Explore the vast range of titles available.

The gold standard for hand hygiene (HH) while wearing gloves requires removing gloves, performing HH, and donning new gloves between WHO moments. The novel strategy of applying alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) directly to gloved hands might be effective and efficient. A mixed-method, multicenter, 3-arm, randomized trial. Adult and pediatric medical-surgical, intermediate, and intensive care units at 4 hospitals. Healthcare personnel (HCP). HCP were randomized to 3 groups: ABHR applied directly to gloved hands, the current standard, or usual care. Gloved hands were sampled via direct imprint. Gold-standard and usual-care arms were compared with the ABHR intervention. Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 432 (67.4%) of 641 observations in the gold-standard arm versus 548 (82.8%) of 662 observations in the intervention arm ( < .01). HH required a mean of 14 seconds in the intervention and a mean of 28.7 seconds in the gold-standard arm ( < .01). Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 133 (98.5%) of 135 observations in the usual-care arm versus 173 (76.6%) of 226 observations in the intervention arm ( < .01). Of 331 gloves tested 6 (1.8%) were found to have microperforations; all were identified in the intervention arm [6 (2.9%) of 205]. Compared with usual care, contamination of gloved hands was significantly reduced by applying ABHR directly to gloved hands but statistically higher than the gold standard. Given time savings and microbiological benefit over usual care and lack of feasibility of adhering to the gold standard, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization should consider advising HCP to decontaminate gloved hands with ABHR when HH moments arise during single-patient encounters. NCT03445676.

Hands are a route of transmission for fecal-oral pathogens. This analysis aimed to assess associations between hand E. coli contamination and child age and determine if observed hand cleanliness can serve as a proxy for E. coli contamination on young children's hands. Trained field workers collected hand rinse samples from children aged 1-14 months in 584 households in rural Bangladesh and assessed the visual cleanliness of child hands (fingernails, finger pads and palms). Samples were analyzed using the IDEXX most probable number (MPN) methodto enumerate E. coli. We assessed if child age (immobile children aged 1-4 months vs. mobile children aged 5-14 months) is associated with log10 E. coli counts on hands using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We estimated the log10 difference in hand E. coli counts associated with the cleanliness of different hand parts using a multivariable GEE model.We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for dirty fingernails, fingerpads, palms and overall hands (the three observed parts combined) against binary E. coli presence on hands. E. coli was detected on 43% of child hands. Children in the mobile age range had 0.17 log10 MPN higher E. coli on hands than those in the immobile age range (Δlog10 = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.32, p = 0.03). Children with visible dirt particles on finger pads had 0.46 log10 MPN higher E. coli on hands than those with clean finger pads (Δlog10 = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.87, p = 0.03). Dirty fingernails indicated binary E. coli presence with 81% sensitivity and 26% specificity while dirty fingerpads and palms indicated E. coli presence with 29% sensitivity and 75-77% specificity. The PPV was 45-48% and NPV 59-65% for all three types of observations. Hand contamination with E. coli was prevalent among young children in rural Bangladesh, with higher levels of contamination among mobile children. Studies should assess if strategies to remove animal feces from the courtyard, provide designated hygienic play spaces for children and deliver targeted messaging to mothers to wipe or wash children's hands after contact with animals and animal feces reduce child hand contamination. Visible hand cleanliness was a poor predictor of E. coli presence on young children's hands so other low-cost field measurements are needed to accurately detect fecal contamination on hands.

Background To prevent cross infection the surgical team perform preoperative hand disinfection before dressed in surgical gowns and gloves. Preoperative hand disinfection does not make hands sterile and the surgical glove cuff end has been regarded as a weak link, since it is not a liquid-proof interface. The aims were to investigate if there were differences in bacterial growth and recolonization of hands between operating room nurses and non-health care workers as well as to investigate if bacterial growth existed at the surgical glove cuff end during surgery. Methods This pilot project was conducted as an exploratory comparative clinical trial. Bacterial cultures were taken from the glove and gown interface and at three sites of the hands of 12 operating room nurses and 13 non-health care workers controls directly after preoperative hand disinfection and again after wearing surgical gloves and gowns. Colony forming units were analysed with Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon Sign Ranks test comparing repeated measurements. Categorical variables were evaluated with chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. Results Operating room nurses compared to non-health care workers had significant higher bacterial growth at two of three culture sites after surgical hand disinfection. Both groups had higher recolonization at one of the three culture sites after wearing surgical gloves. There were no differences between the groups in total colony forming units, that is, all sampling sites. Five out of 12 of the operating room nurses had bacterial growth at the glove cuff end and of those, four had the same bacteria at the glove cuff end as found in the cultures from the hands. Bacteria isolated from the glove cuff were P. acnes , S. warneri , S. epidermidis and Micrococcus species, the CFU/mL ranged from 10 to 40. Conclusions There were differences in bacterial growth and re-colonization between the groups but this was inconclusive. However, bacterial growth exists at the glove cuff and gown interface, further investigation in larger study is needed, to build on these promising, but preliminary, findings. Trial registration Trial registration was performed prospectively at Research web (FOU in Sweden, 117,971) 14/01/2013, and retrospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02359708 ). 01/27/2015.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the microbiologic effectiveness of the World Health Organization's 6-step and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 3-step hand hygiene techniques using alcohol-based handrub. DESIGN A parallel group randomized controlled trial. SETTING An acute care inner-city teaching hospital (Glasgow). PARTICIPANTS Doctors (n=42) and nurses (n=78) undertaking direct patient care. INTERVENTION Random 1:1 allocation of the 6-step (n=60) or the 3-step (n=60) technique. RESULTS The 6-step technique was microbiologically more effective at reducing the median log10 bacterial count. The 6-step technique reduced the count from 3.28 CFU/mL (95% CI, 3.11-3.38 CFU/mL) to 2.58 CFU/mL (2.08-2.93 CFU/mL), whereas the 3-step reduced it from 3.08 CFU/mL (2.977-3.27 CFU/mL) to 2.88 CFU/mL (-2.58 to 3.15 CFU/mL) (P=.02). However, the 6-step technique did not increase the total hand coverage area (98.8% vs 99.0%, P=.15) and required 15% (95% CI, 6%-24%) more time (42.50 seconds vs 35.0 seconds, P=.002). Total hand coverage was not related to the reduction in bacterial count. CONCLUSIONS Two techniques for hand hygiene using alcohol-based handrub are promoted in international guidance, the 6-step by the World Health Organization and 3-step by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study provides the first evidence in a randomized controlled trial that the 6-step technique is superior, thus these international guidance documents should consider this evidence, as should healthcare organizations using the 3-step technique in practice. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:661-666.

In the absence of a gold standard, we compared two glove-sampling methodologies, direct imprint and the sponge stick, to detect a difference between two arms in our study relative to total amount and presence of bacteria.

We conducted a non-blinded randomized trial to determine the impact of a patient hand-hygiene intervention on contamination of hospitalized patients’ hands with healthcare-associated pathogens. Among patients with negative hand cultures on admission, recovery of pathogens from hands was significantly reduced in those receiving the intervention versus those receiving standard care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:595–597

BACKGROUND Healthcare provider hands are an important source of intraoperative bacterial transmission events associated with postoperative infection development. OBJECTIVE To explore the efficacy of a novel hand hygiene improvement system leveraging provider proximity and individual and group performance feedback in reducing 30-day postoperative healthcare-associated infections via increased provider hourly hand decontamination events. DESIGN Randomized, prospective study. SETTING Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire and UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts. PATIENTS Patients undergoing surgery. METHODS Operating room environments were randomly assigned to usual intraoperative hand hygiene or to a personalized, body-worn hand hygiene system. Anesthesia and circulating nurse provider hourly hand decontamination events were continuously monitored and reported. All patients were followed prospectively for the development of 30-day postoperative healthcare-associated infections. RESULTS A total of 3,256 operating room environments and patients (1,620 control and 1,636 treatment) were enrolled. The mean (SD) provider hand decontamination event rate achieved was 4.3 (2.9) events per hour, an approximate 8-fold increase in hand decontamination events above that of conventional wall-mounted devices (0.57 events/hour); P<.001. Use of the hand hygiene system was not associated with a reduction in healthcare-associated infections (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.82-1.40], P=.626). CONCLUSIONS The hand hygiene system evaluated in this study increased the frequency of hand decontamination events without reducing 30-day postoperative healthcare-associated infections. Future work is indicated to optimize the efficacy of this hand hygiene improvement strategy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:888-895.

OBJECTIVE Effective perioperative hand antisepsis is crucial for the safety of patients and medical staff in surgical rooms. The antimicrobial effectiveness of different antiseptic methods, including conventional hand scrubs and waterless hand rubs, has not been well evaluated. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of the 3 antiseptic methods among surgical staff of Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital. For each method used, a group of 80 participants was enrolled. INTERVENTION Surgical hand cleansing with conventional 10% povidone-iodine scrub, conventional 4% chlorhexidine scrub, or waterless hand rub (1% chlorhexidine gluconate and 61% ethyl alcohol). RESULTS Colony-forming unit (CFU) counts were collected using the hand imprinting method before and after disinfection and after surgery. After surgical hand disinfection, the mean CFU counts of the conventional chlorhexidine (0.5±0.2, P<0.01) and waterless hand rub groups (1.4±0.7, P<0.05) were significantly lower than that of the conventional povidone group (4.3±1.3). No significant difference was observed in the mean CFU count among the groups after surgery. Similar results were obtained when preexisting differences before disinfection were considered in the analysis of covariance. Furthermore, multivariate regression indicated that the antiseptic method (P=.0036), but not other variables, predicted the mean CFU count. CONCLUSIONS Conventional chlorhexidine scrub and waterless hand rub were superior to a conventional povidone-iodine product in bacterial inhibition. We recommend using conventional chlorhexidine scrub as a standard method for perioperative hand antisepsis. Waterless hand rub may be used if the higher cost is affordable. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:417-422.

Hand hygiene (HH) is the most successful intervention for hospital infection control. HH rubs with residual action are desired. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of alcohol (A-HH) and lactic acid (LA-HH) rubs, with the latter being marketed as having residual activity. We investigated reductions in bacterial colony-forming units (CFUs), prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) organisms, and risk factors for increased counts on the hands of veterinary staff. A randomized, crossover study (53 individuals) was performed in a referral veterinary teaching hospital. Hand plates were taken before, immediately after, and 6 hours after HH. A blinded investigator counted CFUs per plate. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus / pseudintermedius (MRSA/MRSP), Enterobacteriaceae, and Pseudomonas species (spp.) were characterized. Gender, profession, time point, and HH product were included as variables within multivariable analyses. A significant reduction in bacterial CFU was seen immediately after A-HH rub application ( p  < 0.001); however, neither product showed any significant residual action. Veterinarians had higher bacterial CFUs than nurses ( p  = 0.005); contact with patients, rather than the environment, was also associated with higher counts ( p  < 0.001). MRSA, MRSP, Enterobacteriaceae spp., and Pseudomonas spp. were detected on 7%, 2%, 14%, and 2% of study participant's hands ( n  = 208 samples), respectively. Frequent HH administration using an A-HH rub was effective at reducing bacterial CFU on hands in vivo in this veterinary hospital setting, but its use needs further encouragement in veterinary staff. The high prevalence of antimicrobial bacteria on hands is of concern; they might act as reservoirs for patients, the environment, and in-contact people.

Hand infections are a common presentation at the emergency departments. Without knowing the source of infection clinicians are dependent on systematic reports on the bacterial spectrum and susceptibility tests of the specific infection in their patient community. This study was based on a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to our outpatient clinic with acute hand infections. We documented patient demographics, the etiology, location, culture tests of the infection and analyzed if certain bacteria could be cultured significantly more often in certain etiologies or in specific sites of the hand infection. Susceptibility tests were added. Bacterial swabs of 204 patients were analyzed. Overall S. aureus was found in 53% of all cases, in only one case revealed methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). There was no significant difference in the bacterial spectrum according to the etiology of the hand infections, except for animal bites where Pasteurella multocida was the dominating bacteria in 63% of all cases. Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, fluoroquinolones, and piperacillin were effective against the main bacteria. Our study confirms the previously published antibiotic resistance reports and reinforces the current antibiotic treatment guidelines also in this western European population.