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.

SmartAmp method can rapidly detect SARS-CoV-2 in dead bodies

Rapid and accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in dead bodies is essential to prevent infection among those working with dead bodies. This study focused on the Smart Amplification (SmartAmp) method, which has a short examination time (approximately an hour), is simple to perform, and demonstrates high specificity and sensitivity. This method has already been used for clinical specimens; however, its effectiveness in dead bodies has not been reported. This study examined the SmartAmp method using 11 autopsies or postmortem needle biopsies performed from January to May, 2021 (of these, five cases tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and six cases tested negative). Swab samples were collected from the nasopharynx, oropharynx, or anus and the SmartAmp and qRT-PCR results were compared. For the nasopharynx and oropharynx samples, the same results were obtained for both methods in all cases; however, for the anal swabs, there was one case that was positive according to qRT-PCR but negative according to the SmartAmp method. The SmartAmp method may therefore be less sensitive than qRT-PCR and results may differ in specimens with a low viral load, such as anal swabs. However, in the nasopharynx and oropharynx specimens, which are normally used for testing, the results were the same using each method, suggesting that the SmartAmp method is useful in dead bodies. In the future, the SmartAmp method may be applied not only during autopsies, but also in various situations where dead bodies are handled.

Estimating COVID-19 recovery time in a cohort of Italian healthcare workers who underwent surveillance swab testing

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic is putting a huge strain on the provision and continuity of care. The length of sickness absence of the healthcare workers as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection plays a pivotal role in hospital staff management. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the timing of COVID-19 recovery and viral clearance, and its predictive factors, in a large sample of healthcare workers.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

The analysis was conducted on data collected during the hospital health surveillance programme for healthcare staff at the University Hospital of Verona; healthcare workers were tested for SARS-CoV-2 through RT-PCR with oronasopharyngeal swab samples. The health surveillance programme targeted healthcare workers who either had close contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected patients or were tested as part of the screening-based strategy implemented according to national and regional requirements. Recovery time was estimated from the first positive swab to two consecutive negative swabs, collected 24 h apart, using survival analysis for both right-censored and interval-censored data. Cox proportional hazard was used for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

During the health surveillance programme, 6455 healthcare workers were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 248 (3.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.4-4.3) reported positive results; among those who tested positive, 49% were asymptomatic, with a median age of 39.8 years, which is significantly younger than symptomatic healthcare workers (48.2 years, P < 0.001). Screening tests as part of the health surveillance programme identified 31 (12.5%) of the positive cases. Median recovery time was 24 days (95% CI: 23-26) and 21.5 days (95% CI: 15.5-30.5) in right- and interval-censoring analysis, respectively, with no association with age, sex or presence of symptoms. Overall, 63% of participants required >20 days to test negative on two consecutive swabs. Hospitalised healthcare workers (4.8%) were older and had a significantly longer recovery time compared with non-hospitalised healthcare workers in both analyses (33.5 vs 24 days, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Recovery from COVID-19 and viral clearance may take a long time, especially in individuals who are hospitalised. To detect asymptomatic cases, screening programmes for healthcare workers is recommended.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: two case reports

Background

Developing therapeutic strategies for a SARS-CoV-2 infection is challenging, but first the correct diagnosis has to be made. Unspecific upper and lower respiratory tract symptoms can be misleading; hence, a nasopharyngeal swab test with a real-time reverse-transcription-polymerase chain reaction is of great importance. However, early viral clearing jeopardizes a sound diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case presentation

We report on two Caucasian patients who had negative pharyngeal swab tests at the onset of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. In one patient, the virus was not even detectable in bronchoalveolar lavage despite typical radiomorphologic changes.

Conclusions

Negative PCR findings in both the pharynx and bronchoalveolar lavage do not exclude COVID-19 pneumonia. Computed tomography is a crucial diagnostic prerequisite in this context.