Stephanie J Dancer1,2, Marco-Felipe King3. 1. Department of Microbiology, Hairmyres Hospital, NHS, Lanarkshire, G75 8RG, Scotland, UK. stephanie.dancer@lanarkshire.scot.nhs.uk. 2. School of Applied Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. stephanie.dancer@lanarkshire.scot.nhs.uk. 3. School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More evidence is emerging on the role of surface decontamination for reducing hospital-acquired infection (HAI). Timely and adequate removal of environmental pathogens leads to measurable clinical benefit in both routine and outbreak situations. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate published studies describing the effect of automated technologies delivering hydrogen peroxide (H202) or ultra-violet (UV) light on HAI rates. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using relevant search terms. Databases were scanned from January 2005 to March 2020 for studies reporting clinical outcome after use of automated devices on healthcare surfaces. Information collected included device type, overall findings; hospital and ward data; study location, length and size; antimicrobial consumption; domestic monitoring; and infection control interventions. Study sponsorship and duplicate publications were also noted. RESULTS: While there are clear benefits from non-touch devices in vitro, we found insufficient objective assessment of patient outcome due to the before-and-after nature of 36 of 43 (84%) studies. Of 43 studies, 20 (47%) used hydrogen peroxide (14 for outbreaks) and 23 (53%) used UV technology (none for outbreaks). The most popular pathogen targeted, either alone or in combination with others, was Clostridium difficile (27 of 43 studies: 63%), followed by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (16 of 43: 37%). Many owed funding and/or personnel to industry sponsorship (28 of 43: 65%) and most were confounded by concurrent infection control, antimicrobial stewardship and/or cleaning audit initiatives. Few contained data on device costs and rarely on comparable costs (1 of 43: 2%). There were expected relationships between the country hosting the study and location of device companies. None mentioned the potential for environmental damage, including effects on microbial survivors. CONCLUSION: There were mixed results for patient benefit from this review of automated devices using H202 or UV for surface decontamination. Most non-outbreak studies lacked an appropriate control group and were potentially compromised by industry sponsorship. Concern over HAI encourages delivery of powerful disinfectants for eliminating pathogens without appreciating toxicity or cost benefit. Routine use of these devices requires justification from standardized and controlled studies to understand how best to manage contaminated healthcare environments.
BACKGROUND: More evidence is emerging on the role of surface decontamination for reducing hospital-acquired infection (HAI). Timely and adequate removal of environmental pathogens leads to measurable clinical benefit in both routine and outbreak situations. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate published studies describing the effect of automated technologies delivering hydrogen peroxide (H202) or ultra-violet (UV) light on HAI rates. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using relevant search terms. Databases were scanned from January 2005 to March 2020 for studies reporting clinical outcome after use of automated devices on healthcare surfaces. Information collected included device type, overall findings; hospital and ward data; study location, length and size; antimicrobial consumption; domestic monitoring; and infection control interventions. Study sponsorship and duplicate publications were also noted. RESULTS: While there are clear benefits from non-touch devices in vitro, we found insufficient objective assessment of patient outcome due to the before-and-after nature of 36 of 43 (84%) studies. Of 43 studies, 20 (47%) used hydrogen peroxide (14 for outbreaks) and 23 (53%) used UV technology (none for outbreaks). The most popular pathogen targeted, either alone or in combination with others, was Clostridium difficile (27 of 43 studies: 63%), followed by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (16 of 43: 37%). Many owed funding and/or personnel to industry sponsorship (28 of 43: 65%) and most were confounded by concurrent infection control, antimicrobial stewardship and/or cleaning audit initiatives. Few contained data on device costs and rarely on comparable costs (1 of 43: 2%). There were expected relationships between the country hosting the study and location of device companies. None mentioned the potential for environmental damage, including effects on microbial survivors. CONCLUSION: There were mixed results for patient benefit from this review of automated devices using H202 or UV for surface decontamination. Most non-outbreak studies lacked an appropriate control group and were potentially compromised by industry sponsorship. Concern over HAI encourages delivery of powerful disinfectants for eliminating pathogens without appreciating toxicity or cost benefit. Routine use of these devices requires justification from standardized and controlled studies to understand how best to manage contaminated healthcare environments.
Authors: Nicolas García-Arenzana; Lidia Redondo-Bravo; Marco Antonio Espinel-Ruiz; Pilar Borrego-Prieto; Guillermo Ruiz-Carrascoso; Almudena Quintas-Viqueira; Ana Sanchez-Calles; Ana Robustillo-Rodela Journal: Microb Drug Resist Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 3.431
Authors: Christine R Kovach; Yavuz Taneli; Tammy Neiman; Elaine M Dyer; Alvin Jason A Arzaga; Sheryl T Kelber Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Agata Jabłońska-Trypuć; Marcin Makuła; Maria Włodarczyk-Makuła; Elżbieta Wołejko; Urszula Wydro; Lluis Serra-Majem; Józefa Wiater Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.614