Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:34:34.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introducing Alcohol-Based Hand Rub for Hand Hygiene The Critical Need for Training

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Andreas F. Widmer ,
Martin Conzelmann ,
Milanka Tomic ,
Reno Frei  and
Anne M. Stranden
Andreas F. Widmer*
Affiliation:
Division of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Basel, Switzerland
Martin Conzelmann
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Felix Platter-Hospital, Basel, Switzerland
Milanka Tomic
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Felix Platter-Hospital, Basel, Switzerland
Reno Frei
Affiliation:
Microbiology Laboratory, University Hospital, Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Anne M. Stranden
Affiliation:
Division of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Basel, Switzerland
*
Division of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland (awidmer@uhbs.ch)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background.

Use of an alcohol-based hand rub for hand hygiene has recently been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, the proper technique for using hand rub has not been well described and is not routinely taught in hospitals.

Objective.

To evaluate the impact of training on proper technique as outlined by the European Standard for testing alcohol-based hand rubs (European Norm 1500) in a clinical study.

Design, Setting, and Patients.

Prospective study including 180 healthcare workers (HCWs) in a 450-bed, university-affiliated geriatric hospital where alcohol-based hand rub was introduced in the late 1970s.

Intervention.

Structured training program in hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand rub. Technique for using hand rub was tested by the addition of a fluorescent dye to the disinfectant and the number of areas missed was quantified by a validated visual assessment method. In addition, the number of bacteria eradicated was estimated by calculating the difference between the log10 number of colony-forming units (cfu) of bacteria on the fingertips before and after the procedure, and reported as reduction factor (RF).

Main Outcome Measure.

Log10 cfu bacterial counts on fingertips before and after training in the appropriate technique for using hand rub.

Results.

At baseline, only 31% of HCWs used proper technique, yielding a low RF of 1.4 log10 cfu bacterial count. Training improved HCW compliance to 74% and increased the RF to 2.2 log10 cfu bacterial count, an increase of almost 50% (P < .001). Several factors, such as applying the proper amount of hand rub, were significantly associated with the increased RF.

Conclusion.

These results demonstrate that education on the proper technique for using hand rub, as outlined in EN 1500, can significantly increase the degree of bacterial killing.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2007 , pp. 50 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Trampuz, A, Widmer, AF. Hand hygiene: a frequently missed lifesaving opportunity during patient care. Mayo Clin Proc 2004;79:109–116.Google Scholar
2. Pittet, D, Hugonnet, S, Harbarth, S, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Infection Control Programme. Lancet 2000;356S:1307–1312.Google Scholar
3. Boyce, JM, Pittet, D. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23(Suppl 12):S3–40.Google Scholar
4. National Health Service, National Patient Safety Agency. Clean your hands campaign. Available at: http://www.npsa.nhs.uk/cleanyourhands/. Accessed December 18, 2006.Google Scholar
5. Wordl Health Organization, World Alliance for Patient Safety. Available at: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/en/. Accessed December 18, 2006.Google Scholar
6. Widmer, AF. Replace hand washing with use of a waterless alcohol hand rub? Clin Infect Dis 2000;31:136–143.Google Scholar
7. Girou, E, Loyeau, S, Legrand, P, Oppein, F, Brun-Buisson, C. Efficacy of handrubbing with alcohol based solution versus standard handwashing with antiseptic soap: randomised clinical trial. BMJ 2002;325:362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Voss, A, Widmer, AF. No time for handwashing!? Handwashing versus alcoholic rub: can we afford 100% compliance? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:205–208.Google Scholar
9. Pittet, D, Sax, H, Hugonnet, S, Harbarth, S. Cost implications of successful hand hygiene promotion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:264–266.Google Scholar
10. Meers, PD, Yeo, GA. Shedding of bacteria and skin squames after handwashing. J Hyg (Land) 1978;81:99–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Larson, EL, Eke, PI, Wilder, MP, Laughon, BE. Quantity of soap as a variable in handwashing. Infect Control 1987;8:371–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Faoagali, JL, George, N, Fong, J, Davy, J, Dowser, M. Comparison of the antibacterial efficacy of 4% Chlorhexidine gluconate and 1% triclosan handwash products in an acute clinical ward. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:320–326.Google Scholar
13. Buchrieser, O. Hand hygiene. Hyg Med 1996;21:670–673.Google Scholar
14. World Alliance for Patient Safety. WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care (advanced draft): a summary. Available at: http://www.who ,int/entity/patientsafety/events/05/HH_en.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2006.Google Scholar
15. Widmer, AF, Dangel, M. Alcohol-based handrub: evaluation of technique and microbiological efficacy with international infection control professionals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:207–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Carabin, H, Gyorkos, TW, Soto, JC, Joseph, L, Payment, P, Collet, JP. Effectiveness of a training program in reducing infections in toddlers attending day care centers. Epidemiology 1999;10:219–227.Google Scholar
17. Pittet, D, Dharan, S, Touveneau, S, Sauvan, V, Perneger, TV. Bacterial contamination of the hands of hospital staff during routine patient care. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:821–826.Google Scholar
18. Yap, FH, Gomersall, CD, Fung, KS, et al. Increase in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus acquisition rate and change in pathogen pattern associated with an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Clin Infect Dis 2004;39:511–516.Google Scholar
19. Doebbeling, BN, Pfaller, MA, Houston, AK, Wenzel, RP. Removal of nosocomial pathogens from the contaminated glove: implications for glove reuse and handwashing. Ann Intern Med 1988;109:394–398.Google Scholar
20. Widmer, AF. Infection control and prevention strategies in the ICU. Intensive Care Med 1994;20 Suppl 4:S7–11.Google Scholar
21. Doebbeling, BN, Stanley, GL, Sheetz, CT, et al. Comparative efficacy of alternative hand-washing agents in reducing nosocomial infections in intensive care units. N Engl J Med 1992;327:88–93.Google Scholar
22. Geiss, HK, Heeg, P. Hand-washing agents and nosocomial infections. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1390.Google Scholar
23. Rotter, ML. European norms in hand hygiene. J Hosp Infect 2004;56 Suppl 2:S6–9.Google Scholar