Bare below elbows: does this policy affect handwashing efficacy and reduce bacterial colonisation?

INTRODUCTION: UK Department of Health guidelines recommend that clinical staff are 'bare below the elbows'. There is a paucity of evidence to support this policy. One may hypothesise that absence of clothing around wrists facilitates more effective handwashing: this study aims to establish whether dress code affects bacterial colonisation before and after handwashing. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixty-six clinical staff volunteered to take part in the study, noting whether they were bare below the elbows (BBE) or not bare (NB). Using a standardised technique, imprints of left and right fingers, palms, wrists and forearms were taken onto mini agar plates. Imprints were repeated after handwashing. After incubation, colonies per plate were counted, and subcultures taken. RESULTS: Thirty-eight staff were BBE and 28 were not. A total of 1112 plates were cultured. Before handwashing there was no significant difference in number of colonies between BBE and NB groups (Mann-Whitney, P < 0.05). Handwashing reduced the colony count, with greatest effect on fingers, palms and dominant wrists (t-test, P < 0.05). Comparing the two groups again after handwashing revealed no significant difference (Mann-Whitney, P < 0.05). Subcultures revealed predominantly skin flora. CONCLUSIONS: There was a large variation in number of colonies cultured. Handwashing resulted in a statistically significant reduction in colony count on fingers, palms and dominant wrist regardless of clothing. We conclude that handwashing produces a significant reduction in number of bacterial colonies on staff hands, and that clothing that is not BBE does not impede this reduction.

POSSUM models in open abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM), Portsmouth (P) POSSUM and Vascular (V) POSSUM. The primary aim was to assess the validity of these scoring systems in a population of patients undergoing elective and emergency open AAA repair. The secondary intention was in the event that these equations did not fit all patients with an aneurysm; a new model would be developed and tested using logistic regression from the local data (Cambridge POSSUM). METHODS: POSSUM data items were collected prospectively in a group of 452 patients undergoing elective and emergency open AAA repair over an eight-year period. The operative mortality rates were compared with those predicted by POSSUM, P-POSSUM, V-POSSUM and Cambridge POSSUM. RESULTS: All models except V-POSSUM (physiology only) showed significant lack of fit when predicting mortality after open AAA surgery. It was found that the locally generated single unified model (Cambridge POSSUM) could successfully describe both elective and ruptured AAA mortality with good discrimination (chi(2)=9.24, 7 d.f., p=0.236, c-index=0.880). CONCLUSIONS: POSSUM, V-POSSUM and P-POSSUM may not be robust tools for comparing mortality between populations undergoing elective and emergency open AAA repair as once thought. The development and successful validation of Cambridge POSSUM provides a unified model to describe both elective and emergency AAAs together and should be validated in other geographical settings.