Katie Penno1, Roman A Jandarov2, Madhuri M Sopirala3. 1. Public Health Program, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH. 2. Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH. 3. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH. Electronic address: msopirala@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We studied the effectiveness of an ultraviolet C (UV-C) emitter in clinical settings and compared it with observed terminal disinfection. METHODS: We cultured 22 hospital discharge rooms at a tertiary care academic medical center. Phase 1 (unobserved terminal disinfection) included cultures of 11 high-touch environmental surfaces (HTSs) after terminal room disinfection (AD) and after the use of a UV-C-emitting device (AUV). Phase 2 (observed terminal disinfection) included cultures before terminal room disinfection (BD), AD, and AUV. Zero-inflated Poisson regression compared mean colony forming units (CFU) between the groups. Two-sample proportion tests identified significance of the observed differences in proportions of thoroughly cleaned HTSs (CFU < 5). Significant P value was determined using the Bonferroni corrected threshold of α = .05/12 = .004. RESULTS: We obtained 594 samples. Risk of overall contamination was 0.48 times lower in the AUV group than in the AD group (P < .001), with 1.04 log10 reduction. During phase 1, overall proportion of HTSs with <5 CFUs increased in AUV versus AD by 0.12 (P = .001). During phase 2, it increased in AD versus BD by 0.45 (P < .001), with no significant difference between AD and AUV (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Use of UV-C with standard cleaning significantly reduced microbial burden and improved the thoroughness of terminal disinfection. We found no further benefit to UV-C use if standard terminal disinfection was observed.
BACKGROUND: We studied the effectiveness of an ultraviolet C (UV-C) emitter in clinical settings and compared it with observed terminal disinfection. METHODS: We cultured 22 hospital discharge rooms at a tertiary care academic medical center. Phase 1 (unobserved terminal disinfection) included cultures of 11 high-touch environmental surfaces (HTSs) after terminal room disinfection (AD) and after the use of a UV-C-emitting device (AUV). Phase 2 (observed terminal disinfection) included cultures before terminal room disinfection (BD), AD, and AUV. Zero-inflated Poisson regression compared mean colony forming units (CFU) between the groups. Two-sample proportion tests identified significance of the observed differences in proportions of thoroughly cleaned HTSs (CFU < 5). Significant P value was determined using the Bonferroni corrected threshold of α = .05/12 = .004. RESULTS: We obtained 594 samples. Risk of overall contamination was 0.48 times lower in the AUV group than in the AD group (P < .001), with 1.04 log10 reduction. During phase 1, overall proportion of HTSs with <5 CFUs increased in AUV versus AD by 0.12 (P = .001). During phase 2, it increased in AD versus BD by 0.45 (P < .001), with no significant difference between AD and AUV (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Use of UV-C with standard cleaning significantly reduced microbial burden and improved the thoroughness of terminal disinfection. We found no further benefit to UV-C use if standard terminal disinfection was observed.
Authors: F Chiappa; B Frascella; G P Vigezzi; M Moro; L Diamanti; L Gentile; P Lago; N Clementi; C Signorelli; N Mancini; A Odone Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Clysly Celine R Ramos; Josemaria Lorenzo A Roque; Diane B Sarmiento; Luis Enrico G Suarez; Janela Tanya P Sunio; Kaezzy Ila B Tabungar; Geraldine Susan C Tengco; Phylis C Rio; Allan L Hilario Journal: Int J Health Sci (Qassim) Date: 2020 Nov-Dec
Authors: Carla Russo; Desirée Bartolini; Cristina Corbucci; Anna Maria Stabile; Mario Rende; Antimo Gioiello; Gabriele Cruciani; Antonella Mencacci; Francesco Galli; Donatella Pietrella Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 3.390