Assessment of two hand hygiene regimens for intensive care unit personnel
- 1 May 2001
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Critical Care Medicine
- Vol. 29 (5) , 944-951
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200105000-00007
Abstract
To compare skin condition and skin microbiology among intensive care unit personnel using one of two randomly assigned hand hygiene regimens: a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-containing traditional antiseptic wash and a waterless handrub containing 61% ethanol with emollients (ALC). Prospective, randomized clinical trial. Two critical care units (medical and surgical) in a large, metropolitan academic health center in Manhattan. Fifty staff members (physicians, nurses, housekeepers, respiratory therapists) working full time in the intensive care unit. One of two hand hygiene regimens randomly assigned for four consecutive weeks. The two outcomes were skin condition (measured by two tools: Hand Skin Assessment form and Visual Skin Scaling form) and skin microbiology. Samples were obtained at baseline, on day 1, and at the end of wks 2 and 4. Participants in the ALC group had significant improvements in the Hand Skin Assessment scores at wk 4 (p = 0.04) and in Visual Skin Scaling scores at wks 3 (p = 0.01) and 4 (p = 0.0005). There were no significant differences in numbers of colony-forming units between participants in the CHG or ALC group at any time period. The ALC regimen required significantly less time than the CHG regimen (mean: 12.7 secs and 21.1 secs, respectively;p = 0.000) and resulted in a 50% reduction in material costs. Changes in hand hygiene practices in acute care settings from the traditional antiseptic wash to use of plain, mild soap and an alcohol-based product should be considered. Further research is needed to examine the association between use of antiseptic products for hand hygiene of staff and reductions in nosocomial infection rates among patients.Keywords
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital useBritish Journal of Dermatology, 2000
- Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) activity against clinical isolates of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREF) and the effects of moisturizing agents on CHG residue accumulation on the skinJournal of Hospital Infection, 1997
- Prevalence and correlates of skin damage on the hands of nursesHeart & Lung, 1997
- APIC guidelines for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settingsAmerican Journal of Infection Control, 1995
- Self-perceived sensory responses to soap and synthetic detergent bars correlate with clinical signs of irritationPublished by Elsevier ,1995
- The Effects of Surfactant Systems and Moisturizing Products on the Residual Activity of a Chlorhexidine Gluconate Handwash Using a Pigskin SubstrateInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 1990
- Physiologic, microbiologic, and seasonal effects of handwashing on the skin of health care personnelAmerican Journal of Infection Control, 1986
- Physiologic and Microbiologic Changes in Skin Related to Frequent HandwashingInfection Control, 1986
- Irritancy of Low Concentrations of Soap and Synthetic Detergents as Measured by Skin Water LossDermatology, 1982
- A Method for Visualizing and Quantitating the Desquamating Portion of the Human Stratum Corneum**From the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 1969