Article

Trial of alcohol-based hand gel in critical care units.

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 4.02). 07/2008; 29(6):577-9; author reply 580-2. DOI: 10.1086/587812
Source: PubMed
1 Bookmark
 · 
103 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The toll of health care-associated infections on patients and the seeming ease of the procedure thought best able to prevent them have focused a spotlight onto hand hygiene performance. Poor performance of hand hygiene by health care workers inspires outrage in the general public. Much is understood regarding barriers to and motivators of hand hygiene performance. Guidelines encouraging use of alcohol-based hand hygiene agents have facilitated hand hygiene improvement efforts. These efforts and evidence that improved hand hygiene performance is associated with a reduction in health care-associated infections should encourage those in the hand hygiene campaigns.
    Infectious disease clinics of North America 03/2011; 25(1):21-43. · 2.29 Impact Factor
  • Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology - INFECT CONTROL HOSP EPIDEMIOL. 01/2008; 29(6):580-582.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hand hygiene is effective to prevent the transmission of microorganisms in health care settings, but compliance remains low, even when easy access to hand cleaning agents is provided. Formulation of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHRs) may influence staff compliance to hand hygiene. The aim of this prospective longitudinal study (1 week) was to investigate possible differences of 4 different gel or liquid ABHR formulations, with or without virucidal claim among dental students. Participants were randomly assigned to dental treatment cubicles, equipped with either a gel or a liquid based ABHRs, with our without a virucidal claim. Participants assessed the subjective acceptability and the tolerability of test formulations on their hands over a period of 1 week using the 14 item, 7-point Lickert scale World Health Organization questionnaire. All tested ABHRs passed the subjective acceptability criteria of ≥50% above 4 for the items "color and fragrance" and for all other items of >75% above 4 and may be regarded as "good." Significant differences were observed between the 2 gels but not between the 2 liquid ABHRs. For subjective skin tolerability, no significant difference was observed between the liquid formulations after 1 consecutive week of application. However, the difference between the 2 gels was highly significant. Virucidal ABHR formulations may be better accepted and tolerated over prolonged periods by dental students than anticipated. The user acceptability of ABHRs depend more on the specific product's formula than its general category.
    American journal of infection control 07/2013; · 3.01 Impact Factor