Claire Dendle MBBS, FRACP, GCHPE , Andrea Paul GradDipEd, MA(AppLing) , Carmel Scott RN, CICP , Elizabeth Gillespie BN, RN, CICP, MPubHlth (Melb) , Despina Kotsanas BSc(Hons), MClinEpi , Rhonda L. Stuart MBBS, FRACP, PhD
Background
The ability of doctors to ‘speak up’ when a medical error occurs is a cornerstone of patient safety. Hand hygiene (HH) is one of the simplest methods of reducing patient harm and represents a behavioural model in which to observe medical staff interaction. Our hypothesis is that the hierarchical structure amongst doctors prevents them from speaking up, which in turn contributes to poor HH compliance.
Methods
Ananonymous survey was administered to doctors employed in a health service in Melbourne, Australia. Questions included: willingness to prompt doctors to perform HH, reasons for not speaking up, perceived reactions of a doctor being prompted to perform HH and perceived reaction if they were asked to perform HH.
Results
One hundred and sixty-three doctors completed the questionnaire. Willingness to prompt a doctor to perform HH decreased as the questioned doctor's seniority increased, with 88.5% willing to ask an intern but only 40.4% willing to ask a consultant. The main reason for not asking a senior doctor was not wanting to speak up to a superior.
Conclusions
Our study highlights a steep medical hierarchy, with less than half of the doctors willing to question seniors, even when they noticed an error occurring.Wesuggest that if acquired, the skills needed to respectfully prompt HH are transferrable to many other patient safety initiatives.
{"title":"Why is it so hard for doctors to speak up when they see an error occurring?","authors":"Claire Dendle MBBS, FRACP, GCHPE , Andrea Paul GradDipEd, MA(AppLing) , Carmel Scott RN, CICP , Elizabeth Gillespie BN, RN, CICP, MPubHlth (Melb) , Despina Kotsanas BSc(Hons), MClinEpi , Rhonda L. Stuart MBBS, FRACP, PhD","doi":"10.1071/HI12044","DOIUrl":"10.1071/HI12044","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The ability of doctors to ‘speak up’ when a medical error occurs is a cornerstone of patient safety. Hand hygiene (HH) is one of the simplest methods of reducing patient harm and represents a behavioural model in which to observe medical staff interaction. Our hypothesis is that the hierarchical structure amongst doctors prevents them from speaking up, which in turn contributes to poor HH compliance.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Ananonymous survey was administered to doctors employed in a health service in Melbourne, Australia. Questions included: willingness to prompt doctors to perform HH, reasons for not speaking up, perceived reactions of a doctor being prompted to perform HH and perceived reaction if they were asked to perform HH.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>One hundred and sixty-three doctors completed the questionnaire. Willingness to prompt a doctor to perform HH decreased as the questioned doctor's seniority increased, with 88.5% willing to ask an intern but only 40.4% willing to ask a consultant. The main reason for not asking a senior doctor was not wanting to speak up to a superior.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our study highlights a steep medical hierarchy, with less than half of the doctors willing to question seniors, even when they noticed an error occurring.Wesuggest that if acquired, the skills needed to respectfully prompt HH are transferrable to many other patient safety initiatives.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":90514,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare infection","volume":"18 2","pages":"Pages 72-75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/HI12044","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59235125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Karen Vickery BVSc(Hons), MVSc, PhD , Honghua Hu BSc, Grad DipSc, PhD , Anita Simone Jacombs BSc(Hons), Grad Dip, MBBS , David Alan Bradshaw BAppSc(Physio), MBBS(Hons) , Anand Kumar Deva BSc(Med), MBBS, MS, FRACS
Background
Most of the world's bacteria live in biofilms, three-dimensional clusters attached to surfaces.Manyhospital-acquired infections are associated with biofilm infections of implantable medical devices such as orthopaedic prostheses and intravascular catheters. Within biofilms, bacteria are significantly less susceptible to antibiotics and host defences, making biofilm infections difficult to diagnose and treat, and often necessitating removal of the infected implant.
Method
In this review article we describe the process of biofilm formation, quorum sensing, and biofilm infection of the healthcare environment, surgical instruments and implantable medical devices.
Conclusion
The inability to treat biofilm-infected devices means that therapies targeting biofilm-specific processes and targeting prevention of biofilm formation are required.
{"title":"A review of bacterial biofilms and their role in device-associated infection","authors":"Karen Vickery BVSc(Hons), MVSc, PhD , Honghua Hu BSc, Grad DipSc, PhD , Anita Simone Jacombs BSc(Hons), Grad Dip, MBBS , David Alan Bradshaw BAppSc(Physio), MBBS(Hons) , Anand Kumar Deva BSc(Med), MBBS, MS, FRACS","doi":"10.1071/HI12059","DOIUrl":"10.1071/HI12059","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Most of the world's bacteria live in biofilms, three-dimensional clusters attached to surfaces.Manyhospital-acquired infections are associated with biofilm infections of implantable medical devices such as orthopaedic prostheses and intravascular catheters. Within biofilms, bacteria are significantly less susceptible to antibiotics and host defences, making biofilm infections difficult to diagnose and treat, and often necessitating removal of the infected implant.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>In this review article we describe the process of biofilm formation, quorum sensing, and biofilm infection of the healthcare environment, surgical instruments and implantable medical devices.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The inability to treat biofilm-infected devices means that therapies targeting biofilm-specific processes and targeting prevention of biofilm formation are required.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":90514,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare infection","volume":"18 2","pages":"Pages 61-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/HI12059","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59235482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There are enormous challenges facing infection control in the 21st century. Countries across the world are confronted by ageing populations, restricted healthcare resources, demands for modern medicine and increasing antimicrobial resistance. Problempathogens in the community are set to invade hospitals, and those created in hospitals are seeding into the community. Continued consumption of antimicrobial agents is generating and consolidating resistance to nearly all classes of drugs. New resistance mechanisms arising in one locality rapidly spread across the ‘global village’ courtesy of migration, conflict and international travel. We are facing unprecedented threats to the management of infection both in healthcare and communities across the world. This review summarises the current challenges for infection control and proposes a range of solutions encompassing novel strategies and technologies aimed at protecting us against untreatable infection.
{"title":"Infection control in the post-antibiotic era","authors":"Stephanie J. Dancer MD, FRC Path","doi":"10.1071/HI12042","DOIUrl":"10.1071/HI12042","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There are enormous challenges facing infection control in the 21st century. Countries across the world are confronted by ageing populations, restricted healthcare resources, demands for modern medicine and increasing antimicrobial resistance. Problempathogens in the community are set to invade hospitals, and those created in hospitals are seeding into the community. Continued consumption of antimicrobial agents is generating and consolidating resistance to nearly all classes of drugs. New resistance mechanisms arising in one locality rapidly spread across the ‘global village’ courtesy of migration, conflict and international travel. We are facing unprecedented threats to the management of infection both in healthcare and communities across the world. This review summarises the current challenges for infection control and proposes a range of solutions encompassing novel strategies and technologies aimed at protecting us against untreatable infection.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":90514,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare infection","volume":"18 2","pages":"Pages 51-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/HI12042","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59235232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is known that hand hygiene is a very important means to prevent healthcare associated infections, but it is also clear that 100% of compliance with hand hygiene is not achievable because of human psychology in addition to factors such as staffing and time shortages. For example, if a nurse on a neonatology unit has to care for three, four, five or even six (whichwas the case in one outbreak inGermany) incubators it may be impossible for them to perform the necessary hand hygiene. Similarly, studies have shown that compliance rates of 70% may reflect good practice. This example of hand hygiene compliance is just one reason why other vectors are important for transferring pathogens from patient to patient. In turn, this demonstrates the important role that cleaning and disinfection play in preventing healthcare associated infections. One simple example demonstrating the important role of cleaning and its relationship to hand hygiene was demonstrated by Kundrapu et al. The authors showed that contamination of hands could be reduced by daily disinfection of high-touch surfaces. Environmental cleaning related articles published in Healthcare Infection have increased in recent times, reflecting a global increase in interest in environmental cleaning in infection prevention and control. Therefore, I welcome this issue of Healthcare Infection, which is solely dedicated to this topic. In this edition, Smith and colleagues investigated 18 high touch surfaces in hospital rooms by ATP measurement and quantitative microbiology. Both methods, despite measuring quite different endpoints, were in rather good agreement. From the results it seems that bedrail control panels, nurse call lights, patient phones and bedrails are the most contaminated areas. On the other hand, main light switch, mattress and bathroom interior door handle seem to be the cleanest areas. Results like these might help to define risk areas which should be more frequently cleaned and disinfected. Mitchell and colleagues undertook a literature review on methods to evaluate cleanliness in healthcare facilities. They found papers about ATP bioluminescence, microbiological methods, visual inspection and gel markers and they describe the advantages and disadvantages of these methods. This paper is a good overview with the profound outcome that we need much more scientific knowledge about measuring cleanliness in a sensitive and specific way. An article by Gebel et al. describes the environmental cleaning regulations in Germany. Interestingly, there is a recommendation by the Robert Koch Institute about cleaning and disinfection of surfaces which has to be followed by the hospitals. One of the main points in that recommendation is that disinfection has to be done regularly on the basis of a risk assessment, e.g. all surfaces close to patient and with frequent hand contact have to bedisinfected (not only cleaned) regularly. There are also regulations in Germany that all disinfectants (not only f
{"title":"Cleaning – on the way to evidence-based knowledge","authors":"Walter Popp","doi":"10.1071/HI13004","DOIUrl":"10.1071/HI13004","url":null,"abstract":"It is known that hand hygiene is a very important means to prevent healthcare associated infections, but it is also clear that 100% of compliance with hand hygiene is not achievable because of human psychology in addition to factors such as staffing and time shortages. For example, if a nurse on a neonatology unit has to care for three, four, five or even six (whichwas the case in one outbreak inGermany) incubators it may be impossible for them to perform the necessary hand hygiene. Similarly, studies have shown that compliance rates of 70% may reflect good practice. This example of hand hygiene compliance is just one reason why other vectors are important for transferring pathogens from patient to patient. In turn, this demonstrates the important role that cleaning and disinfection play in preventing healthcare associated infections. One simple example demonstrating the important role of cleaning and its relationship to hand hygiene was demonstrated by Kundrapu et al. The authors showed that contamination of hands could be reduced by daily disinfection of high-touch surfaces. Environmental cleaning related articles published in Healthcare Infection have increased in recent times, reflecting a global increase in interest in environmental cleaning in infection prevention and control. Therefore, I welcome this issue of Healthcare Infection, which is solely dedicated to this topic. In this edition, Smith and colleagues investigated 18 high touch surfaces in hospital rooms by ATP measurement and quantitative microbiology. Both methods, despite measuring quite different endpoints, were in rather good agreement. From the results it seems that bedrail control panels, nurse call lights, patient phones and bedrails are the most contaminated areas. On the other hand, main light switch, mattress and bathroom interior door handle seem to be the cleanest areas. Results like these might help to define risk areas which should be more frequently cleaned and disinfected. Mitchell and colleagues undertook a literature review on methods to evaluate cleanliness in healthcare facilities. They found papers about ATP bioluminescence, microbiological methods, visual inspection and gel markers and they describe the advantages and disadvantages of these methods. This paper is a good overview with the profound outcome that we need much more scientific knowledge about measuring cleanliness in a sensitive and specific way. An article by Gebel et al. describes the environmental cleaning regulations in Germany. Interestingly, there is a recommendation by the Robert Koch Institute about cleaning and disinfection of surfaces which has to be followed by the hospitals. One of the main points in that recommendation is that disinfection has to be done regularly on the basis of a risk assessment, e.g. all surfaces close to patient and with frequent hand contact have to bedisinfected (not only cleaned) regularly. There are also regulations in Germany that all disinfectants (not only f","PeriodicalId":90514,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare infection","volume":"18 1","pages":"Pages 1-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/HI13004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59235620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Birgit Ross MD , Dorothea Hansen MD , Walter Popp MD, PhD
Background
Environmental cleaning and disinfection is well known as an essential part of preventing hospital-acquired infections. We describe the observation of two outbreaks of nosocomial infections with different pathogens in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Germany. Cleaning and disinfection procedures were essential measures to stop the outbreaks.
Methods
We used a standardised procedure for dealing with the outbreaks. One of the most important measures was a change in the cleaning and disinfection process which was conducted by staff with special training in disinfection. After disposal of all single-use materials, a scrub-wipe disinfection processwith high concentrations (3%) of an oxygen radical-producing substance was performed in the affected rooms, followed by nebulisation with the same product (3%). Finally, the room was cleaned again with another scrub-wipe process at routine concentration (0.5%).
Results
After changing the routine cleaning and disinfection procedure (twice daily with a 0.5% concentration of a radical-producing substance performed by housekeeping) to a 3-step cleaning process using a higher concentration (3%) of the substance performed by workers specially trained in disinfection, the outbreaks stopped.
Conclusion
In combination with a multidisciplinary coordination team and training, the cleaning and disinfection process was one of the most important steps in stopping outbreaks of nosocomial infections.
{"title":"Cleaning and disinfection in outbreak control – experiences with different pathogens","authors":"Birgit Ross MD , Dorothea Hansen MD , Walter Popp MD, PhD","doi":"10.1071/HI12041","DOIUrl":"10.1071/HI12041","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Environmental cleaning and disinfection is well known as an essential part of preventing hospital-acquired infections. We describe the observation of two outbreaks of nosocomial infections with different pathogens in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Germany. Cleaning and disinfection procedures were essential measures to stop the outbreaks.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We used a standardised procedure for dealing with the outbreaks. One of the most important measures was a change in the cleaning and disinfection process which was conducted by staff with special training in disinfection. After disposal of all single-use materials, a scrub-wipe disinfection processwith high concentrations (3%) of an oxygen radical-producing substance was performed in the affected rooms, followed by nebulisation with the same product (3%). Finally, the room was cleaned again with another scrub-wipe process at routine concentration (0.5%).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>After changing the routine cleaning and disinfection procedure (twice daily with a 0.5% concentration of a radical-producing substance performed by housekeeping) to a 3-step cleaning process using a higher concentration (3%) of the substance performed by workers specially trained in disinfection, the outbreaks stopped.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In combination with a multidisciplinary coordination team and training, the cleaning and disinfection process was one of the most important steps in stopping outbreaks of nosocomial infections.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":90514,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare infection","volume":"18 1","pages":"Pages 37-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/HI12041","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59234853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Traditional, environment-based hospital hygiene has long been considered a weak science, usually arising from the creation of a global hypothesis, which is poetically elaborated upon by its creator without appeal to patient-orientated facts that would be capable of confirming or refuting it. There are many examples of environment-focused studies in hospital hygiene that reveal the missed opportunity of introducing some patient-orientated outcome into the study design. Nevertheless, the role of the environment as a potential reservoir of multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDROs) and Clostridium difficile has recently gained new momentum. Several studies from Europe have highlighted the importance of thorough cleaning practices to avoid transmission of MDROs that are capable of surviving in the environment for extended periods.With respect to hospital cleaning, a broad consensus exists now among European experts that high standards are essential. This message has also been well received in North America, where several descriptive and interventional studies recently addressed the challenge to decrease environmental contamination with MDROs and C. difficile. What are important issues to address in future research projects in this field? First, the impact of environmental contamination onhealthcare-associated infection rates and the cost-effectiveness of surface disinfection as opposed to detergent-based cleaning remains a scientifically unresolved issue, despite a growing body of literature. Second, our current understanding of the behaviour of microorganisms in biofilms remains rudimentary. Research characterising the behaviour of organisms in a biofilm on surfaces or in endoscopes, may possibly lead to the development of materials that have superior resistance to colonisation by pathogenic organisms. Third, we need large-scale descriptive cohort studies to better understand the real-world differences in the incidence and transmissionofC.difficile and its explanatory determinants. Fourth, experimental studies should evaluate the role of decolonisation of MDRO carriers or treatment of all patients with chlorhexidine body washes and its impact on room contamination and nosocomial spread of these pathogens via the environment. Careful models are needed to better describe this interaction in ameaningful way. Finally, we will need to better address the challenge of resistance to antiseptics and disinfectants, if we want to preserve their efficacy for future generations.
{"title":"Hospital-based environmental hygiene: priorities for research","authors":"Stephan Harbarth","doi":"10.1071/HI13006","DOIUrl":"10.1071/HI13006","url":null,"abstract":"Traditional, environment-based hospital hygiene has long been considered a weak science, usually arising from the creation of a global hypothesis, which is poetically elaborated upon by its creator without appeal to patient-orientated facts that would be capable of confirming or refuting it. There are many examples of environment-focused studies in hospital hygiene that reveal the missed opportunity of introducing some patient-orientated outcome into the study design. Nevertheless, the role of the environment as a potential reservoir of multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDROs) and Clostridium difficile has recently gained new momentum. Several studies from Europe have highlighted the importance of thorough cleaning practices to avoid transmission of MDROs that are capable of surviving in the environment for extended periods.With respect to hospital cleaning, a broad consensus exists now among European experts that high standards are essential. This message has also been well received in North America, where several descriptive and interventional studies recently addressed the challenge to decrease environmental contamination with MDROs and C. difficile. What are important issues to address in future research projects in this field? First, the impact of environmental contamination onhealthcare-associated infection rates and the cost-effectiveness of surface disinfection as opposed to detergent-based cleaning remains a scientifically unresolved issue, despite a growing body of literature. Second, our current understanding of the behaviour of microorganisms in biofilms remains rudimentary. Research characterising the behaviour of organisms in a biofilm on surfaces or in endoscopes, may possibly lead to the development of materials that have superior resistance to colonisation by pathogenic organisms. Third, we need large-scale descriptive cohort studies to better understand the real-world differences in the incidence and transmissionofC.difficile and its explanatory determinants. Fourth, experimental studies should evaluate the role of decolonisation of MDRO carriers or treatment of all patients with chlorhexidine body washes and its impact on room contamination and nosocomial spread of these pathogens via the environment. Careful models are needed to better describe this interaction in ameaningful way. Finally, we will need to better address the challenge of resistance to antiseptics and disinfectants, if we want to preserve their efficacy for future generations.","PeriodicalId":90514,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare infection","volume":"18 1","pages":"Pages 49-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/HI13006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59235729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
William A. Rutala PhD, MPH , David J. Weber MD, MPH
Contamination of the surface environment in hospital rooms plays an important role in the transmission of several key healthcare-associated pathogens including Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE), Acinetobacter spp. and norovirus. Clostridium difficile is especially important as it is now the most common healthcare-associated pathogen in the United States. It may cause serious disease, especially in older individuals, it may survive for long periods of time in the environment and it is relatively resistant to many commonly used antiseptics and disinfectants.
Evidence that the contaminated surface environment is important in the transmission of C. difficile includes the following: (1) environmental contamination is frequent in the rooms of patients with C. difficile infection (CDI), (2) the hands/gloves of healthcare personnel are as likely to become contaminated from contact with the environment as from direct contact with the patient, (3) the higher the frequency of environmental contamination, the more frequent the contamination of the hands/gloves of healthcare providers, (4) patients admitted to a room previously occupied by a patient with CDI have an increased risk of developing C. difficile infection, and (5) improved cleaning/disinfection of the environment has led to a decrease in the incidence of C. difficile transmission.
Key measures to prevent C. difficile transmission and infection include antibiotic stewardship (minimising antibiotic use), placing patients with CDI on contact precautions, and proper cleaning and disinfection of the surfaces in hospital rooms daily and at discharge using a sporicidal disinfectant or a ‘no-touch’ method (e.g. ultraviolet light).
{"title":"Role of the hospital environment in disease transmission, with a focus on Clostridium difficile","authors":"William A. Rutala PhD, MPH , David J. Weber MD, MPH","doi":"10.1071/HI12057","DOIUrl":"10.1071/HI12057","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Contamination of the surface environment in hospital rooms plays an important role in the transmission of several key healthcare-associated pathogens including <em>Clostridium difficile</em>, methicillin-resistant <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant <em>Enterococcus</em> spp. (VRE), <em>Acinetobacter</em> spp. and norovirus. <em>Clostridium difficile</em> is especially important as it is now the most common healthcare-associated pathogen in the United States. It may cause serious disease, especially in older individuals, it may survive for long periods of time in the environment and it is relatively resistant to many commonly used antiseptics and disinfectants.</p><p>Evidence that the contaminated surface environment is important in the transmission of <em>C. difficile</em> includes the following: (1) environmental contamination is frequent in the rooms of patients with <em>C. difficile</em> infection (CDI), (2) the hands/gloves of healthcare personnel are as likely to become contaminated from contact with the environment as from direct contact with the patient, (3) the higher the frequency of environmental contamination, the more frequent the contamination of the hands/gloves of healthcare providers, (4) patients admitted to a room previously occupied by a patient with CDI have an increased risk of developing <em>C. difficile</em> infection, and (5) improved cleaning/disinfection of the environment has led to a decrease in the incidence of <em>C. difficile</em> transmission.</p><p>Key measures to prevent <em>C. difficile</em> transmission and infection include antibiotic stewardship (minimising antibiotic use), placing patients with CDI on contact precautions, and proper cleaning and disinfection of the surfaces in hospital rooms daily and at discharge using a sporicidal disinfectant or a ‘no-touch’ method (e.g. ultraviolet light).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":90514,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare infection","volume":"18 1","pages":"Pages 14-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/HI12057","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59235476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The role of contaminated environmental surfaces in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens has been debated for many years. Studies published in the 1970s and 1980s indicated that contaminated surfaces contributed negligibly to nosocomial transmission. However, more recent data show that bacterial endospores, vegetative bacteria and some viruses are shed into the hospital environment, can survive on dry surfaces for extended periods, usually measured in months, and can be transferred to the hands of healthcare personnel from surfaces. The most convincing evidence that contaminated environmental surfaces are important in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens comes from the finding that admission to a room previously occupied by a patient with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), Clostridium difficile and certain Gram-negative rods such as Acinetobacter baumannii increased the chances of acquiring these pathogens by a factor of two or more. These data indicate that inadequate terminal disinfection is responsible for residual contamination with pathogens that increases the chances of the incoming patient acquiring a nosocomial pathogen. Thus, more needs to be done to disinfect rooms when patients are discharged (‘terminal disinfection’) in order to mitigate this increased risk. These are fever studies evaluating daily cleaning and/or disinfection during the stay of a patient. The contribution of contaminated surfaces aside from residual contamination surviving from a prior room occupant is more difficult to quantify. It seems likely that pathogens shed during the stay of a patient infected or colonised with a nosocomial pathogen will have infection control implications some of the time, for example, when acquired on the hands of healthcare personnel during patient care. Therefore, there is strong rationale for improving cleaning and disinfection both during the stay of patients and when they are discharged. A current controversy surrounds whether to improve conventional disinfection methods or to turn to ‘no-touch’ automated room disinfection (NTD) systems for terminal disinfection. The use of fluorescent markers or ATP assays to evaluate the cleaning process itself, the adoption of newer, more effective disinfectants or equipment (such a microfibre materials) can all help to improve the effectiveness of conventional methods. There is evidence that improving the efficacy of conventional cleaning and disinfection can be effective in reducing the microbial burden and transmission of nosocomial pathogens. However, there may be occasions when even optimised conventional methods do not reliably eliminate pathogens. On these occasions, an NTD system may be useful. Commonly used NTD systems include hydrogen peroxide vapour (HPV), aerosolised hydrogen peroxide (aHP) and systems based on ultraviolet C or pulsed-xenon UV. There are important differences between these systems and the choice of system w
{"title":"How do we tackle contaminated hospital surfaces?","authors":"Jonathan A. Otter PhD","doi":"10.1071/HI13003","DOIUrl":"10.1071/HI13003","url":null,"abstract":"The role of contaminated environmental surfaces in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens has been debated for many years. Studies published in the 1970s and 1980s indicated that contaminated surfaces contributed negligibly to nosocomial transmission. However, more recent data show that bacterial endospores, vegetative bacteria and some viruses are shed into the hospital environment, can survive on dry surfaces for extended periods, usually measured in months, and can be transferred to the hands of healthcare personnel from surfaces. The most convincing evidence that contaminated environmental surfaces are important in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens comes from the finding that admission to a room previously occupied by a patient with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), Clostridium difficile and certain Gram-negative rods such as Acinetobacter baumannii increased the chances of acquiring these pathogens by a factor of two or more. These data indicate that inadequate terminal disinfection is responsible for residual contamination with pathogens that increases the chances of the incoming patient acquiring a nosocomial pathogen. Thus, more needs to be done to disinfect rooms when patients are discharged (‘terminal disinfection’) in order to mitigate this increased risk. These are fever studies evaluating daily cleaning and/or disinfection during the stay of a patient. The contribution of contaminated surfaces aside from residual contamination surviving from a prior room occupant is more difficult to quantify. It seems likely that pathogens shed during the stay of a patient infected or colonised with a nosocomial pathogen will have infection control implications some of the time, for example, when acquired on the hands of healthcare personnel during patient care. Therefore, there is strong rationale for improving cleaning and disinfection both during the stay of patients and when they are discharged. A current controversy surrounds whether to improve conventional disinfection methods or to turn to ‘no-touch’ automated room disinfection (NTD) systems for terminal disinfection. The use of fluorescent markers or ATP assays to evaluate the cleaning process itself, the adoption of newer, more effective disinfectants or equipment (such a microfibre materials) can all help to improve the effectiveness of conventional methods. There is evidence that improving the efficacy of conventional cleaning and disinfection can be effective in reducing the microbial burden and transmission of nosocomial pathogens. However, there may be occasions when even optimised conventional methods do not reliably eliminate pathogens. On these occasions, an NTD system may be useful. Commonly used NTD systems include hydrogen peroxide vapour (HPV), aerosolised hydrogen peroxide (aHP) and systems based on ultraviolet C or pulsed-xenon UV. There are important differences between these systems and the choice of system w","PeriodicalId":90514,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare infection","volume":"18 1","pages":"Pages 42-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/HI13003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59235596","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Philip W. Smith MD , Shawn Gibbs PhD , Harlan Sayles MS , Angela Hewlett MD, MS , Mark E. Rupp MD , Peter C. Iwen PhD
Background
The environment has increasingly been shown to be involved in transmission of healthcare-associated infections, but data on environmental cleanliness assessment are relatively sparse.
Method
Environmental samples were collected from 18 high touch surfaces in 10 different acute care hospital rooms before cleaning to provide data on the rank order of cleanliness by site using both adenosine triphosphate (ATP) detection and quantitative microbiology. In addition, pre-and post-cleaning pooled samples of surfaces from 10 rooms were analysed by culture and sensitivity analysis to detect organisms of concern in the hospital.
Results
Four surfaces were ranked in the top six for contamination by both ATP and culture detection (bedrail control panel, nurse call light, patient phone, and bedrail). Additionally, the top three areas for cleanliness were identical between the two methods (main light switch, mattress, and bathroom interior door handle). Overall, quantitative microbiology andATPanalysisshowed directional agreement in assessment of environmental cleanliness with higher ATP readings found on surfaces designated as ‘dirty’ by quantitative microbiology. Several organisms of concern for hospital infection control were seldomdetected in the pre-cleaning environmental samples, and not at all in the post-cleaning samples.
Conclusions
In this study environmental bioburden decreased after cleaning, and few hazardous nosocomial organisms were noted. Although quantitative microbiology and ATP detection measure somewhat different aspects of environmental contamination, they both generally agree in distinguishing clean from dirty surfaces.
{"title":"Observations on hospital room contamination testing","authors":"Philip W. Smith MD , Shawn Gibbs PhD , Harlan Sayles MS , Angela Hewlett MD, MS , Mark E. Rupp MD , Peter C. Iwen PhD","doi":"10.1071/HI12049","DOIUrl":"10.1071/HI12049","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The environment has increasingly been shown to be involved in transmission of healthcare-associated infections, but data on environmental cleanliness assessment are relatively sparse.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Environmental samples were collected from 18 high touch surfaces in 10 different acute care hospital rooms before cleaning to provide data on the rank order of cleanliness by site using both adenosine triphosphate (ATP) detection and quantitative microbiology. In addition, pre-and post-cleaning pooled samples of surfaces from 10 rooms were analysed by culture and sensitivity analysis to detect organisms of concern in the hospital.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Four surfaces were ranked in the top six for contamination by both ATP and culture detection (bedrail control panel, nurse call light, patient phone, and bedrail). Additionally, the top three areas for cleanliness were identical between the two methods (main light switch, mattress, and bathroom interior door handle). Overall, quantitative microbiology andATPanalysisshowed directional agreement in assessment of environmental cleanliness with higher ATP readings found on surfaces designated as ‘dirty’ by quantitative microbiology. Several organisms of concern for hospital infection control were seldomdetected in the pre-cleaning environmental samples, and not at all in the post-cleaning samples.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In this study environmental bioburden decreased after cleaning, and few hazardous nosocomial organisms were noted. Although quantitative microbiology and ATP detection measure somewhat different aspects of environmental contamination, they both generally agree in distinguishing clean from dirty surfaces.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":90514,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare infection","volume":"18 1","pages":"Pages 10-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/HI12049","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59234825","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Contamination of the inanimate healthcare environment with microbial pathogens can lead to contamination of healthcare workers’ hands thus providing a vector to infect vulnerable patients. Evidence exists that many of these pathogens survive well in the environment. The conditions, mechanisms and appropriate techniques of environmental decontamination are controversially debated. Professional cleaning in hospitals is essential for hygienic as well as for aesthetic reasons. The benefits and disadvantages of surface disinfection compared with cleaning using a detergent only have been discussed in detail in several
{"title":"Healthcare environment decontamination","authors":"Markus Dettenkofer","doi":"10.1071/HI13005","DOIUrl":"10.1071/HI13005","url":null,"abstract":"Contamination of the inanimate healthcare environment with microbial pathogens can lead to contamination of healthcare workers’ hands thus providing a vector to infect vulnerable patients. Evidence exists that many of these pathogens survive well in the environment. The conditions, mechanisms and appropriate techniques of environmental decontamination are controversially debated. Professional cleaning in hospitals is essential for hygienic as well as for aesthetic reasons. The benefits and disadvantages of surface disinfection compared with cleaning using a detergent only have been discussed in detail in several","PeriodicalId":90514,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare infection","volume":"18 1","pages":"Pages 47-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/HI13005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59235658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}