"Water or not water: That is the question." Analysis of costs and consumption of the operating theaters in a greener perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the amounts of water and plastic used in surgical hand washing with medicated soaps and with alcohol-based products and to compare costs and consumption in a year, based on scheduled surgical activity. METHOD: This retrospective study was carried out at Udine's Gynecology Operating Block from October to November 2022. We estimated the average amount of water with a graduated cylinder and the total cost of water usage based on euros/m3 indicated by the supplier; for each antiseptic agent we collected the data relevant to wash time, amount of water and product used per scrub, number of handscrubs made with every 500 mL bottle and cost of a single bottle. We put data into two hypothetical contexts, namely WHO guidelines and manufacturers' recommendations. Data were subjected to statistical analysis. RESULTS: The daily amount of water using povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine-gluconate and alcohol-based antiseptic agents was 187.6, 140.7 and 0 L/day (P value = 0.001), respectively; A total of 69 000 L/year of water would be saved if alcohol-based products were routinely used. A single unit of an alcohol-based product allows three times as many handscrubs as any other product (P value = 0.001) with consequent reduction in plastic packaging. CONCLUSION: Despite the cost saving being negligible, choosing alcohol-based handrub over medicated soap handrub - on equal antiseptic efficacy grounds - could lead to a significant saving of water and plastic, thus making our operating theaters more environmentally friendly.

An assessment of hand hygiene practices of healthcare workers of a semi-urban teaching hospital using the five moments of hand hygiene.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene has been described as the cornerstone and starting point in all infection control programs, with the hands of healthcare staff being the drivers and promoters of infection in critically ill patients. The objectives of this study were to access healthcare workers compliance with the World Health Organization (WHO) prescribed five moments of hand hygiene as it relates to patient care and to determine the various strata of healthcare workers who are in default of such prescribed practices. METHODS: The study was an observational, cross-sectional one. Hand hygiene compliance was monitored using the hand hygiene observation tool developed by the WHO. A nonidentified observer was used for monitoring compliance with hand hygiene. The observational period was over a 60-day period from August 2015 to October 2015. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-six observations were recorded from healthcare personnel. The highest number of observations were seen in surgery, n = 40. The following were found to be in noncompliance before patient contact - anesthetist P = 0.00 and the Intensive Care Unit P = 0.00 while compliance was seen with senior nurses (certified registered nurse anesthetist [CRNA]) P = 0.04. Concerning hand hygiene after the removal of gloves, the following were areas of noncompliance - the emergency room P = 0.00, CRNA P = 0.00, dental P = 0.04, and compliance was seen with surgery P = 0.01. With regards to compliance after touching the patient, areas of noncompliance were the anesthetists P = 0.00, as opposed to CRNA P = 0.00, dental P = 0.00, and Medicine Department P = 0.02 that were compliant. Overall, the rates of compliance to hand hygiene were low. DISCUSSION: The findings however from our study show that the rates of compliance in our local center are still low. The reasons for this could include lack of an educational program on hand hygiene; unfortunately, healthcare workers in developing settings such as ours regard such programs as being mundane. CONCLUSION: The observance of hand hygiene is still low in our local environment. Handwashing practices in our study show that healthcare workers pay attention to hand hygiene when it appears there is a direct observable threat to their wellbeing. Educational programs need to be developed to address the issue of poor hand hygiene.

The use of real-time feedback via wireless technology to improve hand hygiene compliance.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene (HH) is widely regarded as the most effective preventive measure for health care-associated infection. However, there is little robust evidence on the best interventions to improve HH compliance or whether a sustained increase in compliance can reduce rates of health care-associated infection. METHODS: To evaluate the effectiveness of a real-time feedback to improve HH compliance in the inpatient setting, we used a quasiexperimental study comparing the effect of real-time feedback using wireless technology on compliance with HH. The study was conducted in two 20-bed step-down units at a private tertiary care hospital. Phase 1 was a 3-month baseline period in which HH counts were performed by electronic handwash counters. After a 1-month washout period, a 7-month intervention was performed in one step-down unit while the other unit served as a control. RESULTS: HH, as measured by dispensing episodes, was significantly higher in the intervention unit (90.1 vs 73.1 dispensing episodes/patient-day, respectively, P = .001). When the intervention unit was compared with itself before and after implementation of the wireless technology, there was also a significant increase in HH after implementation (74.5 vs 90.1 episodes/patient-day, respectively, P = .01). There was also an increase in mean alcohol-based handrub consumption between the 2 phases (68.9 vs 103.1 mL/patient-day, respectively, P = .04) in the intervention unit. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated an improvement in alcohol gel usage via implementation of real-time feedback via wireless technology.

Hand hygiene in peritoneal dialysis patients: a comparison of two techniques.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Hand hygiene is essential for preventing peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections. The present study compared the effectiveness of two hygiene techniques in reducing the number of colony-forming units (CFUs) on the hands of patients undergoing PD. METHODS: In this controlled clinical trial, 22 participants enrolled in the same PD program underwent a two-hand evaluation for microbiologic flora. Participants participated in two treatments: a) simple hand hygiene plus antiseptic hand hygiene, in which the patients washed their hands with water and glycerin soap for 1 minute and then rubbed and dried their hands with 70% ethyl alcohol gel; and b) antiseptic hand hygiene, in which the patients rubbed their hands with 70% ethyl alcohol gel until fully dry. To sample distal finger surfaces, we asked the participants to touch sheep blood agar plates directly. RESULTS: The CFU count for both hands was significantly higher in the regular hygiene group than in the gel-only group [69.0 (16.0 - 101.0) CFU vs 9.0 (2.2 - 55.5) CFU, p < 0.010]. Growth of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus colonies was significantly higher in right-hand cultures from the regular hygiene group than in those from the gel-only group [69.5 (26.25 - 101.0) CFU vs 9.5 (1.0 - 41.7) CFU; p < 0.050]. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing PD, using 70% ethyl alcohol gel to cleanse the hands may be more effective than following the regular hygiene recommendations in reducing bacterial populations.

Changes in hand hygiene compliance after a multimodal intervention and seasonality variation.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is the most important measure to reduce health care-related infections and colonization with multiresistant micro-organisms. We sought to determine the rate and seasonality of handwashing compliance in a university-affiliated hospital. METHODS: In January 2006 (baseline period), handwashing observation was first made in an intensive care unit. From March to May 2006, there was an intervention period; and, from June 2006 to August 2009, we followed hand hygiene compliance. Seasonality curves for handwashing compliance were made during follow-up period. RESULTS: During baseline period, a total of 166 observations was made. During follow-up, 17,664 opportunities for hand hygiene were observed. Compliance improved from 30.0% to a mean of 56.7% after the intervention (P < .001). The highest mean rate of compliance was 77.9% for nurses, compared with 52.6% for technicians (P < .001) and 44.6% for physicians (P < .001). Compliance was lower during summer days (first trimester of the year) and increased after March and April and slowly decreased through the end of the year. CONCLUSION: One of the reasons for the lower handwashing compliance in the first 3 months of the year is that, in Brazil, this is the summer vacation time; and, because of that, the staff's workload and the number of less well-trained personnel are higher. We emphasize the importance of continuously monitoring hand hygiene to determine the seasonal aspects of compliance.

Is hand hygiene before putting on nonsterile gloves in the intensive care unit a waste of health care worker time?--a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene (HH) is recognized as a basic effective measure in prevention of nosocomial infections. However, the importance of HH before donning nonsterile gloves is unknown, and few published studies address this issue. Despite the lack of evidence, the World Health Organization and other leading bodies recommend this practice. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of HH before donning nonsterile gloves prior to patient contact. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of health care workers entering Contact Isolation rooms in intensive care units was performed. Baseline finger and palm prints were made from dominant hands onto agar plates. Health care workers were then randomized to directly don nonsterile gloves or perform HH and then don nonsterile gloves. Postgloving finger and palm prints were then made from the gloved hands. Plates were incubated and colony-forming units (CFU) of bacteria were counted. RESULTS: Total bacterial colony counts of gloved hands did not differ between the 2 groups (6.9 vs 8.1 CFU, respectively, P = .52). Staphylococcus aureus was identified from gloves (once in "hand hygiene prior to gloving" group, twice in "direct gloving" group). All other organisms were expected commensal flora. CONCLUSION: HH before donning nonsterile gloves does not decrease already low bacterial counts on gloves. The utility of HH before donning nonsterile gloves may be unnecessary.