RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The hospital water environment is an important reservoir of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and presents a risk for patient safety. We assessed the effectiveness of thermal and chemical interventions on sinks contaminated with MDRO in the hospital setting. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional assessment of MDRO contamination of sinks and toilets in 26 clinical wards of a tertiary care hospital. MDRO-contaminated sink traps were then replaced and randomized (1:1:1) to receive chemical (sodium hypochlorite), thermal disinfection (steam), or no intervention. Interventions were repeated weekly for 4 weeks. Sinks were resampled 7 days after the last intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of decontaminated sinks. MDROs of interest were extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales, and non-fermentative Gram-negative bacilli. RESULTS: In the cross-sectional assessment, at least one MDRO was identified in 258 (36%) of the 748 samples and in 91 (47%) of the 192 water sources. In total, 57 (42%) of the 137 sinks and 34 (62%) of the 55 toilets were contaminated with 137 different MDROs. The most common MDRO were ESBL Enterobacterales (69%, 95/137), followed by Verona Integron-Borne Metallo-ß-Lactamase (VIM) carbapenemase producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa (9%, 12/137) and Citrobacter spp. (6%, 5/137). In the nested randomized trial, five of the 16 sinks (31%) in the chemical disinfection group were decontaminated, compared with 8 of 18 (44%) in the control group (OR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.14-2.32) and 9 of 17 (53%) in the thermal disinfection group (OR 1.40; 95% CI, 0.37-5.32). DISCUSSION: Our study failed to demonstrate an added benefit of repeated chemical or thermal disinfection, beyond changing sink traps, in the MDRO decontamination of sinks. Routine chlorine-based disinfection of sinks may need to be reconsidered.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers often experience skin dryness and irritation from performing hand hygiene frequently. Low acceptability and tolerability of a formulation are barriers to hand hygiene compliance, though little research has been conducted on what specific types of formulation have higher acceptability than others. OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptability and tolerability of an ethanol-based handrub gel with superfatting agents to the isopropanol-based formulations (a rub and a gel formulation) currently used by healthcare workers at the University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. METHODS: Forty-two participants were randomized to two sequences, testing the isopropanol-based formulation that they are using currently (Hopirub® or Hopigel®), and the ethanol-based formulation containing superfatting agents (Saniswiss Sanitizer Hands H1). Participants tested each of the formulations over 7-10 day work shifts, after which skin condition was assessed and feedback was collected. RESULTS: H1 scored significantly better than the control formulations for skin dryness (P = 0.0209), and participants felt less discomfort in their hands when using that formulation (P = 0.0448). H1 caused less skin dryness than Hopirub®/Hopigel® (P = 0.0210). Though overall preference was quite polarized, 21 participants preferred H1 intervention formulation and 17 preferred the Hopirub®/Hopigel® formulation that they normally used in their care activities. CONCLUSION: We observed a difference in acceptability and strongly polarized preferences among the participants' reactions to the formulations tested. These results indicate that giving healthcare workers a choice between different high-quality products is important to ensure maximum acceptability.
