M Zaragoza1, M Sallés, J Gomez, J M Bayas, A Trilla. 1. Hospital Hygiene and Central Sterilization Unit, Microbiology Laboratory, Preventive Medicine Department, Hospital Clinic-University of Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of an alcoholic solution compared with the standard hygienic handwashing procedure during regular work in clinical wards and intensive care units of a large public university hospital in Barcelona was assessed. METHODS: A prospective, randomized clinical trial with crossover design, paired data, and blind evaluation was done. Eligible health care workers (HCWs) included permanent and temporary HCWs of wards and intensive care units. From each category, a random sample of persons was selected. HCWs were randomly assigned to regular handwashing (liquid soap and water) or handwashing with the alcoholic solution by using a crossover design. The number of colony-forming units on agar plates from hands printing in 3 different samples was counted. RESULTS:A total of 47 HCWs were included. The average reduction in the number of colony-forming units from samples before handwashing to samples after handwashing was 49.6% for soap and water and 88.2% for the alcoholic solution. When both methods were compared, the average number of colony-forming units recovered after the procedure showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the alcoholic solution (P <.001). The alcoholic solution was well tolerated by HCWs. Overall acceptance rate was classified as "good" by 72% of HCWs after 2 weeks use. Of all HCWs included, 9.3% stated that the use of the alcoholic solution worsened minor pre-existing skin conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Although the regular use of hygienic soap and water handwashing procedures is the gold standard, the use of alcoholic solutions is effective and safe and deserves more attention, especially in situations in which the handwashing compliance rate is hampered by architectural problems (lack of sinks) or nursing work overload.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of an alcoholic solution compared with the standard hygienic handwashing procedure during regular work in clinical wards and intensive care units of a large public university hospital in Barcelona was assessed. METHODS: A prospective, randomized clinical trial with crossover design, paired data, and blind evaluation was done. Eligible health care workers (HCWs) included permanent and temporary HCWs of wards and intensive care units. From each category, a random sample of persons was selected. HCWs were randomly assigned to regular handwashing (liquid soap and water) or handwashing with the alcoholic solution by using a crossover design. The number of colony-forming units on agar plates from hands printing in 3 different samples was counted. RESULTS: A total of 47 HCWs were included. The average reduction in the number of colony-forming units from samples before handwashing to samples after handwashing was 49.6% for soap and water and 88.2% for the alcoholic solution. When both methods were compared, the average number of colony-forming units recovered after the procedure showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the alcoholic solution (P <.001). The alcoholic solution was well tolerated by HCWs. Overall acceptance rate was classified as "good" by 72% of HCWs after 2 weeks use. Of all HCWs included, 9.3% stated that the use of the alcoholic solution worsened minor pre-existing skin conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Although the regular use of hygienic soap and water handwashing procedures is the gold standard, the use of alcoholic solutions is effective and safe and deserves more attention, especially in situations in which the handwashing compliance rate is hampered by architectural problems (lack of sinks) or nursing work overload.
Authors: H P Loveday; J A Wilson; R J Pratt; M Golsorkhi; A Tingle; A Bak; J Browne; J Prieto; M Wilcox Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: R J Pratt; C M Pellowe; J A Wilson; H P Loveday; P J Harper; S R L J Jones; C McDougall; M H Wilcox Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: P C Ng; H L Wong; D J Lyon; K W So; F Liu; R K Y Lam; E Wong; A F B Cheng; T F Fok Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Marta L Ciofi degli Atti; Alberto E Tozzi; Gaetano Ciliento; Manuel Pomponi; Silvia Rinaldi; Massimiliano Raponi Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-06-13 Impact factor: 3.295