[Surgical team satisfaction levels between two preoperative hand-washing methods]. / Niveles de satisfacción del equipo quiúirgico entre dos métodos de lavado de mano.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, there have been new antiseptics for surgical scrub that do not require brushing. One of them contains 1% chlorhexidine gluconate and 61% ethyl alcohol; within its benefits, it may offer a low potential for skin sensitization, as well as cost savings and less use of water. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate satisfaction levels, washing time, safety, cost and amount of water between the traditional surgical scrub technique (group A) and brush-free surgical scrub procedure (group B). MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred clean and clean-contaminated surgeries with four hundred members of surgical teams were included. Satisfaction levels, hand-washing time, skin disorders and problems associated with placement of gloves were evaluated. Hands cultures were taken in 20% of the population and the amount of water used by patients in group A was measured. Total costs and wound infections were analyzed. RESULTS: Satisfaction scale in group A was 9.1 +/- 1.39 and 9.5 +/- 1.54 in group B (p = 0.004). The mean hand-washing time was 3.9 +/- 1.07 min in group A and 2.0 +/- 0.47 min in group B (p = 0.00001). Thirteen patients had dry skin in group A and four in group B (6.5% vs. 2%; p = 0.02). There were ten positives cultures in group A and five in group B (25% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.152). Wound infection rate was 3%. On average, five-hundred eighty liters of water were used by the former group, and the estimated hand-washing cost was lower in the second group. CONCLUSIONS: The handwashing technique with CGEA is as effective as traditional surgical scrub technique, and it is associated with less washing time, dry skin, cost and use of water.

Rapid detection of ESBL-producing gram-negative bacteria isolated from blood: a reasonable and reliable tool for middle and low resource countries.

INTRODUCTION: Delay in appropriate treatment in patients with bacteraemia can increase morbidity, mortality, and health expenditures. We compared the Rapid Direct Test (RDT) designed to detect ESBL-producing gram-negative bacteria (GNB) directly from positive blood cultures bottles, with two conventional ESBL detection tests: Screening and Confirmatory Disk Diffusion Assay (SC-DDA) and an MIC Screening and ESBL E-test (MIC/ET). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We screened all blood cultures in a tertiary care facility from August to December 2005. We only included one positive bottle per patient in which GNB were observed. RDT: Blood from each bottle was inoculated on Mueller-Hinton agar. Ceftazidime and cefotaxime disks with and without clavulanic acid were added and incubated at 35 degrees C +/- 2 degrees C for 24 h. Results were interpreted according to CLSI recommendations for the SC-DDA and MIC/ET. All methods were performed simultaneously. Time for reporting as an ESBL-producer and cost of the tests were recorded. RESULTS: We isolated 124 GNB in 114 episodes of bacteraemia, 10 of them (8.8%) polymicrobial; 79 (63.7%) of the GNB were enteric bacteria, 44 (35.5%) glucose non-fermenter GNB and one Haemophilus influenzae. The most common microorganism was Escherichia coli in 56 episodes (45.2%), followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 24 (19.3%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae in 13 (10.5%). Of the 114 episodes, 41 (36%) had at least one GNB resistant to 3rd generation cephalosporins, and 25 (21.9%) were caused by an ESBL-producing GNB. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for the RDT were 96%, 98.9%, 96% and 98.9%, respectively. Agreement by kappa index between RDT and SC-DDA was 0.95 and between the RDT and MIC/ET was 0.92. The RDT detected 24/25 ESBL-producing bacteria. The mean time to detect an isolate as an ESBL producer after a positive blood culture bottle signal was 1.02 +/- 0.19 days when using the RDT, and 3.40 +/- 0.59 days when using any other method. The difference in reporting time was 2.38 +/- 0.63 days (p < 0.0001). Our estimated cost per test was $1.54 for RDT, $2.32 for screening/ confirmatory SC-DDA, and $49.65 for MIC screening and MIC/ET. Conclusions. The RDT is a rapid, reliable and easy analysis to perform, as well as cost-effective.