Sustainability and novel technologies to improve environmental cleaning in healthcare - Implications and considerations.

Along with emerging technologies electrolysed water (EW) systems have been proposed for cleaning and/or disinfection in clinical areas. There is evidence for the use of EW in food-handling and the dairy industry however there is lack of evidence for EW as an effective cleaning and disinfecting agent in a clinical setting. Existing publications mostly are either laboratory based or from non-clinical settings. This is in direct contrast to other approaches used in healthcare cleaning. The aim of this paper is to provide infection prevention and control professionals with a risk assessment checklist using an evaluation of electrolysed water as an example of the analysis and consideration required prior to the introduction of any new technology and, in particular, the inclusion of sustainability.

Assessment of the efficacy of a patient hand wipe: development of a test method.

BACKGROUND: Much attention has focused on hand decontamination for healthcare workers, but little attention has been paid to patient hand hygiene. Patients confined to bed are often unable to access handwashing facilities. They could use an alcohol hand rub, but these are not advised for soiled hands or social hand hygiene. One alternative is the use of a hand wipe. However, it is important to ascertain the effectiveness of hand wipes for removal of transient micro-organisms from the hands. AIM: To develop a method to assess the antimicrobial efficacy of hand wipes compared with handwashing, and thus determine if a hand wipe can be acceptable for patient hand hygiene. METHODS: The methodology was based on European Standards EN 1499 (2013) and EN 1500 (2013) as there is no standard for hand wipes. The hands of 20 healthy volunteers were contaminated artificially by immersion in Escherichia coli, and then sampled before and after the use of a reference soft soap or hand wipes for 60 s. The counts obtained were expressed as log10, and the log10 reductions were calculated. FINDINGS: The hand wipe with no antimicrobial agent (control wipe) was inferior to the soft soap. However, the antimicrobial hand wipe was statistically non-inferior to the soft soap. A log10 reduction of 3.54 was obtained for the soft soap, 2.46 for the control hand wipe, and 3.67 for the antimicrobial hand wipe. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that the antimicrobial hand wipe, when applied for 60 s, is at least as good as soap and water, representing an acceptable alternative to handwashing from a bactericidal perspective.

The outcome competency framework for practitioners in infection prevention and control: use of the outcome logic model for evaluation.

Healthcare is delivered in a dynamic environment with frequent changes in populations, methods, equipment and settings. Infection prevention and control practitioners (IPCPs) must ensure that they are competent in addressing the challenges they face and are equipped to develop infection prevention and control (IPC) services in line with a changing world of healthcare provision. A multifaceted Framework was developed to assist IPCPs to enhance competence at an individual, team and organisational level to enable quality performance and improved quality of care. However, if these aspirations are to be met, it is vital that competency frameworks are fit for purpose or they risk being ignored. The aim of this unique study was to evaluate short and medium term outcomes as set out in the Outcome Logic Model to assist with the evaluation of the impact and success of the Framework. This study found that while the Framework is being used effectively in some areas, it is not being used as much or in the ways that were anticipated. The findings will enable future work on revision, communication and dissemination, and will provide intelligence to those initiating education and training in the utilisation of the competences.

A simultaneous outbreak of respiratory syncytial virus and parainfluenza virus type 3 in a newborn nursery.

Over a 3-week period, 20 of 34 (59%) infants in a newborn nursery developed nosocomial viral respiratory tract disease. Either respiratory syncytial virus (seven infants) or parainfluenza virus type 3 (five) or both (two) were demonstrated in respiratory secretions from 14 of the 20 symptomatic patients. Symptoms in the 20 infants included rhinitis (15 infants), cough (14), apnea (eight), pulmonary infiltrates (seven), and fever (six). There were no differences in symptoms between children infected with respiratory syncytial virus alone, with parainfluenza virus alone, or with both viruses concurrently. Patients were clustered in the nursery by agent: infants with the same virus tended to share contiguous bed spaces, supporting the concept that parainfluenza virus as well as respiratory syncytial virus can be transmitted from patient to patient. In addition to this risk for contiguous bed spaces, the presence of a nasogastric tube was associated with risk of illness (P less than 0.05). In the presence of a nursery outbreak of respiratory tract disease, more than one virus may circulate concurrently, and an individual patient may be infected simultaneously by more than one virus.