medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán

2010, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Invest Clin 2010; 62 (6)

Surgical team satisfaction levels between two preoperative hand-washing methods

Vergara-Fernández O, Morales-Olivera JM, Ponce-de-León-Rosales S, Vega-Batista R, Mejía-Ovalle R, Huertas-Jiménez M, Ponce-de-León A, Navarrete M, Ponce-de-León S, Macías A, Takahashi-Monroy T

Language: Spanish
References: 31
Page: 532-537
PDF size: 59.93 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction. Recently, there have been new antiseptics for surgical scrub that do not require brushing. One of them contains 1% chlorhexidine gluconate and 61% ethyl alcohol; within its benefits, it may offer a low potential for skin sensitization, as well as cost savings and less use of water. Objectives. To evaluate satisfaction levels, washing time, safety, cost and amount of water between the traditional surgical scrub technique (group A) and brush-free surgical scrub procedure (group B). Material and methods. One hundred clean and clean-contaminated surgeries with four hundred members of surgical teams were included. Satisfaction levels, hand-washing time, skin disorders and problems associated with placement of gloves were evaluated. Hands cultures were taken in 20% of the population and the amount of water used by patients in group A was measured. Total costs and wound infections were analyzed. Results. Satisfaction scale in group A was 9.1 ± 1.39 and 9.5 ± 1.54 in group B (p = 0.004). The mean hand-washing time was 3.9 ± 1.07 min in group A and 2.0 ± 0.47 min in group B (p = 0.00001). Thirteen patients had dry skin in group A and four in group B (6.5% vs. 2%; p = 0.02). There were ten positives cultures in group A and five in group B (25% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.152). Wound infection rate was 3%. On average, five-hundred eighty liters of water were used by the former group, and the estimated hand-washing cost was lower in the second group. Conclusions. The handwashing technique with CGEA is as effective as traditional surgical scrub technique, and it is associated with less washing time, dry skin, cost and use of water.


REFERENCES

  1. Boyce JM, Pittet D. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee; HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Association for Professionals in Infection Control/Infectious Diseases Society of America. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002; 51(RR-16):1-45. Quiz CE1-4.

  2. Kampf G, Pitten FA, Heeg P, Christiansen B. Efficacy of two ethanol-based skin antiseptic on the forehead at shorter applications times. BMC Microbiology 2007; 7: 85.

  3. Furukawa K, Ogawa R, Norose Y, Tajiri T. A new surgical handwashing and hand antisepsis from scrubbing to rubbing. J Nippon Med Sch 2004; 71(3): 190-7.

  4. Mulberrry G, Snyder AT, Heilman J, Pyrek J, Stahl J. Evaluation of a waterless, scrubless chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol surgical scrub for antimicrobial efficacy. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29(6): 377-82.

  5. Huynh NT, Commens CA. Scrubbing for cutaneous procedures can be hazardous. Australas J Dermatol 2002; 43: 102-4.

  6. Rutala WA. APIC guideline for selection and use of disinfectants. 1994, 1995, and 1996 APIC Guidelines Committee. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Am J Infect Control 1996; 24(4): 313-42.

  7. Kikuchi-Numagami K, Saishu T, Fukaya M, Kanazawa E, et al. Irritancy of scrubbing up for surgery with or without a brush. Acta Derm Venereol 1999; 79: 230-2.

  8. Parienti JJ, Thibon P, Séller R, Le Roux Y, et al. Hand-rubbing with an aqueous alcoholic solution vs. traditional surgical hand-scrubbing and 30-day surgical site infection rates: a randomized equivalence study. JAMA 2002; 288: 722-7.

  9. Grove GL, Zerweck CR, Heilman JM, Pyrek JD. Methods for evaluating changes in skin condition due to the effects of antimicrobial hand cleansers: two studies comparing a new waterless chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol-emollient antiseptic preparation with a conventional water-applied product. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29: 361-9.

  10. Christensen JB, Andersen BM, Thomassen SM, Johansen O, et al. The effects of ‘in-use’ surgical handwashingin the pr-and postoperative fingertip flora during cardiothoracic and orthopaedic surgery. J Hosp Infect 1995; 30: 283-93.

  11. Hoysal N. Indications for antimicrobial prophylaxis. In: Kester RC. Handbook of Infections in Surgery. 3rd Ed. London: Current Medicine Group Ltd; 2006, p. 45-53.

  12. Disponible en: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

  13. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, et al. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: A modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992; 13: 606-8.

  14. Thomas M, Hollins M. Epidemic of postoperative wound infection associated with ungloved abdominal palpation. Lancet 1974; 15: 1215-7.

  15. Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, Mourouga P, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Infection Control Programme. Lancet 2000; 356(9238): 1307-12.

  16. Girard R, Amazian K, Fabry J. Better compliance and better tolerance in relation to a well-conducted introduction to rub-in hand disinfection. J Hosp Infect 2001; 47(2): 131-7.

  17. Pereira LJ, Lee GM, Wade KJ. An evaluation of five protocols for surgical handwashing in relation to skin condition and microbial counts. J Hosp Infect 1997; 36(1): 49-65.

  18. Tanner J, Swarbrook S, Stuart J. Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; 23(1): CD004288.

  19. Nishimura C. Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of povidone- iodine, povidone-iodine-ethanol and chlorhexidine gluconate-ethanol surgical scrubs. Dermatology 2006; 212: 21-5.

  20. Haley RW, Culver DH, Morgan WM, White JW, Emori TG, Hooton TM. Identifying patients at high risk of surgical wound infection. A simple multivariate index of patient susceptibility and wound contamination. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121: 206-15.

  21. Takahashi-Monroy T. Cuidados postoperatorios en el paciente con cirugía de la región del colon, recto y ano. En: Takahashi T. Colon, recto y ano. 1a Ed. México: Editores de Textos Mexicanos; 2002: 58-9.

  22. Wilson MA. Skin and soft-tissue infections: impact of resistant gram-positive bacteria. Am J Surg 2003; 186: 35-41.

  23. Barie PS. Surgical site infections: Epidemiology and prevention. Surg Infect 2002; 3: 9-21.

  24. Barie PS, Eachempati SR. Surgical Site Infections. Surg Clin North Am 2005; 85: 1115-35.

  25. Garman ME, Orengo I. Unusual infectious complications of dermatologic procedures. Dermatol Clin 2003; 21: 321-35.

  26. Coffin SE, Zaoutis TE. Infection Control, Hospital Epidemiology and Patient Safety. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2005; 19: 647-65.

  27. Rotter, ML. Arguments for alcoholic hand disinfection. Hosp Infect 2001; 48: 4-5.

  28. Rotter ML, Simpson R, Koller, W. Surgical hand disinfection with alcohols at various concentrations: parallel experiments using the new proposed European standard methods. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998; 19: 778-81.

  29. Pieh, H. Hand antiseptics: rubs versus scrubs, alcoholic solutions versus alcoholic gels. J Hosp Infect 2001; 48: 33-6.

  30. Pereira LJ, Lee GM, Wade KJ. An evaluation of five protocols for surgical handwashing in relation to skin condition and microbial counts. J Hosp Infect 1997; 36(1): 49-65.

  31. Ahmed A. Surgical hand scrub: lots of water wasted. Ann Afr Med 2007; 6: 31-3.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com