Surgical hand rubbing compared with surgical hand scrubbing: comparison of efficacy and costs

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Rouen University Hospital, France.
Journal of Hospital Infection (Impact Factor: 2.78). 06/2006; 63(1):55-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2005.11.012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of surgical hand rubbing (SHR) with the efficacy of surgical hand scrubbing (SHS), and to determine the costs of both techniques for surgical hand disinfection. A review of studies reported in the literature that compared the efficacy of SHS and SHR was performed using MEDLINE. The costs of SHR and SHS were estimated based on standard hospital costs. The literature showed that SHR had immediate efficacy that was similar to that of SHS, but SHR had a more lasting effect. SHR reduced costs by 67%. In conclusion, SHR is a cost-effective alternative to SHS.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To evaluate, by means of a microbiologic study, two kinds of soaps suggested by surgeons for presurgical handwashing, comparing a well-known antibacterial soap with a new soap formulated from vegetable oils. Materials and methods: Ten volunteers performed handwashing according to previously established protocols for routine antisepsis in operating rooms using 3 different soaps: a common, commercially marketed soap, serving as the control group (Group 1), with no antibacterial characteristics; a soap with 2% chlorhexidine (Group II); and a new soap formulated from vegetable oils at a concentration of 20%, known as surfactant, which was designed by the Chemistry Institute (Unesp/Araraquara – Grupo de Materiais Fotônicos) (Group III). The microbiological samples were collected immediately before and after handwashing and one hour later with the volunteer wearing surgical gloves. Results: ANOVA revealed that the following significant differences are found in the number of bacterial colonies: between soap types (a smaller number of colonies in the Group II soap), between periods (reduction in the number of colonies in the Group II soap), and the significant effect of the soap versus time interaction. Conclusion: The 2% chlorhexidine soap performed better in reducing the number of bacterial colonies on the hands immediately after handwashing and after one hour with the use of surgical gloves, when compared to the 20% surfactant soap.
  • Source
    Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 08/2014; 35(8):937-960. DOI:10.1086/677145 · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives To reduce the incidence rates of infections in the dental surgery environment, it is necessary to control the transmission of pathogens caused by the lack of hand hygiene of dental healthcare workers. The work presented is based on recent developments that emerged from a review of the latest scientific evidence. Its purpose is to provide an easy-to-consult guide to improve the compliance with new procedures and modern hydro-alcoholic preparations by dentists.Materials and methodsHand hygiene procedures and products were assessed by carrying out a concise and critical review of the most recent and academic literature on the topic.Results and conclusionsThe protection of patients and healthcare workers is guaranteed by a correct hand hygiene as well. Indeed, the WHO considers hand hygiene of high priority and promoted a campaign through the mass communication media called Save lives: wash your hands. At the time of the A(H1N1) influence virus, the Italian Ministry of Health put great emphasis on the importance of handwashing. In Europe, today we tend to replace the quite harsh washing with water, soap or detergents with the use of hydro-alcoholic preparations. In this paper we describe the methods and timings that can reduce the need to wash one's hands. These provide the same biocide effectiveness, yet they require less time and are simpler to use, thereby improving compliance of dental health workers in respect of hand hygiene.
    Prevenzione & Assistenza Dentale 06/2012; 38(2):43–50. DOI:10.1016/j.pad.2012.02.001