SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Hand Hygiene”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

PubMed2004

Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs.

The etiology of nosocomial infections, the frequency of contaminated hands with the different nosocomial pathogens, and the role of health care workers' hands during outbreaks suggest that a hand hygiene preparation should at least have activity against bacteria, yeasts, and coated viruses. The importance of efficacy in choosing the right hand hygiene product is reflected in the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline on hand hygiene (J. M. Boyce and D. Pittet, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 51:1-45, 2002). The best antimicrobial efficacy can be achieved with ethanol (60 to 85%), isopropanol (60 to 80%), and n-propanol (60 to 80%). The activity is broad and immediate. Ethanol at high concentrations (e.g., 95%) is the most effective treatment against naked viruses, whereas n-propanol seems to be more effective against the resident bacterial flora. The combination of alcohols may have a synergistic effect. The antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine (2 to 4%) and triclosan (1 to 2%) is both lower and slower. Additionally, both agents have a risk of bacterial resistance, which is higher for chlorhexidine than triclosan. Their activity is often supported by the mechanical removal of pathogens during hand washing. Taking the antimicrobial efficacy and the mechanical removal together, they are still less effective than the alcohols. Plain soap and water has the lowest efficacy of all. In the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline, promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs containing various emollients instead of irritating soaps and detergents is one strategy to reduce skin damage, dryness, and irritation. Irritant contact dermatitis is highest with preparations containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, less frequent with nonantimicrobial soaps and preparations containing lower concentrations of chlorhexidine gluconate, and lowest with well-formulated alcohol-based hand rubs containing emollients and other skin conditioners. Too few published data from comparative trials are available to reliably rank triclosan. Personnel should be reminded that it is neither necessary nor recommended to routinely wash hands after each application of an alcohol-based hand rub. Long-lasting improvement of compliance with hand hygiene protocols can be successful if an effective and accessible alcohol-based hand rub with a proven dermal tolerance and an excellent user acceptability is supplied, accompanied by education of health care workers and promotion of the use of the product.

Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗

PubMed2006

Creating a manual for proper hand hygiene and its clinical effects.

PURPOSE: To prevent cross-infections, we created a manual for the treatment of infectious wounds that clarifies when to wash one's hands and when to wear gloves. METHODS: Six patients with widespread infectious wounds caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) were treated. The bacterial count on the hands of the staff was calculated. We then compared the number of patients with MRSA isolated, and typed the MRSA isolates using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). RESULTS: The pathogenic bacterial count among hospital staff before treatment/before hand hygiene was 8.2 x 10 colony-forming units (cfu)/hand, which were not detected before treatment/after hand hygiene. The pathogenic bacterial count on the hands before hand hygiene/after treatment climbed to 9.1 x 10(5) cfu/hand, and after treatment/after hand hygiene decreased to 0.38 cfu/hand. The number of patients with MRSA isolates before this protocol was 15/402 (3.7%), but that level significantly decreased to 5/411 (1.2%) after implementation of the manual. There were 13 strains of type F by PFGE before the manual was adopted, but five strains of MRSA isolated after the present manual was enforced were all observed to have different migration patterns. CONCLUSION: A hand hygiene manual is effective for decreasing the rate of cross-infection.

Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗

PubMed2006

Surveillance of nosocomial infections: a preliminary study on hand hygiene compliance of healthcare workers.

The observance of hand hygiene compliance is important to reduce cross-infection by micro-organisms. The aim of this preliminary study was to evaluate the level of hand hygiene in healthcare workers from different departments, with particular emphasis on transient flora. The study was conducted in three departments (Surgery, Intensive Care Unit, Obstetrics and Gynecology) of a hospital in Campania, southern Italy. Over a six-month period, 50 healthcare workers were randomly tested. Imprints of palms and fingertips were taken monthly during the morning shift. The number of colonies per plate was counted and transient pathogens were identified. Risk factors for hand contamination were determined. Total flora was found in the following CFU means per palm and per five fingertips (95% CI): Obstetrics and Gynecology [palms 130 CFUs (95% CI 85-180); fingertips 125 CFUs (95% CI 92-160)]; ICU [palms 80 CFUs (95% CI 58-99); fingertips 62 CFUs (95% CI 45-82)]; Surgery [palms 75 CFUs (95% CI 41-120); fingertips 70 CFUs (95% CI 52-90)] Transient flora was found on 39% of healthcare workers' hands. The only factor associated with hand contamination by transient flora was the absence of gloving during healthcare procedure (P = 0.02).

Colony Count, Microbial↗

PubMed2001

[Compliance with hand hygiene in intensive care units].

INTRODUCTION: Nosocomial infections are an important problem in modern hospitals. The prevalence in German intensive care units is 15.3%. Hand washing or hand disinfection is believed to be the most important means of preventing nosocomial infections. We wished to answer the following questions: 1. How good is the compliance of hand hygiene on intensive care units? 2. Is compliance associated with the patient/nurse-ratio? METHOD: In a study of 8 intensive care units the compliance of hand hygiene was observed on two occasions, once in May 1996 and again in November 1997. The prime necessity for hand disinfection occurred when handling ventilation devices, intravascular catheters, urinary catheters and dressings. In addition the patient/nurse-ratio was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1,879 infection-relevant handlings were observed. The compliance of hand hygiene ranged from 25.7 to 83.2% (mean 55.2%). The most commonly observed handlings were the manipulation of venous catheters (52.7%), the highest compliance was observed with the manipulation of ventilation equipment (91.8%). With a better patient nurse ratio the compliance did not improve but remained the same or was even reduced. DISCUSSION: The compliance of hand disinfection is similar to other study results, but on some intensive care units there was considerable room for improvement. In this study the compliance of hand hygiene is more of a constant factor in individual intensive care units than associated with the patient/nurse-ratio.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed2003

Efficacy of selected hand hygiene agents used to remove Bacillus atrophaeus (a surrogate of Bacillus anthracis) from contaminated hands.

CONTEXT: The intentional use of Bacillus anthracis transmitted via the US mail in October-November 2001 resulted in 22 people developing inhalation or cutaneous anthrax. Glove use with handwashing prior to and after contact with potential contaminated environmental surfaces and cutaneous lesions has been recommended. However, only limited data are available on the susceptibility of B anthracis to antiseptics. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of several hand antiseptics (interventions) and soap and water (control) against Bacillus atrophaeus, a surrogate of B anthracis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Challenge study conducted among healthy adult volunteers, using the Standard Test Method for Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Health Care Professional Handwash Formulations (American Society for Testing and Materials E 1174-94) to determine the efficacy of various hand hygiene products at wash times of 10, 30, and 60 seconds. Volunteers were excluded if they had eczema, psoriasis, or other chronic skin conditions; nonintact skin; or allergies to any study agent. Study agents were a waterless rub containing 61% ethyl alcohol, a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate preparation, and an antibacterial microfiber towel that releases hypochlorite. A nonantimicrobial soap was used as a control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Reduction of B atrophaeus spores (log10 CFU/mL) on contaminated hands. RESULTS: Washes of 10, 30, and 60 seconds with either soap and water or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate eliminated 1.5 to 2.0 log10 CFUs/mL of B atrophaeus spores at wash 3. Mean reductions (95% confidence intervals) with 10-, 30-, and 60-second washes with soap and water were 2.4 (2.2-2.5), 2.3 (2.2-2.4), and 2.1 (1.9-2.4) log(10) CFUs/mL, respectively; and with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate, 2.1 (2.0-2.3), 1.8 (1.5-2.0), and 1.7 (1.5-1.9) log10 CFUs/mL, respectively. Handwashing with chlorine-containing towels was increasingly effective as the wipe time increased; reductions at 10, 30, and 60 seconds were 1.3 (1.1-1.5), 1.6 (1.2-2.0), and 2.2 (2.1-2.2) log10 CFUs/mL, respectively. A waterless rub containing 61% ethyl alcohol was ineffective in eliminating B atrophaeus spores at all times tested (0 [-0.1 to 0.1], -0.2 [-0.3 to -0.1], and 0 [-0.2 to 0.2] log10 CFUs/mL). CONCLUSIONS: In this evaluation of hand hygiene agents, handwashing with soap and water, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate, or chlorine-containing towels reduced the amount of B atrophaeus spore contamination, whereas use of a waterless rub containing ethyl alcohol was not effective in removing spores.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

The new dirt on hand hygiene.

Brown et al.'s (2003) study supported that the use of alcohol-based hand rubs would improve hand hygiene compliance and decrease the incidence of cross-infection. The results of this study can be used to support a group research utilization project that would educate nurses about the use of alcohol-based hand rubs as an effective technique for hand hygiene. Feasibility issues could include cost of the antiseptic and dispensers, placement of dispensers in relation to patient care, and education sessions with the nurses on how and when to use the antiseptic. Future research could be done to examine various nations' compliance with hand hygiene through use of a alcohol-based hand rubs, while also using a more discrete means of observation.

Comment↗

PubMed1984

Hygienic hand disinfection.

The purpose of hygienic hand disinfection is to render hands safe after contact with pathogens. Comparing effects of disinfection procedures on infection ratios is too difficult for routine purposes but the degerming efficacy may be determined in laboratory tests with volunteers. In the Vienna test model the efficacy of a specific procedure being tested is compared to that of a standard disinfection (rubbing into hands 3 ml of isopropanol 60% v/v, 30 seconds, twice) tested in parallel with the same volunteers. This ensures standardization, thus comparability of results between laboratories, and provides the investigator with a yardstick for efficacy. The model includes artificial contamination, assessment of the release of test bacteria (E. Coli ATCC 11229) before and after disinfection by the finger tip method, and addition of neutralizers to sampling fluids. Alcohols in appropriate concentrations are highly effective (log reductions: greater than 4.0) whereas procedures employing disinfectant detergents act like soap (log reductions: less than or equal to 3.2) and may cause dissemination of pathogens.

Bacteriological Techniques↗

PubMed2001

Assessment of two hand hygiene regimens for intensive care unit personnel.

OBJECTIVE: To compare skin condition and skin microbiology among intensive care unit personnel using one of two randomly assigned hand hygiene regimens: a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-containing traditional antiseptic wash and a waterless handrub containing 61% ethanol with emollients (ALC). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Two critical care units (medical and surgical) in a large, metropolitan academic health center in Manhattan. SUBJECTS: Fifty staff members (physicians, nurses, housekeepers, respiratory therapists) working full time in the intensive care unit. INTERVENTIONS: One of two hand hygiene regimens randomly assigned for four consecutive weeks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The two outcomes were skin condition (measured by two tools: Hand Skin Assessment form and Visual Skin Scaling form) and skin microbiology. Samples were obtained at baseline, on day 1, and at the end of wks 2 and 4. Participants in the ALC group had significant improvements in the Hand Skin Assessment scores at wk 4 (p = 0.04) and in Visual Skin Scaling scores at wks 3 (p = 0.01) and 4 (p = 0.0005). There were no significant differences in numbers of colony-forming units between participants in the CHG or ALC group at any time period. The ALC regimen required significantly less time than the CHG regimen (mean: 12.7 secs and 21.1 secs, respectively; p = 0.000) and resulted in a 50% reduction in material costs. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in hand hygiene practices in acute care settings from the traditional antiseptic wash to use of plain, mild soap and an alcohol-based product should be considered. Further research is needed to examine the association between use of antiseptic products for hand hygiene of staff and reductions in nosocomial infection rates among patients.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

How much time is needed for hand hygiene in intensive care? A prospective trained observer study of rates of contact between healthcare workers and intensive care patients.

There are few data measuring rates of contact by healthcare workers (HCWs) with intensive care unit (ICU) patients (direct contacts) and their immediate environment (indirect contacts), or estimates of the time needed for 100% hand hygiene compliance. We measured this using a prospective trained observer study in a 12-bedded UK adult general ICU admitting > 600 mixed medical/surgical patients annually. HCWs were observed in ICU bed spaces for 1-h periods by a single researcher using a pre-determined plan, such that all 12 beds were observed for similar times and throughout the day. Mean daily rates of direct and indirect contact between HCWs and ICU patients were calculated. Observed post-contact hand hygiene compliance was also measured. Numbers of contacts/day that were or were not followed by hand hygiene, and estimates of the time needed daily for 100% compliance were calculated. On average, each patient was contacted directly 159 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 144-178] times and contacted indirectly 191 (95% CI 174-210) times/day. Observed post-contact hand hygiene rates were 43% for direct contacts and 12% for indirect contacts. Staff contacting more than one patient during routine care, who carry the highest risk of transmitting infection between patients, made, on average, 22 direct and 107 indirect contacts without adequate hand hygiene/patient/day. One hundred percent hand hygiene compliance by all healthcare workers would require about 230 min/patient/day (100 min for direct and 130 min for indirect contacts).

Cross Infection↗

PubMed2003

Impact of ring wearing on hand contamination and comparison of hand hygiene agents in a hospital.

We determined risk factors for hand contamination and compared the efficacy of 3 randomly allocated hand hygiene agents in a group of surgical intensive care unit nurses. We cultured samples of one of the subjects' hands before and samples of the other hand after hand hygiene was performed. Ring wearing was associated with 10-fold higher median skin organism counts; contamination with Staphylococcus aureus, gram-negative bacilli, or Candida species; and a stepwise increased risk of contamination with any transient organism as the number of rings worn increased (odds ratio [OR] for 1 ring worn, 2.6; OR for >1 ring worn, 4.6). Compared with use of plain soap and water, hand contamination with any transient organism was significantly less likely after use of an alcohol-based hand rub (OR, 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-0.8) but not after use of a medicated hand wipe (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.6). Ring wearing increased the frequency of hand contamination with potential nosocomial pathogens. Use of an alcohol-based hand rub resulted in significantly less frequent hand contamination.

Alcohols↗

PubMed2006

Factors associated with personal protection equipment use and hand hygiene among hemodialysis staff.

BACKGROUND: Because exposure to blood by health care workers is frequent during hemodialysis, gloves are required for all contact with patients and their equipment, followed by hand hygiene. In this study, we investigated factors associated with performing these practices as recommended. METHODS: Staff members from a sample of 45 US hemodialysis facilities were surveyed using an anonymous self-administered questionnaire. Factors independently associated with reporting increased compliance with recommended hand hygiene and glove use practices during patient care were identified with multivariate modeling. RESULTS: Of 605 eligible staff members, 420 (69%) responded: registered nurses, 41%; dialysis technicians, 51%; and licensed practical nurses, 8%. Only 35% reported that dialysis patients were at risk for bloodborne virus infections, and only 36% reported always following recommended hand hygiene and glove use practices. Independent factors associated with more frequent compliance were being a technician (versus a registered nurse) and reporting always doing what was needed to protect themselves from infection. CONCLUSION: Compliance with recommended hand hygiene and glove use practices by hemodialysis staff was low. The rationale for infection control practices specific to the hemodialysis setting was poorly understood by all staff. Infection control training should be tailored to this setting and should address misconceptions.

Attitude to Health↗

PubMed2004

Performance feedback of hand hygiene, using alcohol gel as the skin decontaminant, reduces the number of inpatients newly affected by MRSA and antibiotic costs.

In March 2000 the Plastic Surgery Unit of our 600-bedded district general hospital agreed to be the pilot ward for the introduction of a new standard of hand hygiene, emphasizing the use of alcohol gel on socially clean hands between clinical contact with patients. Hand hygiene practice of healthcare workers (HCWs) was observed using Formic forms. The data from completed forms were scanned into an Excel database, and results fed back to HCWs in graphical form. The case notes of patients newly affected by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), likely to have been acquired as inpatients, were reviewed for one year before and after this performance feedback of hand hygiene. The cost of teicoplanin use (for MRSA infections) was also determined for the two periods. There was a significant reduction in the number of patients newly affected by MRSA (P<0.05), and in the use of teicoplanin, suggesting that performance feedback of hand hygiene reduces nosocomial MRSA infection rates and antibiotic use.

Alcohols↗

PubMed2005

Reducing the risk of health care-associated infections by complying with CDC hand hygiene guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has made the reduction of health care-associated infections one of its National Patient Safety Goals for 2005. CASE STUDY: A 57-year-old man who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery was discharged from the hospital without any complications. During his routine follow-up surgery clinic visit two weeks later, his sternal wound was found to be infected. Wound and blood cultures were positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). IMPLEMENTING SOLUTIONS: Health care workers at Barnes-Jewish Hospital (BJH), St. Louis, attended a mandatory educational session that reviewed hand hygiene guidelines and the hospital policy related to hand hygiene and infection control. In addition, posters and flyers were posted. An increase in the use of alcohol hand rubs was found. In a later effort, a multidisciplinary hand hygiene campaign was launched at one of the BJC community hospitals. All physicians were sent hand hygiene materials and supplies, and signs were posted in key areas such as the hospital cafeteria. After a six-month period, the compliance rate increased from 35% to 53%. CONCLUSION: Hospital-related infections will never be completely eradicated, but many can be prevented.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.↗

PubMed2006

[Hygiene Series: 14: MRSA infections: hand hygiene is the Achilles heel].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Adherence with hand hygiene: does number of sinks matter?

We observed adherence with hand hygiene in 14 units at 4 hospitals with varying sink-to-bed ratios (range, 1:1 to 1:6). Adherence was less than 50% in all units and there was no significant trend toward improved hand hygiene with increased sink-to-bed ratios.

Cross Infection↗

PubMed2000

Improving hand hygiene in community healthcare settings: the impact of research and clinical collaboration.

Observation of nursing activities and bacteriological studies undertaken with a sample of nurses employed in a community NHS trust indicated that considerable scope for cross infection existed during domiciliary visits. Poor conditions in patients' homes compromised nurses' ability to perform hand hygiene effectively, increasing risks. A clinical trial indicated that carriage of medically significant bacteria likely to contribute to cross infection could be reduced by applying an antiseptic cream which exhibited residual effectiveness. An audit of hand hygiene throughout the inner city trust indicated the need to pay greater attention to hand hygiene, especially during home nursing visits. The situation was less acute in a rural trust where a second audit was performed for comparative purposes. The motivation of clinical staff to improve hand hygiene precautions was high.

Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗

PubMedDate not supplied

The impact of a health campaign on hand hygiene and upper respiratory illness among college students living in residence halls.

Hand hygiene is a key element in preventing the transmission of cold and flu viruses. The authors conducted an experimental-control design study in 4 campus residence halls to determine whether a message campaign about hand hygiene and the availability of gel hand sanitizer could decrease cold and flu illness and school and work absenteeism. Their findings indicate that students who were exposed to the message campaign and provided with gel hand sanitizer increased their knowledge about the potential health benefits of hand washing and sanitizer use; they reported higher rates of hand washing and using sanitizer than did the control group. These students also experienced fewer cold and flu illnesses during the study than those in the control group and missed fewer class or work engagements because of colds or flu. Conducting a health promotion campaign in residence halls may therefore help prevent colds and flu and decrease absenteeism on university campuses.

Absenteeism↗

PubMed2006

Introducing alcohol-based hand rub for hand hygiene: the critical need for training.

BACKGROUND: Use of an alcohol-based hand rub for hand hygiene has recently been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, the proper technique for using hand rub has not been well described and is not routinely taught in hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of training on proper technique as outlined by the European Standard for testing alcohol-based hand rubs (European Norm 1500) in a clinical study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective study including 180 healthcare workers (HCWs) in a 450-bed, university-affiliated geriatric hospital where alcohol-based hand rub was introduced in the late 1970s. INTERVENTION: Structured training program in hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand rub. Technique for using hand rub was tested by the addition of a fluorescent dye to the disinfectant and the number of areas missed was quantified by a validated visual assessment method. In addition, the number of bacteria eradicated was estimated by calculating the difference between the log(10) number of colony-forming units (cfu) of bacteria on the fingertips before and after the procedure, and reported as reduction factor (RF). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Log(10) cfu bacterial counts on fingertips before and after training in the appropriate technique for using hand rub. RESULTS: At baseline, only 31% of HCWs used proper technique, yielding a low RF of 1.4 log(10) cfu bacterial count. Training improved HCW compliance to 74% and increased the RF to 2.2 log(10) cfu bacterial count, an increase of almost 50% (P<.001). Several factors, such as applying the proper amount of hand rub, were significantly associated with the increased RF. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that education on the proper technique for using hand rub, as outlined in EN 1500, can significantly increase the degree of bacterial killing.

Alcohols↗