BACKGROUND: To minimize the bacterial contamination rate in blood collected from donors, a study was designed to evaluate the suitability of a single-use chlorhexidine-alcohol antiseptic for donor arm preparation at all blood collection venues in Australia. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective study of bacterial load on the skin was performed on 616 blood donors' arms before and after disinfection using a direct swabbing and plating technique. Disinfection was achieved with a swab containing 1 percent chlorhexidine gluconate with 75 percent alcohol, which was applied to the skin in a prescribed method. Feedback from blood donors and staff was obtained using questionnaires. RESULTS: After disinfection, 99 percent of donor arms had bacterial counts of 5 cfu per plate or less, and 99.5 percent had counts of 10 cfu per plate or less, respectively. The mean colony count for all donors after disinfection was 0.39, and the percentage reduction was 99 compared to predisinfection. Sixteen donors (3%) noted transient skin irritation. The majority of staff (64%) preferred not to use the new disinfectant due to the difficulty opening the packaging and an excessive amount of antiseptic solution per pack. CONCLUSION: The bacteriologic study showed that the disinfectant satisfied the requirements of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service for use to prepare blood-donor arms before venesection. An improvement to the packaging was required before it could be acceptable to all staff.
BACKGROUND: To minimize the bacterial contamination rate in blood collected from donors, a study was designed to evaluate the suitability of a single-use chlorhexidine-alcohol antiseptic for donor arm preparation at all blood collection venues in Australia. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective study of bacterial load on the skin was performed on 616 blood donors' arms before and after disinfection using a direct swabbing and plating technique. Disinfection was achieved with a swab containing 1 percent chlorhexidine gluconate with 75 percent alcohol, which was applied to the skin in a prescribed method. Feedback from blood donors and staff was obtained using questionnaires. RESULTS: After disinfection, 99 percent of donor arms had bacterial counts of 5 cfu per plate or less, and 99.5 percent had counts of 10 cfu per plate or less, respectively. The mean colony count for all donors after disinfection was 0.39, and the percentage reduction was 99 compared to predisinfection. Sixteen donors (3%) noted transient skin irritation. The majority of staff (64%) preferred not to use the new disinfectant due to the difficulty opening the packaging and an excessive amount of antiseptic solution per pack. CONCLUSION: The bacteriologic study showed that the disinfectant satisfied the requirements of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service for use to prepare blood-donor arms before venesection. An improvement to the packaging was required before it could be acceptable to all staff.