therefore, the continuation of education actions concerned with hand hygiene among healthcare workers is needed.

Infection control measures to prevent hospital transmission of candida

Invasive candida infections are the most important causes of nosocomial infections in intensive care units and in risky groups such as immunosuppressed patients. These infections lead to undesirable consequences such as increased morbidity and mortality in patients, prolongation of hospital stay, and increased hospital costs. In recent years, the incidence of non-albicans Candida spp.'s has increased. Unfortunately, some of these species are naturally resistant to first-line antifungals. In addition, biofilm formation on the central venous catheter and invasive devices may cause treatment failure. The age of the patients, co-morbid diseases, the units where they are treated, the antibiotics and antifungals that are used for the treatment, and invasive devices are risk factors for invasive candida infections. Some of these risk factors can be reduced by the behavior of health-care workers. The most important goal is to take precautions before the occurrence of invasive candida infections. Infection control measures to prevent hospital transmission of candida are very important. Compliance with hand hygiene before and after contact with the patient is the most important step to prevent the spreading of Candida spp. Observation of maximal barrier precautions during invasive catheterization is another important clause of this aim. Avoiding unnecessary invasive devices, antibiotics, and parenteral nutrition are also important to reduce the colonization of candida.

Candida auris: Disinfectants and Implications for Infection Control

Candida auris is a rapidly emerging pathogen and is able to cause severe infections with high mortality rates. It is frequently misidentified in most clinical laboratories, thus requiring more specialized identification techniques. Furthermore, several clinical isolates have been found to be multidrug resistant and there is evidence of nosocomial transmission in outbreak fashion. Appropriate infection control measures will play a major role in controlling the management and spread of this pathogen. Unfortunately, there are very few data available on the effectiveness of disinfectants against C. auris. Chlorine-based products appear to be the most effective for environmental surface disinfection. Other disinfectants, although less effective than chlorine-based products, may have a role as adjunctive disinfectants. A cleaning protocol will also need to be established as the use of disinfectants alone may not be sufficient for maximal decontamination of patient care areas. Furthermore, there are fewer data on the effectiveness of antiseptics against C. auris for patient decolonization and hand hygiene for healthcare personnel. Chlorhexidine gluconate has shown some efficacy in in vitro studies but there are reports of patients with persistent colonization despite twice daily body washes with this disinfectant. Hand hygiene using soap and water, with or without chlorhexidine gluconate, may require the subsequent use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer for maximal disinfection. Further studies will be needed to validate the currently studied disinfectants for use in real-world settings.

Killing of diverse eye pathogens (Acanthamoeba spp., Fusarium solani, and Chlamydia trachomatis) with alcohols

Background

Blindness is caused by eye pathogens that include a free-living protist (Acanthamoeba castellanii, A. byersi, and/or other Acanthamoeba spp.), a fungus (Fusarium solani), and a bacterium (Chlamydia trachomatis). Hand-eye contact is likely a contributor to the spread of these pathogens, and so hand washing with soap and water or alcohol–based hand sanitizers (when water is not available) might reduce their transmission. Recently we showed that ethanol and isopropanol in concentrations present in hand sanitizers kill walled cysts of Giardia and Entamoeba, causes of diarrhea and dysentery, respectively. The goal here was to determine whether these alcohols might kill infectious forms of representative eye pathogens (trophozoites and cysts of Acanthamoeba, conidia of F. solani, or elementary bodies of C. trachomatis).

Methodology/Principal findings

We found that treatment with 63% ethanol or 63% isopropanol kills >99% of Acanthamoeba trophozoites after 30 sec exposure, as shown by labeling with propidium iodide (PI) and failure to grow in culture. In contrast, Acanthamoeba cysts, which contain cellulose fibers in their wall, are relatively more resistant to these alcohols, particularly isopropanol. Depending upon the strain tested, 80 to 99% of Acanthamoeba cysts were killed by 63% ethanol after 2 min and 95 to 99% were killed by 80% ethanol after 30 sec, as shown by PI labeling and reduced rates of excystation in vitro. Both ethanol and isopropanol (63% for 30 sec) kill >99% of F. solani conidia, which have a wall of chitin and glucan fibrils, as demonstrated by PI labeling and colony counts on nutrient agar plates. Both ethanol and isopropanol (63% for 60 sec) inactivate 96 to 99% of elementary bodies of C. trachomatis, which have a wall of lipopolysaccharide but lack peptidoglycan, as measured by quantitative cultures to calculate inclusion forming units.

Conclusions/Significance

In summary, alcohols kill infectious forms of Acanthamoeba, F. solani, and C. trachomatis, although longer times and higher ethanol concentrations are necessary for Acanthamoeba cysts. These results suggest the possibility that expanded use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers in places where water is not easily available might reduce transmission of these important causes of blindness.

Hand washing with soap and water is an important public health tool for reducing transmission of viruses, bacteria, fungi, and protists. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers, which are widely dispensed in hospitals and public places, kill many of these same pathogens. What is not known is how effectively the alcohol-based hand sanitizers kill protists, fungi, or bacteria that cause eye disease. Here we show ethanol and isopropanol penetrate the walls and kill a free-living protist (Acanthamoeba castellanii, A. byersi, and other Acanthamoeba spp.), and a fungus (Fusarium solani), each of which causes keratitis, as well as a bacterium (Chlamydia trachomatis) that causes trachoma. These results suggest the possible benefit of hand sanitizers in the prevention of these eye pathogens.

A point prevalence survey on hand hygiene, with a special focus on Candida species

BACKGROUND

A 1-day point prevalence study evaluated hand hygiene compliance, yeast colonization, and contamination, focusing on the hands of health care workers (HCWs) and patient-oriented surfaces.

METHODS

Hand hygiene compliance was evaluated by applying the direct observation technique and the World Health Organization's compliance program, "My Five Moments for Hand Hygiene." A total of 128 samples from HCWs working in intensive care (n = 11) and intermediate care (n = 2) units and 65 environmental samples from Innsbruck Medical University Hospital were investigated.

RESULTS

Hand hygiene compliance was superior for nurses (83.5%) and moderate for medical doctors (45.2%). In general, fungal growth was unique; only 9 of 128 HCW samples and only 4 of 65 environmental samples yielded positive results. The genetic relatedness of yeasts from the same species was investigated by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) typing. RAPD profiles exhibited the potential for cross-transmission of yeasts.

CONCLUSION

In general, the fungal colonization and contamination rate was low, but a high level of hand hygiene compliance was lacking.