[Theme: hand hygiene--hand hygiene campaign 1990].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Hand Disinfection↗
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.
Intra-laboratory reproducibility of the hand hygiene reference procedures of EN 1499 (hygienic handwash) and EN 1500 (hygienic hand disinfection).
The bactericidal efficacy of hand antiseptic products is determined in Europe using two norms--EN1499 (hygienic handwash), and EN 1500 (hygienic hand disinfection) based on reducing the counts of bacteria on artificially contaminated hands. Each requires 12-15 data sets per test and comparison with a reference procedure. Recent research using EN 1500 suggested that most alcohol-based hand gels are significantly less effective than the reference alcohol (2-propanol 60%), whereas liquid alcohol-based rubs are not. However concerns about the accuracy and reproducibility of the norm reference procedures have been raised. We therefore analysed 23 experiments carried out using EN 1500 representing 342 hand disinfection procedures, and 12 experiments using EN 1499 representing 178 handwashes, all performed in the same laboratory for reproducibility of the reference procedures. The reference alcohol gave a mean log(10) reduction factor (RF) of 4.64 +/- 0.93; only one data set gave a significantly higher result (5.14, P = 0.034), and one significantly lower (4.05; P = 0.034). Analysis of all 23 means revealed no significant difference (P = 0.188; ANOVA model). The reference soap gave a mean reduction of 2.82 +/- 0.49. Two data sets were significantly higher than this (3.35,P < 0.001; 3.12, P < 0.001) and two significantly lower (2.55, P = 0.031; 2.47,P = 0.004). Analysis of all the means did reveal a significant difference (P < 0.001, ANOVA model), which is probably explained by the smaller standard deviations of these results. Pre-values (bacteria recovered from fingers before a reference procedure) correlated significantly with RFs for both hand disinfection (correlation coefficient: 0.291;P = 0.01) and handwash (correlation coefficient: 0.372, P = 0.01). Overall both procedures gave accurate and reproducible results.
Analysis of Variance↗
[Hand hygiene: hand infections and handwashing].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Disinfection↗
Hand hygiene, hand care and hand protection for clinical dental practice. Recommendations of the European Panel for Infection Control in Dentistry (EPICD) (Working Group on Clinical Practice).
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Dental Staff↗
[Hand hygiene--is hand disinfection the best solution?].
Nosocomial infections have been recognized as a critical problem in modern medicine and are associated with the quality of health care provided in hospitals. On average, 7-10% of hospitalized patients acquire an infection after hospital admission. A substantial proportion of these result from cross-contamination. Transmission of microorganisms by the hands of health care workers is the main cause for spreading. Prevention of bacterial contamination and infection to the patients requires good hand washing or disinfection, and a series of guidelines have been proposed. However, health care workers show poor compliance with such rules. At a time when costs for patient care are increasing and hospitals are threatened by bacterial resistance, prevention of nosocomial infections is an important issue. Thus, many international publications at present discuss the general problems of hand hygiene, still is the most cost effective method in prevention of nosocomial infections. Factors that contribute to poor compliance in hand hygiene have been targeted, and practical solutions in order to improve hand cleansing practices have been suggested. Increased use of the quicker methods of hand disinfection instead of hand washing is one of them.
Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
Skin reactions related to hand hygiene and selection of hand hygiene products.
BACKGROUND: In October 2004, The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the World Alliance for Patient Safety. Within the alliance, the first priority of the Global Patient Safety Challenge is to reduce health care-associated infection. A key action within the challenge is to promote hand hygiene in health care globally as well as at the country level through the campaign "Clean Care is Safer Care." As a result, the WHO is developing Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care, designed to be applicable throughout the world. METHODS: This paper summarizes one component of the global WHO guidelines related to the impact of hand hygiene on the skin of health care personnel, including a discussion of types of skin reactions associated with hand hygiene, methods to reduce adverse reactions, and factors to consider when selecting hand hygiene products. RESULTS: Health care professionals have a higher prevalence of skin irritation than seen in the general population because of the necessity for frequent hand hygiene during patient care. CONCLUSION: Ways to minimize adverse effects of hand hygiene include selecting less irritating products, using skin moisturizers, and modifying certain hand hygiene practices such as unnecessary washing. Institutions need to consider several factors when selecting hand hygiene products: dermal tolerance and aesthetic preferences of users as well as practical considerations such as convenience, storage, and costs.
Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗
Mentor's hand hygiene practices influence student's hand hygiene rates.
BACKGROUND: There were 3 objectives for this prospective quasiexperimental study. The first was to determine the effect of mentor's hand hygiene practices on student's hand hygiene rates during clinical rotations. The second was to assess the difference in hand hygiene rates for students with and without prior medical experience. The third was to assess the student's opinion and beliefs regarding hand hygiene. METHODS: Sixty students enrolled in a certified nursing program were selected to participate in the study. Each study group was observed twice during the 30-day span. The first observational period was conducted on day 1 of clinical rotation. The second observational period was conducted on day 30 of clinical rotation. Students were observed for hand hygiene. Also assessed were medical experience, sex, gloving, age, and mentor's hand hygiene practices. After observational period 2, a brief questionnaire was given to students to determine their opinion and beliefs regarding hand hygiene. The questionnaire was divided into 5 sections: student's commitment to hand hygiene, their perception of hand hygiene inconvenience, the necessity of hand hygiene, the student's ability to perform hand hygiene, and their opinion on the frequency of medical staff's hand hygiene. RESULTS: The mentor's practice of hand hygiene was the strongest predictor of the student's rate of hand hygiene for both observational periods (P < .01). Furthermore, students without prior medical experience had a significant increase in hand hygiene rates when comparing observational period 1 to observational period 2 (P < .01). Glove usage was associated with increased hand hygiene rates by 50% during observational period 1 (P = .01) and 44% during observational period 2 (P < .01). Male students during observational period 1 practiced hand hygiene 30% less often than female students (P < .01); however, during observational period 2, there was no significant difference between hand hygiene rates for males and females (P = .82). Questionnaires were completed by 47 students, who reported a strong commitment to hand hygiene, belief in its necessity, and ability to perform hand hygiene (with scores in the high 90s on a 10 to 100 rating scale). CONCLUSION: Mentor's use of hand hygiene and glove usage was associated with increased hand hygiene among students. Even though students reported strongly positive attitudes toward hand hygiene, students had a low overall rate of hand hygiene.
Adolescent↗
[Hand hygiene and hand protection. The recommendations of the EPICD (European Panel for Infection Control in Dentistry, the Clinical Practice Working Group)].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Disinfection↗
Hygienic hand antiseptics: should they not have activity and label claims against viruses?
Enteric and respiratory viruses are among the most frequent causes of human infections, and hands play an important role in the spread of these and many other viral diseases. Regular and proper hand hygiene by caregivers and food handlers in particular is essential to decontaminate hands and potentially interrupt such spread. What would be considered a proper decontamination of hands? Handwashing with regular soap and water is often considered sufficient, but what of hygienic handwash and handrub antiseptic products? Are they more effective? The evidence suggests that some clearly are. Activity against bacteria may not reflect the ability of hygienic hand antiseptics to deal with viruses, especially those that are nonenveloped. In spite of the acknowledged importance of hands as vehicles for viruses, there is a lack of suitable regulatory mechanism for handwash or handrub products to make claims of efficacy against viruses. This is in contrast with the ability of general-purpose disinfectants to make antiviral claims, although transmission of viruses from surfaces other than those of reusable medical devices may play only a minor role in virus transmission. This review discusses the (1). recent information on the relative importance of viruses as human pathogens, particularly those causing enteric and respiratory infections; (2). the survival of relevant viruses on human hands in comparison with common gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria; (3). the potential of hands to transfer or receive such contamination on casual contact; (4). role of hands in the spread of viruses; (5). the potential of hygienic measures to eliminate viruses from contaminated hands; (6). relative merits of available protocols to assess the activity of hygienic hand antiseptics against viruses; and (7). factors considered crucial in any tests to assess the activity of hygienic hand antiseptics against viruses. In addition, this review proposes surrogate viruses in such testing and discusses issues for additional consideration by researchers, manufacturers, end-users, and regulators.
Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗
Dermatological aspects of a successful introduction and continuation of alcohol-based hand rubs for hygienic hand disinfection.
With the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline on hand hygiene, hospitals often introduce alcohol-based hand rubs for hand disinfection. Healthcare workers, however, may reject the new products because of skin irritation or other skin-related problems, which they experience after years of handwashing. In order to facilitate a successful introduction and continued use of alcohol-based hand rubs in hospitals, we have reviewed and summarized the major studies on the topic. Occupational hand dermatitis may occur in up to 30% of healthcare workers. It is mainly described as an irritant contact dermatitis caused by detergents. The diagnosis is usually clinical. Allergic reactions are very rare. After using an alcohol-based hand rub for the first time, healthcare workers may have a burning skin sensation that can be explained by pre-irritated skin. In this case the skin barrier has usually been impaired by frequent handwashing or occlusive gloves. This may result in a vicious circle whereby the healthcare worker increases the frequency of handwashing and reduces the frequency of hand disinfection. Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis is possible by selection of a low-irritating hand rub, which contains emollients, the correct use of the hand rub and a clear guideline when to disinfect and wash hands in the clinical setting. Common mistakes in the use of alcohol-based hand rubs are application to pre-irritated skin and washing hands before hand disinfection, which is, in general, not necessary, or after hand disinfection, which results in washing off the emollients. Clear preparation and guidance of healthcare workers before the introduction of alcohol-based hand rubs can help to enhance compliance in hand hygiene. The switch from handwash to alcohol-based hand rub will improve healthcare workers skin if mistakes are avoided and hand rinses are used correctly.
Alcohols↗
Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force.
The Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings provides health-care workers (HCWs) with a review of data regarding handwashing and hand antisepsis in health-care settings. In addition, it provides specific recommendations to promote improved hand-hygiene practices and reduce transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to patients and personnel in health-care settings. This report reviews studies published since the 1985 CDC guideline (Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:231-43) and the 1995 APIC guideline (Larson EL, APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69) were issued and provides an in-depth review of hand-hygiene practices of HCWs, levels of adherence of personnel to recommended handwashing practices, and factors adversely affecting adherence. New studies of the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs and the low incidence of dermatitis associated with their use are reviewed. Recent studies demonstrating the value of multidisciplinary hand-hygiene promotion programs and the potential role of alcohol-based hand rubs in improving hand-hygiene practices are summarized. Recommendations concerning related issues (e.g., the use of surgical hand antiseptics, hand lotions or creams, and wearing of artificial fingernails) are also included.
Alcohols↗
Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force.
The Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings provides health-care workers (HCWs) with a review of data regarding handwashing and hand antisepsis in health-care settings. In addition, it provides specific recommendations to promote improved hand-hygiene practices and reduce transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to patients and personnel in health-care settings. This report reviews studies published since the 1985 CDC guideline (Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:231-43) and the 1995 APIC guideline (Larson EL, APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69) were issued and provides an in-depth review of hand-hygiene practices of HCWs, levels of adherence of personnel to recommended handwashing practices, and factors adversely affecting adherence. New studies of the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs and the low incidence of dermatitis associated with their use are reviewed. Recent studies demonstrating the value of multidisciplinary hand-hygiene promotion programs and the potential role of alcohol-based hand rubs in improving hand-hygiene practices are summarized. Recommendations concerning related issues (e.g., the use of surgical hand antiseptics, hand lotions or creams, and wearing of artificial fingernails) are also included.
Alcohols↗
Efficacy of alcohol-based gels compared with simple hand wash and hygienic hand disinfection.
A recent research letter on the limited efficacy of alcohol-based hand gels has alerted the global infection control community and raised the question of the true significance of data obtained according to EN 1500. It has been described that a 1 min simple hand wash reduces artificial contamination of hands by a log(10) reduction factor of 2.8 and a 1 min reference hand disinfection with 2-propanol (60%, v/v) by a factor of 4.6 steps. The EN 1500 gel data show that the 30 s efficacy of most gels is closer to a simple hand wash than to the reference hand disinfection. The 30 s efficacy of most alcohol-based liquid products and one gel, however, is almost identical to the reference hand disinfection. In many European countries alcohol-based liquid products have been established as a standard practice in hygienic hand disinfection for decades. Replacement of these products with most available gels would be a step backward in terms of efficacy and has still to be seen critically from the efficacy point of view.
Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗
The effects of test variables on the efficacy of hand hygiene agents.
BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is essential to interrupting disease transmission in health care facilities. Multiple hand hygiene agents are currently available for use in the health care setting. To evaluate the utility of these agents, both the user acceptability and the efficacy need to be evaluated. Different hand hygiene test methodologies have been used to measure the efficacy of these agents, but efficacy results vary depending on variations to key parameters in these methodologies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of test variables on the efficacy of hand hygiene agents. METHODS: Both a comprehensive literature review and original hand hygiene efficacy studies were undertaken. The literature review was conducted using a Medline search, and hand hygiene efficacy studies were conducted under the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). E 1174 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Health Care Personnel Handwash Formulation. RESULTS: The literature review and our original data showed that the following variables affected the hand hygiene efficacy measurements: hand jewelry, experimental contamination versus normal flora, method of application of test organism, hand hygiene agent, concentration of active ingredient, volume of hand hygiene agent, duration of application of hand hygiene agent, method of application of hand hygiene agent, and study method (human challenge trial versus in vitro suspension test). CONCLUSIONS: Although many methodological variables affect efficacy results, infection control professionals in their analysis of product information should always assess the results in light of the following key variables: concentration and type of active ingredient, duration of exposure to hand hygiene agent, volume of hand hygiene agent applied, test organism, and study method (ie, human challenge vs. in vitro suspension test).
Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗
Establishing a system to improve hand-hygiene compliance.
Hand hygiene is one of the most important means of reducing the transmission of infection. At University Hospital Lewisham, efforts to improve hand hygiene have included better sink, soap and towel provision, and the distribution of posters, leaflets, badges, balloons and pens. There are signs pointing to the nearest sink, and hand decontaminants at the end of most beds.
Attitude of Health Personnel↗
Improving patient hand hygiene.
The hand hygiene of patients has been neglected and should be emphasised. This article outlines strategies to empower patients to improve their hand hygiene, bearing in mind that they should be allowed to make their own choices.
Adult↗
Infection control. Hygienic hand decontamination.
Hygienic hand decontamination is the single most important technique available to nurses in preventing the spread of infection. The evaluation of hand decontamination is now recognised as a complex task that involves frequency, choice of agent, appropriate timing, duration and quality of technique. This article analyses each of the components of hygienic hand decontamination, and concludes that more research is necessary before evaluation of this vital nursing activity can be undertaken with confidence.
Cross Infection↗
The impact of gown-use requirement on hand hygiene compliance.
BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene compliance remains low, despite its effectiveness in preventing infections. Gowns are routinely used to reduce dissemination of organisms within hospitals. Use of gowns is time consuming and costly, and their effectiveness, compared with that of hand hygiene alone, is debated. Among the arguments supporting a gown-use requirement is the potential to boost awareness of infection control, leading to improved hand hygiene compliance. METHODS: Hand hygiene compliance was recorded in a 14-month crossover trial comparing compliance at 2 intensive care units during periods with and without a gown-use requirement. RESULTS: During 170 h of observation, 1619 hand hygiene opportunities were recorded. Compliance was 10% before care was given and 36% after care was given. Compliance with glove and gown use was 62% and 63%, respectively. After-care hand hygiene compliance for nurses, physicians, and therapists was 40%, 38%, and 22%, respectively. Compliance after patient contact, body fluid contact, and other in-room activity was 42%, 48%, and 22%, respectively. For periods with and without a gown-use requirement, overall after-care compliance (37% vs. 34%) and rates by personnel and activity type were similar. In the subgroup of patients on contact precautions, hand hygiene compliance during the period with a gown-use requirement versus the period without a gown-use requirement was 11% versus 10% (P=.85) before care was given and 45% versus 39% (P=.09) after care was given. In this subgroup, after adjustment for type of in-room activity, medical personnel, intensive care unit, and observer, the predicted after-care hand hygiene compliance during periods with and without a gown-use requirement was 48% versus 41% (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis that a gown-use requirement might improve hand hygiene compliance in the intensive care unit could not be confirmed. In the subgroup of patients on contact precautions, improvement in hand hygiene compliance associated with the gown-use requirement was small and did not affect precare rates.
Guideline Adherence↗