PubMed HealthSearch

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Hand Disinfection”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Failure of hand disinfection with frequent hand washing: a need for prolonged field studies.

In a prolonged field trial a 4% chlorhexidine digluconate detergent scrub (Hibiscrub(R)), that had earlier proved to be an effective hand disinfectant, was studied in hospital wards. Finger tips were found to harbour more bacteria than the hand dorsum and the samples collected from them yielded more information on the bacteriological and dermatological effects of hand disinfectants in practice.In wards with a relatively low hand-washing frequency (less than 20 times in 8 hours) the bacteriological results resembled those obtained by in-use tests with volunteers. In the neonatal unit where the hand washing frequency was remarkably high, even occasionally over 100 times/8 h shift, an increase in the bacterial colony counts of the majority of the staff was recorded both before and after hand washing already after using the preparation for 1 week. Age, occupation and hand-washing frequency all correlated with the bacteriological results. Twenty-seven out of 37 persons complained of side effects such as wounds of finger tips and redness or heavy drying of the skin. Wounds, particularly on finger tips, resulted in the failure of disinfection. An increase in bacterial counts was sometimes noted without any dermatological or subjective changes. Drying of the skin was complained of less often when no increase in skin bacteria occurred.After the changeover of washing practice to a detergent followed by a rinse with spirit solution containing chlorhexidine and glycerol a decrease was recorded in the bacterial counts. It is concluded that more attention should be paid to long-term testing of hand washing and disinfection methods to ensure optimum final results in practice. It is obvious that the knowledge obtained from short time in-use testing cannot be applied to all conditions of use.

Adult

[Bacteriological control of surgical hand disinfection by means of selected agents].

Three techniques of surgical hand disinfection (use of Fesia-cito, utilization of a Wofasteril-alcohol-water mixture and a modified Fürbringer-Ahlfeld method) were verified with regard to the reduction in the bacterial count of the non-infected day-hand. The Wofasteril-alcohol-water mixture caused a 99.8% reduction in the bacterial count on the right hand, and a 99.9% reduction on the left hand. The data obtained with Fesia-cito were 80.2% and 66.6% respectively. With the modified Fürbringer-Ahlfeld method the reduction in the bacterial count was 96.9% and 98.6% respectively. The authors emphasize the claim for the principle of non-infection in the field of maxillofacial surgery and recommended to exercise reserve in regard to the routine use of Fesia-cito for surgical hand disinfection.

Alcohols

[Test methods for surgical hand disinfection (author's transl)].

As exemplified by a test preparation, methods for assessing the effect of hand disinfection on the resident flora are put up for discussion. The test of a method for hand disinfection must make allowance for conditions prevailing in practice. Accordingly, the following steps should be taken into consideration: A. Single use 1. Immediate disinfecting effect 2. Duration of the disinfecting effect B. Repeated use 3. Course of the initial colony count 4. Immediate disinfecting effect 5. Behaviour of colony count after interruption of the disinfecting method applied. For the purpose of comparing the total count, as with all other disinfecting methods, the colony count must be determined by fractional collection methods; to this end, Traub's procedure may be modified, possibly using the plastic bag method described by Gaschen. A careful statistical evaluation with appropriate transformation of the results is indispensable.

Bacteria

An evaluation of antiseptics used for hand disinfection in wards.

The antibacterial effectiveness of hand antiseptics commonly used in wards was studied by laboratory and in-use tests and their acceptability assessed by means of a questionnaire passed to hospital staff. To determine the immediate and long-term antibacterial effects of the preparations the in-use tests were performed by groups of students. The greatest immediate reduction in bacterial counts on hands was obtained by products containing chlorhexidine. The long-term antibacterial effect was recorded with emulsions containing 3% hexachlorophane, 2% Irgasan CF3R or 4% chlorhexidine when used constantly on several consecutive days. Considerable discrepancies were recorded in the antibacterial effectiveness of some preparations when comparing laboratory and in-use test results. Therefore it is suggested that antiseptics should be tested by in-use tests which more closely resemble practical conditions before their use, or further trial, in hospital.

Anti-Infective Agents, Local

A test for 'hygienic' hand disinfection.

A standardised test procedure is described in which finger-tips are inoculated with broth cultures of organisms (Staphylococcus aureus, Staphyloccocus saprophyticus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa): counts are made from washings of hands after disinfection with various antiseptic-detergents, alcoholic solutions, or unmedicated soap. 70% alcohol, with or without chlorhexidine, was the most effective preparation. The two antiseptic detergents showed variable results, but against Gram-negative bacilli neither was significantly more effective than plain soap. Some tests were also made on the death rate of organisms dried on the skin without disinfection.

Anti-Infective Agents, Local

[New methods of disinfecting the hands].

An equimolar mixture--9.6 g of 85% formic acid and 19 g of 30% hydrogen peroxide which after 60-minute contact at room temperature contained over 3% and after 120-minute contact--over 5% performic acid was used. Before use the mentioned mixture was diluted with water (to the volume of 1 litre). Exposure period--3 minutes. Comparative tests demonstrated that a mixture with performic acid in hand disinfection provided somewhat better results than 0.2% peracetic acid, and that both peracids produced a much stronger disinfecting action on the skin microbial flora than 80% methyl alcohol.

Ethanol