David Voegeli1. 1. Continence Technology & Skin Health Group, School of Nursing & Midwifery, University of Southampton, UK. D.Voegeli@soton.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the potential contribution to skin damage caused by standard washing and drying techniques used in nursing. DESIGN: An experimental cohort design was used, with healthy volunteers (n = 15) receiving 6 different washing and drying techniques to the volar aspect of the forearm. Subjects underwent 3 washing and drying techniques on each arm; each technique was repeated twice, separated by a 2-hour rest period. METHODS: Skin integrity was assessed by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration, skin pH, and erythema. Comparisons were made between washing with soap or water alone, and drying using a towel (rubbing and patting) or evaporation. The significance of any difference was assessed by nonparametric analysis. The study was approved by the local research ethics committee, and all volunteers gave informed consent. RESULTS: TEWL was seen to increase following each type of wash, and increased further following repeated washing. Drying of the skin by patting with a towel increased TEWL to give readings identical to those obtained from wet skin. There was an increase in skin pH with all washing and drying techniques, particularly when soap was used. Erythema also increased with repeated washing, particularly when soap was used. No significant changes were observed in skin hydration as measured by a corneometer, although there was a tendency for the values to decrease with washing. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that washing with soap and water and towel drying has a significant disrupting effect on the skin's barrier function. There is tentative evidence to suggest that a cumulative effect may exist with damage increasing as washing frequency increases. Drying the skin by patting with a towel offers no advantage to conventional gentle rubbing as it leaves the skin significantly wetter and at greater risk of frictional damage.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the potential contribution to skin damage caused by standard washing and drying techniques used in nursing. DESIGN: An experimental cohort design was used, with healthy volunteers (n = 15) receiving 6 different washing and drying techniques to the volar aspect of the forearm. Subjects underwent 3 washing and drying techniques on each arm; each technique was repeated twice, separated by a 2-hour rest period. METHODS: Skin integrity was assessed by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration, skin pH, and erythema. Comparisons were made between washing with soap or water alone, and drying using a towel (rubbing and patting) or evaporation. The significance of any difference was assessed by nonparametric analysis. The study was approved by the local research ethics committee, and all volunteers gave informed consent. RESULTS: TEWL was seen to increase following each type of wash, and increased further following repeated washing. Drying of the skin by patting with a towel increased TEWL to give readings identical to those obtained from wet skin. There was an increase in skin pH with all washing and drying techniques, particularly when soap was used. Erythema also increased with repeated washing, particularly when soap was used. No significant changes were observed in skin hydration as measured by a corneometer, although there was a tendency for the values to decrease with washing. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that washing with soap and water and towel drying has a significant disrupting effect on the skin's barrier function. There is tentative evidence to suggest that a cumulative effect may exist with damage increasing as washing frequency increases. Drying the skin by patting with a towel offers no advantage to conventional gentle rubbing as it leaves the skin significantly wetter and at greater risk of frictional damage.
Authors: Emily Toth Martin; Samran Haider; Maria Palleschi; Sommer Eagle; Delfin V Crisostomo; Pamela Haddox; Laura Harmon; Robin Mazur; Judy Moshos; Dror Marchaim; Keith S Kaye Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Johan du Plessis; Aleksandr Stefaniak; Fritz Eloff; Swen John; Tove Agner; Tzu-Chieh Chou; Rosemary Nixon; Markus Steiner; Anja Franken; Irena Kudla; Linn Holness Journal: Skin Res Technol Date: 2013-01-19 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Philippe Humbert; Brigitte Dréno; Jean Krutmann; Thomas Anton Luger; Raoul Triller; Sylvie Meaume; Sophie Seité Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Fabian M V Groven; Sandra M G Zwakhalen; Gaby Odekerken-Schröder; Erik J T Joosten; Jan P H Hamers Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 3.921