Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:50:40.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Estimated incidence rate of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) linked to laundered reusable healthcare textiles (HCTs) in the United States and United Kingdom over a 50-year period: Do the data support the efficacy of approved laundry practices?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2021

Michael R. Overcash*
Affiliation:
Environmental Genome Initiative, Raleigh, North Carolina
Lynne M. Sehulster
Affiliation:
Environmental Infection Prevention, Lawrenceville, Georgia
*
Author for correspondence: Michael R. Overcash, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

To the Editor—The assumed transmission of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) from reusable healthcare textiles (HCTs) has been a perception in the decisions to use disposable versions of these textile items. Reference Tano and Melhus1Reference Tajeddin, Rashidan and Razaghi4 Here, we compared the 50-year publication record of HAIs related to laundry of HCTs to the overall actual occurrence of HAIs in hospitals over the same 50 years.

To reduce the risk of HAIs from reusable HCTs (ranging from linens to isolation gowns to surgical gowns), the reprocessing of these items involves a laundry process that renders the HCTs hygienically clean. In a well-studied database by Sehulster Reference Sehulster5 of all outbreak events published between 1970 and 2013, laundered, clean HCTs were implicated as a source of contamination leading to HAIs. Root causes linked to the introduction of microbial contamination of the laundered HCTs were mostly mechanical problems with laundry equipment or the occurrence of inadvertent environmental contamination. The Sehulster review followed the methodology of PRISMA Reference Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff and Altman6 and was peer reviewed. This same methodology was then used for the period of 2013–2020 and we found 3 more studies Reference Cheng, Chen and Wong7Reference Boonstra, Spijkerman and Voor in ‘t holt9 and another review, Reference Owen and Laird10 making the scope of this analysis 1970–2020.

For the purposes of the present assessment of reusable HCTs versus disposable alternatives, we have combined the United States and United Kingdom incidences of HCT laundry-associated HAIs in the 50-year period (1970–2020). Based on available national data, the HAI rate as a percentage of population for the United Kingdom and the United States in ∼1995, appears to be similar, 0.5%–0.6% of population, which is near the midpoint of the 50 years of covered in this HAI study (Table 1). In these past 50 years for the United Kingdom and the United States, the 10 published events involved 69 patients with HAIs attributed to reusable HCTs including patient gowns and other garments, bed linens (ie, sheets, pillows and pillow cases, blankets, towels), and in 1 instance mop pads for environmental cleaning of floors. Reference Sehulster5

Table 1. Available Data on HAIs in the United States and United Kingdom from 1972 to 2018

We documented the United States and United Kingdom average actual HAI rates of cases/year over these 50 years (Table 1). This average for the United States plus the United Kingdom was ∼2.0 million cases per year at the 1995 midpoint. Thus, the total number of HAI cases in the United States plus the United Kingdom over this entire 50-year period was ∼100 million actual cases (5,500 HAI cases per day in the US plus UK populations).

Based on the 69 HAIs attributed to laundered HCTs over 50 years, we further added a very high speculation factor that infections related to reusables may be underreported by using 100 times the reported laundry-related HAIs to do this risk analysis. Thus, the laundry-related HAIs were scaled to 6,900 in the entire 50 years of record (0.37 cases per day). That is, 69 was assumed to represent only 1% of the total laundry-related HAIs occurring as unreported. With this conservative upper estimate, this would mean that instead of the reported incidence ∼1 incident per year across these 50 years, we would expect to see upward of 100 HAI cases per year in the United States and United Kingdom combined attributable to laundered HCT, which seems unlikely based on reported practices, lawsuits, published notes, etc. Thus, the 100-fold factor seems conservative.

With this conservative estimate, the laundry-implicated HAIs in 6,900 patients for the United States and the United Kingdom over the past 50 years is ∼0.37 HAI case per day (2.6 HAI per week). The estimated total healthcare HAI for the United States and United Kingdom over this same period is 5,500 cases per day (38,000 cases per week) (Table 1). Thus, in probability terms, the chance of a patient having an HAI linked to contact with the laundered, reusable textile is ∼1 in 14,900 (5,500/0.37 = 14,900). As a reference, a person in the United States and the United Kingdom is more likely, based on the odds, to be struck by a meteor in any given year over a 78.5-year lifespan, which is 1 in 9,000. Reference Tamarchi18

Regarding cost, numerous articles acknowledge that on an annual basis, disposable textile items are more expensive compared to the cost of reusable textiles. Reference Laufman, Belkin and Meyer19Reference Gruendemann21 A recent economic analysis found that the disposables were approximately twice as expensive on an annual basis. Reference Overcash and Griffing22

In conclusion, the healthcare system is paying annually on the order of 10%–100% more for disposable HCTs with a risk improvement of ∼2.6 HAI per week in the United States and the United Kingdom, which would lower the HAI rate of these (combined) nations from 32,900 per week to 32,897 per week. This low risk of infection attributed to reusable HCTs is the basis for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) acknowledgment of the historical record of patient safety and extremely infrequent episodes of infection linked to these clean HCTs. Furthermore, the CDC concluded that the need to establish a healthcare laundry certification program based on microbiologic testing of cleaned, reusable HCTs does not appear to be supported by epidemiologic data. Reference Sehulster5,23 In conclusion, the annual cost savings from selecting reusable HCTs does not come with any measurable increased risk of HAI to patients and therefore represents a prudent healthcare facility decision. With the COVID-19 pressure on PPE, reusables are increasing substantially and so the results herein should build confidence in these decisions.

Acknowledgments

Financial support

No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2021.274

References

Tano, E, Melhus, A. Level of decontamination after washing textiles at 60°C or 70°C followed by tumble drying. Infect Ecol Epidemiol 2014;4:2431424320.Google ScholarPubMed
Moore, G, Griffith, C. A laboratory evaluation of the decontamination properties of microfiber cloths. J Hosp Infect 2006;64:379385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fijan, S, Šostar Turk, S. Hospital textiles, are they a possible vehicle for healthcare-associated infections? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2012;9:33303342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tajeddin, E, Rashidan, M, Razaghi, M, et al. The role of the intensive care unit environment and health-care workers in the transmission of bacteria associated with hospital acquired infections. J Infect Public Health 2016;9:1323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sehulster, L. Healthcare laundry and textiles in the United States: review and commentary on contemporary infection prevention issues. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:10731088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, V, Chen, J, Wong, S, et al. Hospital outbreak of pulmonary and cutaneous zygomycosis due to contaminated linen items from substandard laundry. Clin Infect Dis 2016;62:714721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teal, L, Schultz, K, Weber, D, et al. Invasive cutaneous rhizopus infections in an immunocompromised patient population associated with hospital laundry carts. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1:12511253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boonstra, M, Spijkerman, D, Voor in ‘t holt, A, et al. An outbreak of ST307 extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a rehabilitation center: an unusual source and route of transmission. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020;41:3136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, L, Laird, K. The role of textiles as fomites in the healthcare environment: a review of the infection control risk. Peer J 2020;8:e9790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haley, R, Culver, D, White, J, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:182205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sencer, D, Axnick, D. Utilization of cost–benefit analysis in planning prevention programs. Acta Med Scand 1974;Suppl 576:123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klevens, R, Edwards, J, Richards, C, et al. Estimating healthcare-associated infections and deaths in US hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep 2007;122:160166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimlichman, E, Henderson, D, Tamir, O, et al. Healthcare-associated infections, a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US healthcare system. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:20392046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House of Commons Library Research Service. Raising standards of infection prevention and control in the NHS. House of Commons Library, No. CDP-2018-0116, 23. US Parliament website. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2018-0116/. Published May 14, 2018. Accessed April 9, 2020.Google Scholar
Fast facts on US hospitals (2015 survey). American Hospital Association website. https://www.aha.org/system/files/2018-01/fast-facts-us-hospitals-2017_0.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2020.Google Scholar
Fast facts on US hospitals (2018 survey). American Hospital Association website. https://www.aha.org/system/files/2020-01/fast-facts-us-hospitals-2020_0.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2020.Google Scholar
Tamarchi, M. What are the odds? How Stuff Works website. https://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditons/death-dying/odds-of-death.htm. Accessed May 2, 2020.Google Scholar
Laufman, H, Belkin, N, Meyer, K. A critical review of a century’s progress in surgical apparel: how far have we come? Surg Apparel 2000;191:554568.Google ScholarPubMed
Rutala, W, Weber, D. A review of single-use and reusable gowns and drapes in health care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:248257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruendemann, B. Taking cover: single-use vs. reusable gowns and drapes. Infect Control Today 2002;6:3234.Google Scholar
Overcash, M, Griffing, E, National Economic Comparisons of Reusable and Single-Use Cleanroom Textile Products. Shawnee Mission, KS: American Reusable Textile Association; 2019: 8 pp.Google Scholar
CDC/HICPAC Guidelines for environmental infection control in healthcare facilities. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/eic. Published 2003, updated July, 2019. Accessed March 31, 2020.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Available Data on HAIs in the United States and United Kingdom from 1972 to 2018

Supplementary material: File

Overcash and Sehulster supplementary material

Overcash and Sehulster supplementary material

Download Overcash and Sehulster supplementary material(File)
File