PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11759030

Surface disinfection: should we do it?

W A Rutala·D J Weber
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The effective use of disinfectants constitutes an important factor in preventing hospital-acquired infections. Surfaces are considered non-critical items as they come in contact with intact skin. Use of non-critical items or contact with non-critical surfaces carries little risk of transmitting a pathogen to patients. Thus, the routine use of disinfectants to disinfect hospital floors and other non-critical items is controversial. However, surfaces may potentially contribute to cross-transmission by acquisition of transient hand carriage by health care personnel due to contact with a contaminated surface or by patient contact with contaminated surfaces or medical equipment. This paper reviews the epidemiological and microbiological data regarding the use of disinfectants on non-critical surfaces. It concludes that while non-critical surfaces are uncommonly associated with transmission of infections to patients, one should clean and disinfect surfaces on a regularly scheduled basis.

Explore related subjects

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalCross InfectionDisease ReservoirsDisinfectantsDisinfectionDrug ResistanceEnvironmental MicrobiologyEquipment ContaminationFloors and FloorcoveringsGuidelines as TopicHospital CostsHousekeeping, HospitalHumansInfection ControlRefuse DisposalJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W A Rutala, D J Weber. 2001. Surface disinfection: should we do it?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0195-6701(01)90017-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Impact of newborn skin-cleansing with chlorhexidine on neonatal mortality in southern Nepal: a community-based, cluster-randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital-based data from Africa suggest that newborn skin-cleansing with chlorhexidine may reduce neonatal mortality. Evaluation of this intervention in the communities where most births occur in the home has not been done. Our objective was to assess the efficacy of a 1-time skin-cleansing of newborn infants with 0.25% chlorhexidine on neonatal mortality. METHODS: The design was a community-based, placebo-controlled, cluster-randomized trial in Sarlahi District in southern Nepal. Newborn infants were cleansed with infant wipes that contained 0.25% chlorhexidine or placebo solution as soon as possible after delivery in the home (median: 5.8 hours). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality by 28 days. After the completion of the randomized phase, all newborns in study clusters were converted to chlorhexidine treatment for the subsequent 9 months. RESULTS: A total of 17,530 live births occurred in the enrolled sectors, 8650 and 8880 in the chlorhexidine and placebo groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar in the treatment groups. Intention-to-treat analysis among all live births showed no impact of the intervention on neonatal mortality. Among live-born infants who actually received their assigned treatment (98.7%), there was a nonsignificant 11% lower neonatal mortality rate among those who were treated with chlorhexidine compared with placebo. Low birth weight infants had a statistically significant 28% reduction in neonatal mortality; there was no significant difference among infants who were born weighing > or = 2500 g. After conversion to active treatment in the placebo clusters, there was a 37% reduction in mortality among low birth weight infants in the placebo clusters versus no change in the chlorhexidine clusters. CONCLUSIONS: Newborn skin-wiping with chlorhexidine solution once, soon after birth, reduced neonatal mortality only among low birth weight infants. Evidence from additional trials is needed to determine whether this inexpensive and simple intervention could improve survival significantly among low birth weight infants in settings where home delivery is common and hygiene practices are poor.

Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗
PubMed2007

Mass spectrometry and scanning electron microscopy study of silicone tunneled dialysis catheter integrity after an exposure of 15 days to 60% ethanol solution.

Anti-infectious lock is an emerging therapeutic option for preventing and/or controlling catheter-associated infection. Ethanol has widespread bactericidal activity, limited side effects, and low risk of inducing antimicrobial resistance. However, concerns have been raised about ethanol-induced catheter structural degradation. In this study, silicone catheters were immersed at 37 degrees C in three different solvents: 0.9% sodium chloride, 60% ethanol, and 95% ethanol for 4 h, 15 days and 15 days after a first storage of 4 h. Scanning electron microscopy (magnification 1000-20 000 times) of the inner surface of the catheter revealed no damage to the lumen surfaces of catheters immersed in 95% ethanol for 15 days compared with the reference catheter. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOFMS) analysis of the storage solutions revealed a significant release of polydimethylsiloxanes having a number of dimethylsiloxane units lower than 30 in the 95% ethanol solution and a structure highly consistent with a cyclic structure. Most release occurred within the first 4 h of exposure. In contrast, there was no difference in the small amounts of silicone released in 0.9% sodium chloride as reference and 60% ethanol solution, whatever the exposure time. These results should allow the development of clinical trials to assess the efficacy of the 60% ethanol lock technique in preventing or controlling the infectious complications of silicone dialysis catheters.

Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗