Ángeles-Garay U, Molinar-Ramos F, Anaya-Flores VE, López-Guerrero ME

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 15-22
PDF size: 154.50 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Hands’ hygiene is the most important and effective measure to prevent the transmission of infections en the hospital environment. Despite of that, its accomplishment does not overcome 40% out of times that is indicated. One alternative to fortify the hands’ hygiene is using of alcohol base solutions.
Objective: Compare the effectiveness of utilization of alcohol base gel for the hands’ hygiene with the traditional hands’ washing technique in the reduction of Formation Units of Colonies (FUC) both permanent and temporal from doctors and nurses’ hands.
Methodology: With the participation of doctors and nurses of the Critical Care and Hematology Units, it was made an observation of traditional hands’ washing with water, soap, and paper towels; and hands’ hygiene utilizing alcohol base gel. The account and identification of germs for both procedures was obtained from bacteriologic samples recollected before and after each procedure. The statistic analysis implied simple frequencies, central tendency measurements and dispersion; logarithmic reduction (Log 10); non parametric correlation, test of normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov & Shapiro Wilk; and U of Mann-Whitney.
Results: From 108 observed procedures, the value of UFC-Log 10 medians previous to the traditional hands washing and utilization of alcohol base gel, was respectively 3 and 2.48. After the procedures was 2.3 and 0.95, with reduction of UFC-Log10 to 0.7 versus 1.53 (P≤0.01). Thirteen different germs were identified on 88 cultures done. The group of nurses had more reduction of UFC-Log10 than doctors (p≤0.05).
Conclusions: With the utilization of alcohol base gel, it was obtained a decrement of bacterial accounts significantly major than with the traditional hand washing.

REFERENCES

1. Harris AD, Samore MH, Nafziger R, DiRosario K, Roghmann MC, Carmeli Y. A survey on handwashing practices and opinions of healthcare workers. J Hosp Infec 2000; 45: 318-321.

2. Karabey S, Ay P, Derbentli S, Nakipglu Y. Esen F. Handwashing frequencies in an intensive care unit. J Hosp Infec 2002; 50: 36-41.

3. Sharir R, N Teitler, Lavi I, Raz R. High-level handwashing compliance in a community teaching hospital: a challenge that can be met! J Hosp Infec 2001; 49: 55-58.

4. Stein AD, Makarawo TP, Ahmad MF. A survey of doctors’ and nurses’ knowledge, attitudes and compliance with infection control guidelines in Birmingham teaching hospitals. J Hosp Infec. 2003; 54:68-73.

5. Bermejo J, Wertz A, Bencomo B, Lesnaberes P, Notario R. Effect of alcohol gel hand hygiene on nosocomial infections due multi-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae.

6. Cohen B, Saiman L, Cimiotti J et al. Factors associated with hand hygiene practices in two neonatal intensive care units. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003; 22: 494-498.

7. Vincent JL. Nosocomial infections in adult intensive-care units. Lancet. 2003; 361:2068–2077.

8. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. MMWR 2002; 51: RR-16.

9. 9. Kampf G, Ostermeyer C. Intra-laboratory reproducibility of the hand hygiene reference procedures of EN 1499 (hygienic handwash) and EN1500 (hygienic hand disinfection). J Hosp Infec. 2002; 52:219-224 14.

10. Kampf G, Ostermeyer C. Inter-laboratory reproducibility of the hand disinfection reference procedure of EN 1500. J Hosp Infec. 2003; 53:304-306.

11. Gopal-Rao G, Jeanes A, Osman M, Aylott C, Green J. Marketing hand hygiene in hospitals-a case study. J Hosp Infec. 2002; 50:42-47.

12. McGuckin M, Waterman R, Storr J et al. Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of five products for surgical hand disinfection according to prEN 12054 and prEN 12791. J Hosp Infec. 2003; 54:63–67.

13. Public Health. Benton-Franklin Health District www.bfnd.wa.gov.

14. Lucet JC, Rigaud MP, Mentrey F et al. Hand contamination before and after different hand hygiene techniques: a randomized clinical trial. J Hosp Infec 2002; 50:276-280.

15. Wayne DW Bioestadística: base para el análisis de las ciencias de la salud. Ed. Limusa 1999: 717-723.

16. Kampf G, Kapellab M. Suitability of Sterillium Gele for surgical hand disinfection. J Hosp Infec.2003; 54: 222–225.

17. Herruzo-Cabrera R, Vizcaino-Alcaide MJ, Fernández-Aciñero MJ. Usefulness of an Alcohol Solution of N-Duopropenide for the Surgical Antisepsis of the Hands Compared with Handwashing with Iodine-Povidone and Chlorhexidine: Clinical Essay. Journal of Surgical Research. 2000; 94:6-12.

18. Herruzo-Cabrera R, García-Caballero J, Fernández-Aceñero MJ. A new alcohol solution (N-duopropenide) for hygienic (or routine) hand disinfection is more useful than classic handwashing: in vitro and in vivo studies in burn and other intensive care units. Burns 2001; 27:747-752.

19. Kramer A, Rudolph P, Kampf G, Pitet D. Limited effectiveness of alcohol-based hand gels. Lancet 2002; 359:1489-90.

20. Colombo C, Giger H, Grote J et al. Impact of teaching interventions on nurse compliance with hand desinfection J Hosp Infect 2002; 51:69-72.

21. Feather A, Stone SP, Wessier A, Boursicot KA, Pratt C. Now please wash your hands: the handwashing behaviour of final MBBS candidates. J Hosp Infec. 2000; 45:62–64.

22. Wolf R, Wolf D, Tüzün B, Tüzün Y. Soaps, Shampoos, and Detergents. Clinics in Dermatology. 2001; 19: 393–397.

23. Dancer SJ. Mopping up hospital infection. J Hosp Infec. 1999; 43:85–100.

24. Montville R, Chen Y, Schaffner DW. Risk assessment of hand washing effectiveness using literature and experimental data. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2002; 73: 305–313.