Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:06:56.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An In-Use Evaluation of an Alcohol-Based Pre-Surgical Hand Disinfectant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Elizabeth A. Bryce ,
Darlene Spence  and
Frederick J. Roberts
Elizabeth A. Bryce*
Affiliation:
Division of Infection Control/Medical Microbiology, Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Darlene Spence
Affiliation:
Division of Infection Control/Medical Microbiology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Frederick J. Roberts
Affiliation:
Division of Infection Control/Medical Microbiology, Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Division of Infection Control/Medical Microbiology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
*
Division of Infection Control/Medical Microbiology, JPN1111-899 West 12th Ave, Vancouver Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia V5Z1M9, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine whether alcohol hand disinfection is an effective alternative to traditional agents for the pre-surgical scrub.

Design:

A prospective clinical trial of a 70% isopropanol pre-surgical hand disinfectant.

Setting:

The operating room suites at two hospital sites in British Columbia.

Methods:

Cases were selected to evaluate both short and longer procedures. The hand disinfectant was compared to agents in current use as surgical scrubs (4% chlorhexidine and 7.5% povidone-iodine). Surgical technique and glove use were not modified. Pre- and postoperative fingertip impression and “glove-juice” cultures were used to determine microbial burden, and hands were evaluated for skin integrity.

Results:

There was no statistical difference between the microbial hand counts following use of the alcohol-based product or the current agents, for cases less than 2 hours' duration. Comparison of longer surgical cases revealed significantly better pre- and postoperative culture results with the alcohol hand rinse, but analysis of matched pairs showed no significant difference in microbial counts. The alcohol hand rinse was equivalent to the operative scrub in terms of skin integrity and user acceptability.

Conclusion:

An alcohol hand rinse was equivalently effective in reducing microbial hand counts as the traditional pre-surgical scrub, both immediately after hand disinfection and at the end of the surgical procedure.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 22 , Issue 10 , October 2001 , pp. 635 - 639
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Rotter, ML. Hand washing and hand disinfection. In: Mayhall, CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1999:1339–1355.Google Scholar
2. Rotter, ML, Simpson, RA, Roller, W. Surgical hand disinfection with alcohols at various concentrations: parallel experiments using the new proposed European standards method. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:778–781.Google Scholar
3. 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;36:49–65.Google Scholar
4. Paulson, DS, Fendler, EJ, Dolan, MJ, Williams, RA. A close look at alcohol gel as an antimicrobial sanitizing agent. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:332–338.Google Scholar
5. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Surgical Hand Scrub Formulations. E1115-91. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM; 1997.Google Scholar
6. Aly, R, Maibach, HI. Comparative antibacterial efficacy of a 2-minute surgical scrub with chlorhexidine gluconate, povidone-iodine, and chloroxylenol sponge-brushes. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:173–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Paulson, DS. A broad-based approach to evaluating topical antimicrobial products. In: Ascenzi, JM, ed. Handbook of Disinfectants and Antiseptics. New York, NY: Marcel-Dekker; 1996:17–42.Google Scholar
8. Samples, population and inference. In: Ingelfinger, JA, Mosteller, F, Thibodeau, LK, Ware, JH, eds. Biostatistics in Clinical Medicine. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Co, Inc; 1983:123.Google Scholar
9. Statistical inference. In: Armitage, P, Berry, G, eds. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1994:112.Google Scholar
10. Ayliffe, GA. Surgical scrub and skin disinfection. Infect Control 1984;5:23–27.Google Scholar
11. Larson, E. Guidelines for use of topical antimicrobial agents. Am J Infect Control 1988;15:253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Hobson, DW, Woller, W, Anderson, L, Guthery, E. Development and evaluation of a new alcohol-based surgical hand scrub formulation with persistent antimicrobial characteristics and brushless application. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:507–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Benson, L, Bush, L, LeBlanc, D. Importance of neutralizers in the stripping fluid in a simulated healthcare personnel handwash. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11:595–599.Google Scholar