Hand hygiene compliance in nursing home wards: the effect of increased accessibility of alcohol-based hand rub.

BACKGROUND: Elderly nursing home residents are vulnerable to infection from micro-organisms. Hand hygiene is considered one of the most important measures to prevent transmission. AIM: To determine the effect of increased accessibility to alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) in nursing home wards by monitoring hand hygiene compliance (HHC) among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: An 11-month intervention study was conducted in a Danish six-ward nursing home. Data were collected using an automatic hand hygiene monitoring system (AHHMS). After a baseline period, one extra ABHR dispenser was placed in each of the 150 apartments. Baseline HHC was compared with the HHC during an immediate intervention period and a long-term intervention period. FINDINGS: A total of 159 HCWs were included. The AHHMS registered 341,078 hand hygiene opportunities. Overall baseline HHC was 31% (95% confidence interval: 30-32). A significant +18% absolute immediate effect (first five months) (95% CI: 17-19; P < 0.0001) and +13 percentage points (95% CI: 11-14; P < 0.0001) long-term effect (another four months) were recorded. HCWs working day shifts and short-term employees had a higher baseline HHC than HCWs working evening/night shifts. However, HCWs working night shifts achieved the greatest long-term effect with a mean +27 percentage point difference (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Placing an additional ABHR dispenser strategically within staff workflow significantly increased HHC among HCWs, demonstrating a noteworthy effect. The study is the first to report the effect on nursing home dispenser accessibility as a single intervention and to show a significant unmet potential.

Child Care Center Hand Hygiene Programs' Cost-Effectiveness in Preventing Respiratory Infections.

BACKGROUND: We previously demonstrated that a hand hygiene program, including hand sanitizer and educational measures, for day care center (DCC) staff, children, and parents was more effective than a soap-and-water program, with initial observation, in preventing respiratory infections (RIs) in children attending DCCs. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of these programs in preventing RIs. METHODS: A cluster, randomized, controlled and open study of 911 children aged 0 to 3 years, attending 24 DCCs in Almeria. Two intervention groups of DCC-families performed educational measures and hand hygiene, one with soap-and-water (SWG) and another with hand sanitizer (HSG). The control group (CG) followed usual hand-washing procedures. RI episodes, including symptoms, treatments, medical contacts, complementary analyses, and DCC absenteeism days, were reported by parents. A Bayesian cost-effectiveness model was developed. RESULTS: There were 5201 RI episodes registered. The adjusted mean societal costs of RIs per child per study period were CG: €522.25 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 437.10 to 622.46); HSG: €374.53 (95% CI: 314.90 to 443.07); SWG: €494.51 (95% CI: 419.21 to 585.27). The indirect costs constituted between 35.7% to 43.6% of the total costs. Children belonging to the HSG had an average of 1.39 fewer RI episodes than the CG and 0.93 less than the SWG. It represents a saving of societal cost mean per child per study period of €147.72 and €119.15, respectively. The HSG intervention was dominant versus SWG and CG. CONCLUSIONS: Hand hygiene programs that include hand sanitizer and educational measures for DCC staff, children, and parents are more effective and cost less than a program with soap and water and initial observation in children attending DCCs.

Assessing the accuracy of a new hand hygiene monitoring device (SmartRub®): from the laboratory to clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: We developed SmartRub® powered by iQati®, an electronic device composed of a wristband and an alcohol-based handrub pocket-sized dispenser that measures and provides feedback on the duration of hand friction and the volume poured during each hand hygiene action. We aimed to assess the accuracy of SmartRub®. METHODS: The specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of SmartRub® were assessed in a 3-phased experiment: (1) laboratory-controlled conditions with volunteers; (2) pre-planned clinical path with volunteers and (3) real clinical conditions with healthcare workers. The accuracy of SmartRub® was evaluated by quantifying its ability to correctly capture true hand hygiene actions and to not record other actions performed while wearing the device. RESULTS: In the laboratory, 7 volunteers performed 816 actions. Overall sensitivity was 94.1% (95% CI 91.4-96.2%) with a PPV of 99.0% (95% CI 97.3-99.6%) and specificity was 99.0% (95% CI 97.5-99.7%) with a NPV of 94.4% (95% CI 91.9-96.1%). During the pre-planned clinical path phase, 13 volunteers performed 98 planned paths and a total of 967 actions were performed. Overall sensitivity was 94.6% (95% CI 92.2-96.5%) with a PPV of 84.3% (95% CI 81.6-86.7%) and specificity was 82.4% (95% CI 78.7-85.7%) with a NPV of 93.9% (95% CI 91.3-95.7%). During the real clinical conditions phase, 17 healthcare workers were observed for a total of 15 h and 3 min while they performed 485 actions. Sensitivity was 96.8% (95% CI 93.8-98.6%) with a PPV of 98.3% (95% CI 95.6-99.3%) and specificity was 98.3% (95% CI 95.7-99.5%) with a NPV of 96.8% (95% CI 93.9-98.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Smartrub® is a highly reliable device for capturing hand hygiene actions under a range of conditions, from the laboratory to clinical care activities.

Efectividad de las intervenciones no farmacológicas para prevención y control de COVID-19 / Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19

INTRODUCCIÓN: La enfermedad por el coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) causada por el coronavirus 2 del Síndrome respiratorio agudo grave ó SARS-CoV-2 fue inicialmente reportada en Wuhan, China en diciembre de 2019(1) WHO. El 30 de enero de 2020 la OMS determinó que la COVID-19 representaba una emergencia de salud pública de importancia internacional y posteriormente el 11 de marzo del 2020 fue declarada como pandemia. Con el objetivo de contener, suprimir o mitigar esta pandemia, los países han aplicado diversas medidas de salud pública, algunas más restrictivas que otras. Mediante Decreto Supremo No 008-2020-SA, se declara la emergencia sanitaria a nivel nacional por el plazo de noventa (90) días calendario y se dictaron medidas para la prevención y control para evitar la propagación del COVID-19, la misma fue prorrogado por los Decretos Supremos No 020-2020-SA, No 027-2020-SA, No 031-2020-SA, No 009-2021-SA y N° 025-2021-SA, con la finalidad de mitigar la transmisión del virus y proteger la salud de los trabajadores y del público en general (2). El presente documento está destinado a sistematizar la evidencia existente, respecto a la efectividad de las intervenciones no farmacológicas para la prevención y control de COVID-19. OBJETIVO; Sintetizar y presentar disposiciones sobre las recomendaciones actualizadas para el cuidado y disminución del riesgo de contagio por SARS-CoV-2, a partir de revisiones sistemáticas sobre la efectividad de las intervenciones no farmacológicas para la prevención y control de COVID-19. Se efectuó una búsqueda avanzada en la Plataforma Living Overview of the Evidence (L·OVE) de la Fundación Epistemonikos (3) con fecha 21 de octubre del 2021, a fin de identificar revisiones sistemáticas incluyendo revisiones rápidas para la pregunta PICO. Se eligió la plataforma L·OVE ya que ésta actualiza búsquedas de estudios en COVID-19 en alrededor de 39 bases de datos, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biblioteca Cochrane, servidores de distribución de manuscritos aún no publicados y registros de ensayos clínicos entre otras. Adicionalmente, se consultó la página web de la Organización Mundial de Salud (OMS) y de algunas páginas oficiales de las principales agencias gubernamentales de la región, sobre a la efectividad de las intervenciones no farmacológicas (uso de pediluvio, toma de temperatura y distanciamiento físico) para la prevención y control de COVID-19. RESULTADOS: Las intervenciones no farmacológicas comprenden medidas de protección personal, medidas medioambientales, medidas de distanciamiento físico y medidas relacionadas con el tránsito, la adopción de esas medidas se está aplicando como respuesta a la propagación de la COVID-19. Las consideraciones presentadas en esta nota técnica se refieren a las medidas como el distanciamiento social, toma de temperatura y el uso de pediluvios. CONCLUSIONES: El objetivo del informe fue sintetizar y presentar disposiciones sobre las recomendaciones actualizadas para el cuidado y disminución del riesgo de contagio por SARS-CoV-2, a partir de revisiones sobre la efectividad de las intervenciones no farmacológicas para la prevención y control de COVID-19, estas intervenciones son el distanciamiento físico, toma de temperatura y el uso de pediluvios. Al inicio de la pandemia del COVID-19, se recomendaron diversas medidas preventivas por el principio de precaución, con evidencia científica limitada acerca de la seguridad y en relación a los riesgos y la factibilidad asociados a su implementación. Una de las intervenciones es el distanciamiento físico, la reducción de la transmisión de SARS-CoV-2 se ha podido comprobar mediante simuladores sin mascarilla, con una reducción del 60% a 50 cm y del 70% a 1 metro, por lo que la exposición a aerosoles infectivos en espacios mal ventilados o mayor número de personas en aforos reducidos, aumenta la posibilidad de contagio. Es necesario implementar medidas para mantener un distanciamiento físico seguro entre las personas. En cuanto a la toma de temperatura, según un estudio analizado, tiene una sensibilidad muy baja, a pesar de que podría presentar una mejor especificidad, (es decir, es más probable que una temperatura alta refleje una infección que requeriría pruebas confirmatorias que un falso positivo), la utilidad del cribado con medición directa de temperatura puede ser limitada dada a la escasa sensibilidad (es decir, una temperatura normal no identifica muchas infecciones verdaderas) porque la historia natural de esta infección incluye una duración presintomática y muchas veces el curso es asintomático de la enfermedad. Cabe mencionar que este estudio fue al principio de la pandemia, actualmente la toma de temperatura como recomendaciones para el ingreso a iglesias, centros comerciales, colegios o lugares públicos no está dentro de las recomendaciones de la OMS. En cuanto al uso de pediluvios, no se encontró evidencia científica que ayude a la reducción de la posible diseminación del virus COVID-19, además no figura dentro de las recomendaciones de la OMS. La utilidad limitada de los enfoques actuales, es decir la poca o nula evidencia científica que sustente la toma de temperatura para el ingreso en colegios, instituciones públicas, restaurantes, centros comerciales, etc, y el uso de pediluvios para evitar la propagación del virus, nos lleva a la necesidad en un mayor énfasis de priorizar otras intervenciones como el uso de la mascarilla, mantener el distanciamiento físico y social, lavado de manos y utilizar equipos de protección personal.

Successfully controlling the incidence of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa through antibiotic stewardship and infection control programmes at a Chinese university hospital.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of imposing infection control programmes (ICPs) and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) by monitoring the antimicrobial resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. METHODS: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed in accordance with the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing guidelines. ICPs and AMS were initiated at the Fourth Hospital from 2013 to 2018. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 2,886 P. aeruginosa isolates were assessed. The antimicrobial resistance trends of the P. aeruginosa strains improved after the intervention measures. Multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) P. aeruginosa contributed to 18.5% and 3.5% of the total P. aeruginosa strains, respectively. Colistin was the most effective antibiotic against 97.6% of XDR-P. aeruginosa and 99.41% of MDR-P. aeruginosa. The consumption of alcohol-based hand gel (ABHG) increased from 0.6 L to 10.8 L per 1,000 patient-days (PD) (p = 0.005). The yearly consumption of antibiotics decreased from 45 to 37.5 defined daily doses (DDD) per 1,000 PD(p = 0.04). After 2013, the incidence rate of MDR-P. aeruginosa showed a significant decrease from 22% to 14.1% (p = 0.04), and XDR-P. aeruginosa decreased from 5.8% to 0.9%. The use of ABHG was negatively related to MDR-P. aeruginosa morbidity (r = -0.86; p = 0.021). The consumption of antibiotics was positively related to MDR-P. aeruginosa morbidity (r = 0.86; p = 0.021). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Successful control of MDR-P. aeruginosa resistance was achieved by imposing comprehensive ICPs and AMS.

Handrub dispensers per acute care hospital bed: a study to develop a new minimum standard.

BACKGROUND: Accessibility to alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) dispenser is crucial to improve compliance to hand hygiene (HH), being offered as wall-mounted dispensers (ABHR-Ds), and/or pocket bottles. Nevertheless, information on the distribution and density of ABHR-Ds and their impact on HH have hardly been studied. Institutions such as the World Health Organisation or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do not provide guidance. The Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) from Germany recommends an overall density of > 0.5 dispensers per patient bed. We aimed to investigate current conditions in hospitals to develop a standard on the minimal number of ABHR-D. METHODS: Between 07 and 09/2019, we applied a questionnaire to 178 hospitals participating in the Swissnoso National Surveillance Network to evaluate number and location of ABHR-Ds per bed in acute care hospitals, and compared the data with consumption and compliance with HH. RESULTS: 110 of the 178 (62%) hospitals provided data representing approximately 20,000 hospital beds. 83% hospitals provided information on both the total number of ABHR-Ds and patient beds, with a mean of 2.4 ABHR-Ds per bed (range, 0.4-22.1). While most hospitals (84%) had dispensers located at the room entrance, 47% reported also locations near or at the bed. Additionally, pocket-sized dispensers (100 mL) are available in 97% of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Swiss hospitals provide 2.4 dispensers per bed, much more than governmental recommendation. The first study on the number of ABHR-Ds in hospitals may help to define a minimal standard for national and international recommendations.

A large-scale investigation of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) volume: hand coverage correlations utilizing an innovative quantitative evaluation system.

BACKGROUND: Current hand hygiene guidelines do not provide recommendations on a specific volume for the clinical hand rubbing procedure. According to recent studies volume should be adjusted in order to achieve complete coverage. However, hand size is a parameter that highly influences the hand coverage quality when using alcohol-based handrubs (ABHR). The purpose of this study was to establish a quantitative correlation between applied ABHR volume and achieved hand coverage. METHOD: ABHR based hand hygiene events were evaluated utilizing a digital health device, the Semmelweis hand hygiene system with respect to coverage achieved on the skin surface. Medical students and surgical residents (N = 356) were randomly selected and given predetermined ABHR volumes. Additionally, hand sizes were calculated using specialized software developed for this purpose. Drying time, ABHR volume awareness, as well spillage awareness were documented for each hand hygiene event. RESULTS: Hand coverage achieved during a hand hygiene event strongly depends on the applied ABHR volume. At a 1 ml dose, the uncovered hand area was approximately 7.10%, at 2 ml it decreased to 1.68%, and at 3 ml it further decreased to 1.02%. The achieved coverage is strongly correlated to hand size, nevertheless, a 3 ml applied volume proved sufficient for most hand hygiene events (84%). When applying a lower amount of ABHR (1.5 ml), even people with smaller hands failed to cover their entire hand surface. Furthermore, a 3 ml volume requires more than the guideline prescribed 20-30 s to dry. In addition, results suggest that drying time is not only affected by hand size, but perhaps other factors may be involved as well (e.g., skin temperature and degree of hydration). ABHR volumes of 3.5 ml or more were inefficient, as the disinfectant spilled while the additional rubbing time did not improve hand coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Hand sizes differ a lot among HCWs. After objectively measuring participants, the surface of the smallest hand was just over half compared to the largest hand (259 cm2 and 498 cm2, respectively). While a 3 ml ABHR volume is reasonable for medium-size hands, the need for an optimized volume of handrub for each individual is critical, as it offers several advantages. Not only it can ensure adequate hand hygiene quality, but also prevent unnecessary costs. Bluntly increasing the volume also increases spillage and therefore waste of disinfectant in the case of smaller hands. In addition, adherence could potentially decrease due to the required longer drying time, therefore, adjusting the dosage according to hand size may also increase the overall hand hygiene compliance.

SARS-CoV-2 decontamination of skin with disinfectants active during and after application.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in high levels of exposure of medical workers to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Hand decontamination is one of the actions recommended to reduce the risk of infection. AIM: Two disinfectants - BIAKOS antimicrobial skin and wound cleanser (AWC) and AWC2 (Sanara MedTech, Fort Worth, TX, USA) - were tested to determine whether they can inactivate SARS-CoV-2 upon contact or as a coating applied before contact with the virus. METHODS: The ability of AWC and AWC2 to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 was tested in liquid and dried form on plastic surfaces and porcine skin. FINDINGS: AWC and AWC2 were effective in reducing the infectious titre of SARS-CoV-2 in liquid form during application and in dried form 4 h after application. Virus on skin was reduced up to 2 log10-fold and 3.5 log10-fold after treatment with AWC and AWC2, respectively. CONCLUSION: Application of AWC and AWC2 to skin reduces the level of SARS-CoV-2 and the risk of infection.

Hand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in community and health facility settings. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 10 May 2019); Embase (1980 to 10 May 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 10 May 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were updated 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs, cross-over trials, and quasi-RCTs that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within the community or in health facility settings DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death). MAIN RESULTS: Our review included five studies: one RCT, one quasi-RCT, and three cross-over trials with a total of more than 5450 neonates (two studies included all neonates but did not report the actual number of neonates involved). Four studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units and all neonates on admission. The fifth study did not clearly state how many nurses were included in the study. Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two studies were rated as low risk for selection bias, another two were rated as high risk, and one study was rated as unclear risk. One study was rated as low risk for allocation bias, and four were rated as high risk. Only one of the five studies was rated as low risk for performance bias. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to plain liquid soap We are uncertain whether plain soap is better than 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (mean difference (MD) -1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -0.19; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate compared to triclosan 1% One study compared 1% w/v triclosan with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate and suggests that 1% w/v triclosan may reduce the incidence of suspected infection (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.60; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There may be fewer cases of infection in the 1% w/v triclosan group compared to the 4% chlorhexidine gluconate group (RR 6.01, 95% CI 3.56 to 10.14; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain of the available evidence. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events for this comparison. 2% CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) We are uncertain whether 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser with regards to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.69; 2932 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) in the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate group, but the evidence is very uncertain.   The adverse outcome was reported as mean visual scoring on the skin. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 118 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor duration of hospital stay.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.

Use of Ethanol-Based Hand Disinfectants: Source of Increased Ethyl Glucuronide Levels in Hair?

AIM: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic increasing the use of hand disinfectants, we investigated the effect of frequent use of ethanol-based hand disinfectants (EBHD) on the levels of the alcohol marker ethyl glucuronide (EtG) in hair. METHOD: Hair samples were collected from 10 health professionals (8 nondrinkers, 2 rarely drinking individuals) and EtG was examined in hair. RESULT: EtG (~2 pg/mg) was only detected in the hair sample of a nondrinker using EBHD 60-70 times per working day. CONCLUSION: Our data provide no evidence that frequent EBHD use results in hair EtG levels above the recommended Society of Hair Testing cutoff for repeated alcohol consumption (5 pg/mg).

Bacteria which are highly resistant to antibiotics are not resistant hydro-alcoholic products.

BACKGROUND: Preventing the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria requires strict adherence to standard precautions, including hand hygiene by hydro-alcoholic friction, a technique now recommended. Our study evaluates the in vitro efficacy of an hydro-alcoholic product on four emerging resistant bacteria. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The product was tested using the dilution-neutralization method using the NF/EN 13727+A2 standard on Staphylococcus epidermidis which is resistant to methicillin and has a reduced reaction to glycopeptide antibiotics, on Enterococcus faecium which is resistant to glycopeptides, as well as on Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa which produce carbapenemases. Each of the steps was performed as a blind test on the test product as on the comparator. The surviving bacteria count was measured after 24 and 48 hours' incubation and the rate of reduction was calculated. RESULTS: A reduction which was higher than 5 decimal logarithms was observed 30seconds after contact. The test product had an 80% bactericidal concentration on Pseudomonas aeruginosa and 40% on the three other germs. The bactericidal concentration of the comparator was 80% on the four micro-organisms. DISCUSSION: The present study confirms the effect of hydro-alcoholic products on emerging resistant bacteria. The results make it possible to answer questions from healthcare professionals who often confuse antibiotics and antiseptics and question whether using hydro-alcoholic hand sanitizer is worth it. Proof of efficacy at 30seconds is reassuring since this time is close to that observed when evaluating practices. The data could be completed by performing in vitro tests using the NF/EN 1500 standard.

Non-Beverage Alcohol Consumption In Izhevsk: 15 Years Later.

AIMS: Non-beverage alcohol was a major cause of preventable mortality of working-age males in Izhevsk (Russia) in 2003-2004. The Russian government has since taken measures to reduce availability of non-beverage alcohol. Yet, some types of non-beverage alcohol still remain available for consumers. The aim of this study was to assess the availability and sources of non-beverage alcohol in Udmurtia. METHODS: A survey of adults on the streets of Izhevsk and its environs was performed on workdays to assess non-beverage drinking patterns in 2018. The questionnaire included questions about socio-demographic status and alcohol use, including non-beverage alcohol consumption and drinking patterns. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-eight people were questioned, of whom, 28% reported consuming non-beverage alcohol. Non-beverage alcohol consumers were more likely to be single, unemployed or retired, younger or older than 19-29 years, have lower educational status and income, have hangovers and drink moonshine. CONCLUSION: Non-beverage alcohol consumption still took place at Izhevsk, a typical Russian city, in 2018, and its availability was still high. Untaxed and cheap medicinal non-beverage alcohol consumption seems to have become the major source of non-beverage alcohol consumption. Further regulation of non-beverage alcohol may be required in Russia.

Disulfiram Ethanol Reaction with Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer: An Exploratory Study.

AIMS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey to estimate the prevalence and clinical manifestation of disulfiram ethanol reaction (DER) and isopropanol toxicity (IT) in patients with alcohol use disorders, on disulfiram. Alcohol-based hand rub contains either ethanol or isopropanol or both. COVID-19 pandemic has led to wide scale usage of sanitizers. Patients with alcohol use disorders, on disulfiram, might experience disulfiram ethanol like reactions with alcohol-based sanitizers. METHODS: We telephonically contacted 339 patients, prescribed disulfiram between January 2014 and March 2020. The assessment pertained to the last 3 months (i.e. third week of March to third week of June 2020). RESULT: The sample consisted of middle-aged men with a mean 16 years of alcohol dependence. Among the 82 (24%) patients adherent to disulfiram, 42 (12.3%) were using alcohol-based hand rubs. Out of these, a total of eight patients (19%; 95% CI 9-33) had features suggestive of DER; four of whom also had features indicative of IT. Five patients (62.5%) had mild and self-limiting symptoms. Severe systemic reactions were experienced by three (37.5%). Severe reactions were observed with exposure to sanitizers in greater amounts, on moist skin or through inhalation. CONCLUSION: Patients on disulfiram should be advised to use alternate methods of hand hygiene.

Exponential-growth prediction bias and compliance with safety measures related to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: We define prediction bias as the systematic error arising from an incorrect prediction of the number of positive COVID cases x-weeks hence when presented with y-weeks of prior, actual data on the same. Our objective is to investigate the importance of an exponential-growth prediction bias (EGPB) in understanding why the COVID-19 outbreak has exploded. To that end, our goal is to document EGPB in the comprehension of disease data, study how it evolves as the epidemic progresses, and connect it with compliance of personal safety guidelines such as the use of face coverings and social distancing. We also investigate whether a behavioral nudge, cost less to implement, can significantly reduce EGPB. RATIONALE: The scientific basis for our inquiry is the received wisdom that infectious disease spread, especially in the initial stages, follows an exponential function meaning few positive cases can explode into a widespread pandemic if the disease is sufficiently transmittable. If people suffer from EGPB, they will likely make incorrect judgments about their infection risk, which in turn, may lead to reduced compliance of safety protocols. METHOD: To collect data on prediction bias, we ran an incentivized, experiment on a global, online platform with participation from people in forty-three countries, each at different stages of progression of COVID-19. We also constructed several indices of compliance by surveying participants about their frequency of hand-washing and use of sanitizers and masks; their willingness to pay for masks; their view about the social appropriateness of others' behavior; and their like/dislike of government responses. The prediction data was used to construct several measures of EGPB. Our experimental design permits us to identify the root of under-prediction as EGPB arising from the general tendency to underestimate the speed at which exponential processes unfold. RESULTS: Respondents make predictions about the path of the disease using a model that is substantially less convex than the actual data generating process. This creates significant EGPB, which, in turn, is significantly and negatively associated with non-compliance with safety measures. The bias is significantly higher for respondents from countries at a later stage relative to those at an early stage of disease progression. A simple behavioral nudge that shows prior data in terms of raw numbers, as opposed to a graph, causally reduces EGPB. CONCLUSION: Behavioral biases concerning the comprehension of disease data are quantitatively important, and act as severe impediments to effective policy action against the spread of COVID-19. Clear communication of future infection risk via raw numbers could increase the accuracy of risk perception, in turn, facilitating compliance with suggested protective behaviors.

Compliance with hygiene practices among healthcare workers in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU)-related healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) are two to three times higher in lower-income countries than in higher-income ones. Hand cleansing and other hygiene measures have been documented as one of the most effective measures in combating the transmission of HCAIs. There is a paucity of data pertaining to hygiene practices in the ICU in developing countries. OBJECTIVES: To determine compliance with hygiene practices among healthcare workers in a tertiary hospital ICU. METHODS: Hygiene practices of healthcare workers in a tertiary academic hospital ICU in Johannesburg, South Africa, were discreetly observed over an 8-week period. Compliance with hand cleansing and other hygiene practices was documented and analysed. Retrospective consent was obtained, and subject confidentiality was maintained. RESULTS: A total of 745 hygiene opportunities were observed. Of the 156 opportunities where handwashing with soap and water was indicated (20.9%), compliance was noted in 89 cases (57.1%), while an alcohol-based hand rub was inappropriately used in 34 cases (21.8%) and no hand hygiene was performed in the remaining 33 cases (21.1%). Of the 589 opportunities where an alcohol-based hand-rub was indicated, it was used in 312 cases (53.0%). Compliance with the donning of disposable surgical gloves, disposable plastic aprons and being 'bare below the elbows' was noted in 114 (90.6%), 108 (71.1%) and 355 (47.7%) opportunities, respectively, where these were indicated. CONCLUSIONS: Overall compliance with hygiene measures among healthcare workers in the ICU was suboptimal in this study, but in keeping with general international trends. Regular retraining of staff, frequent reminders, peer oversight and regular audits may improve compliance.

Both Handwashing and an Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer Intervention Reduce Soil and Microbial Contamination on Farmworker Hands during Harvest, but Produce Type Matters.

Hand hygiene interventions are critical for reducing farmworker hand contamination and preventing the spread of produce-associated illness. Hand hygiene effectiveness may be produce-commodity specific, which could influence implementation strategies. This study's goal was to determine if produce commodity influences the ability of handwashing with soap and water or two-step alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) interventions to reduce soil and bacteria on farmworker hands. Farmworkers (n = 326) harvested produce (cantaloupe, jalapeño, and tomato) for 30 to 90 minutes before engaging in handwashing, two-step ABHS (jalapeño and cantaloupe), or no hand hygiene. Hands were rinsed to measure amounts of soil (absorbance at 600 nm) and indicator bacteria (coliforms, Enterococcus sp., generic Escherichia coli, and Bacteroidales universal [AllBac] and human-specific [BFD] 16S rRNA gene markers). Without hand hygiene, bacterial concentrations (0.88 to 5.1 log10 CFU/hand) on hands significantly differed by the produce commodity harvested. Moderate significant correlations (ρ = -0.41 to 0.56) between soil load and bacterial concentrations were observed. There were significant produce-commodity-specific differences in the ability of handwashing and two-step ABHS interventions to reduce soil (P < 0.0001), coliforms (P = 0.002), and Enterococcus sp. (P = 0.003), but not the Bacteroidales markers AllBac (P = 0.4) or BFD (P = 0.3). Contamination on hands of farmworkers who harvested cantaloupe was more difficult to remove. Overall, we found that a two-step ABHS intervention was similar to handwashing with soap and water at reducing bacteria on farmworker hands. In summary, produce commodity type should be considered when developing hand hygiene interventions on farms.IMPORTANCE This study demonstrated that the type of produce commodity handled influences the ability of handwashing with soap and water or a two-step alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) intervention to reduce soil and bacterial hand contamination. Handwashing with soap and water, as recommended by the FDA's Produce Safety Rule, when tested in three agricultural environments, does not always reduce bacterial loads. Consistent with past results, we found that the two-step ABHS method performed similarly to handwashing with soap and water but also does not always reduce bacterial loads in these contexts. Given the ease of use of the two-step ABHS method, which may increase compliance, the two-step ABHS method should be further evaluated and possibly considered for implementation in the agricultural environment. Taken together, these results provide important information on hand hygiene effectiveness in three agricultural contexts.