OBJECTIVE: The quality of environmental hygiene in hospitals is under increasing scrutiny from both healthcare providers and consumers because the prevalence of serious infections due to multidrug-resistant pathogens has reached alarming levels. On the basis of the results from a small number of hospitals, we undertook a study to evaluate the thoroughness of disinfection and cleaning in the patient's immediate environment and to identify opportunities for improvement in a diverse group of acute care hospitals. METHODS: Prospective multicenter study to evaluate the thoroughness of terminal room cleaning in hospitals using a novel targeting method to mimic the surface contamination of objects in the patient's immediate environment. SETTING: Twenty-three acute care hospitals. RESULTS: The overall thoroughness of terminal cleaning, expressed as a percentage of surfaces evaluated, was 49% (range for all 23 hospitals, 35%-81%). Despite the tight clustering of overall cleaning rates in 21 of the hospitals, there was marked variation within object categories, which was particularly notable with respect to the cleaning of toilet handholds, bedpan cleaners, light switches, and door knobs (mean cleaning rates, less than 30%; institutional ranges, 0%-90%). Sinks, toilet seats, and tray tables, in contrast, were consistently relatively well cleaned (mean cleaning rates, over 75%). Patient telephones, nurse call devices, and bedside rails were inconsistently cleaned. CONCLUSION: We identified significant opportunities in all participating hospitals to improve the cleaning of frequently touched objects in the patient's immediate environment. The information obtained from such assessments can be used to develop focused administrative and educational interventions that incorporate ongoing feedback to the environmental services staff, to improve cleaning and disinfection practices in healthcare institutions.
OBJECTIVE: The quality of environmental hygiene in hospitals is under increasing scrutiny from both healthcare providers and consumers because the prevalence of serious infections due to multidrug-resistant pathogens has reached alarming levels. On the basis of the results from a small number of hospitals, we undertook a study to evaluate the thoroughness of disinfection and cleaning in the patient's immediate environment and to identify opportunities for improvement in a diverse group of acute care hospitals. METHODS: Prospective multicenter study to evaluate the thoroughness of terminal room cleaning in hospitals using a novel targeting method to mimic the surface contamination of objects in the patient's immediate environment. SETTING: Twenty-three acute care hospitals. RESULTS: The overall thoroughness of terminal cleaning, expressed as a percentage of surfaces evaluated, was 49% (range for all 23 hospitals, 35%-81%). Despite the tight clustering of overall cleaning rates in 21 of the hospitals, there was marked variation within object categories, which was particularly notable with respect to the cleaning of toilet handholds, bedpan cleaners, light switches, and door knobs (mean cleaning rates, less than 30%; institutional ranges, 0%-90%). Sinks, toilet seats, and tray tables, in contrast, were consistently relatively well cleaned (mean cleaning rates, over 75%). Patient telephones, nurse call devices, and bedside rails were inconsistently cleaned. CONCLUSION: We identified significant opportunities in all participating hospitals to improve the cleaning of frequently touched objects in the patient's immediate environment. The information obtained from such assessments can be used to develop focused administrative and educational interventions that incorporate ongoing feedback to the environmental services staff, to improve cleaning and disinfection practices in healthcare institutions.
Authors: Clare Rock; Bryce A Small; Yea-Jen Hsu; Ayse P Gurses; Anping Xie; Verna Scheeler; Stephanie Cummings; Polly Trexler; Aaron M Milstone; Lisa L Maragakis; Sara E Cosgrove Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Roy F Chemaly; Sarah Simmons; Charles Dale; Shashank S Ghantoji; Maria Rodriguez; Julie Gubb; Julie Stachowiak; Mark Stibich Journal: Ther Adv Infect Dis Date: 2014-06
Authors: José Garnacho-Montero; George Dimopoulos; Garyphallia Poulakou; Murat Akova; José Miguel Cisneros; Jan De Waele; Nicola Petrosillo; Harald Seifert; Jean François Timsit; Jordi Vila; Jean-Ralph Zahar; Matteo Bassetti Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Michael G Schmidt; Hubert H Attaway; Peter A Sharpe; Joseph John; Kent A Sepkowitz; Andrew Morgan; Sarah E Fairey; Susan Singh; Lisa L Steed; J Robert Cantey; Katherine D Freeman; Harold T Michels; Cassandra D Salgado Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Jennifer H Han; Nancy Sullivan; Brian F Leas; David A Pegues; Janice L Kaczmarek; Craig A Umscheid Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Eric R Goodman; Richard Platt; Richard Bass; Andrew B Onderdonk; Deborah S Yokoe; Susan S Huang Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Deverick J Anderson; Maria F Gergen; Emily Smathers; Daniel J Sexton; Luke F Chen; David J Weber; William A Rutala Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.254