Evaluating the tolerability and acceptability of an alcohol-based hand rub – real-life experience with the WHO protocol

Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control

Aline Wolfensberger¹  Nina Durisch¹  Juliane Mertin¹  Evelyne Ajdler-Schaeffler¹  Hugo Sax¹ 

[1] Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Raemistrasse 100, Zurich CH-8091, Switzerland

关键词: World Health Organization;    Acceptability;    Tolerability;    Alcohol-based hand rub;    Hand hygiene;   

Others  :  1183510
DOI  :  10.1186/s13756-015-0052-9

 received in 2014-12-23, accepted in 2015-03-16,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Optimizing user satisfaction with alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHR) may be vital to enhance hand hygiene performance. This study tested the tolerability and acceptability of a new ABHR (EVO9; Ecolab) in healthcare workers under daily working conditions and evaluated the practicability of the corresponding WHO protocol.

Methods

We strictly applied the WHO single product ABHR evaluation protocol. A trained observer assessed hand skin conditions of healthy volunteers using at least 30 ml ABHR per day during their clinical work at baseline, day 3–5 and one month (visit 1–3). Participants rated ABHR tolerability and acceptability at visit 2 and 3. Additionally, we registered study time for participants and study team.

Results

Among 46 volunteers, 76% were female; 37% nurses, 28% physicians. Skin was observer-rated “not” or “incidentally” dry in 64.4%, 77.8%, and 90.9% participants at visit 1, 2, and 3, respectively. EVO9 was scored ≥5 (progressive scale, 1–7) for appearance, intactness, moisture content, and sensation by 95.7%, 97.7%, 88.9%, and 97.8% participants at visit 3, respectively. All WHO benchmarks were exceeded except for “speed of drying” at visit 2, and “texture” at visit 2 and 3. Cumulative study time expenditure was 14 days for the observer and four days for participants.

Conclusions

EVO9 was well tolerated and accepted according to the WHO single ABHR evaluation protocol with the potential for improvement for stickiness. The WHO protocol is feasible but requires considerable time and logistics. It does not preclude bias, in this case especially due to the necessary switch to personal dispensers.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Wolfensberger et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Pittet D, Allegranzi B, Boyce J. The World Health Organization Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care and their consensus recommendations. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009; 30:611-622.
• [2]Chen YC, Sheng WH, Wang JT, Chang SC, Lin HC, Tien KL et al. Effectiveness and limitations of hand hygiene promotion on decreasing healthcare-associated 297 infections. PLoS One. 2011;6:e27163
• [3]Grayson ML, Russo PL, Cruickshank M, Bear JL, Gee CA, Hughes CF, et al. Outcomes from the first 2 years of the Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative. Med J Aust. 2011;195:615–9.
• [4]Behnke M, Gastmeier P, Geffers C, Monch N, Reichardt C. Establishment of a national surveillance system for alcohol-based hand rub consumption and change in consumption over 4 years. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012; 33:618-620.
• [5]Roberts SA, Sieczkowski C, Campbell T, Balla G, Keenan A. Implementing and sustaining a hand hygiene culture change programme at Auckland District Health Board. N Z Med J. 2012; 125:75-85.
• [6]Stone SP, Fuller C, Savage J, Cookson B, Hayward A, Cooper B, et al. Evaluation of the national Cleanyourhands campaign to reduce Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia and Clostridium difficile infection in hospitals in England and Wales by improved hand hygiene: four year, prospective, ecological, interrupted time series study. BMJ. 2012;344:e3005.
• [7]Borges LF, Rocha LA, Nunes MJ, Gontijo Filho PP. Low compliance to handwashing program and high nosocomial infection in a brazilian hospital. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2012; 2012:579681.
• [8]Boyce JM. Update on hand hygiene. Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41:S94-96.
• [9]The World Health Organisation (2009) WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: a Summary. [http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2009/WHO_IER_PSP_2009.07_eng.pdf?ua=1]
• [10]Larson E, Killien M. Factors influencing handwashing behavior of patient care personnel. Am J Infect Control. 1982; 10:93-99.
• [11]Larson E, Girard R, Pessoa-Silva CL, Boyce J, Donaldson L, Pittet D. Skin reactions related to hand hygiene and selection of hand hygiene products. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:627–35.
• [12]Zimakoff J, Kjelsberg AB, Larsen SO, Holstein B. A multicenter questionnaire investigation of attitudes toward hand hygiene, assessed by the staff in fifteen hospitals in Denmark and Norway. Am J Infect Control. 1992; 20:58-64.
• [13]The World Health Organisation (2009). [http://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/tools/evaluation_feedback/en/] webcite Tools for evaluation and feedback []: Protocol for Evaluation of tolerability and acceptability of alcohol-based handrub in use or planned to be introduced: Method 1. [http://www.who.int/entity/gpsc/5may/Protocol_for_Evaluation_of_Handrub_Meth1.doc?ua=1 webcite]
• [14]The World Health Organisation (2009). [http://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/tools/evaluation_feedback/en/] webcite Tools for evaluation and feedback []: Protocol for Evaluation of tolerability and acceptability of alcohol-based handrub in use or planned to be introduced: Method 2. [http://www.who.int/entity/gpsc/5may/Protocol_for_Evaluation_of_Handrub_Meth2.doc?ua=1 webcite]
• [15]Pittet D, Allegranzi B, Sax H, Chraiti MN, Griffiths W et al.. Double-blind, randomized, crossover trial of 3 hand rub formulations: fast-track evaluation of tolerability and acceptability. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007; 28:1344-1351.
• [16]Highley DR, Savoyka B, Oneill JJ, Ward JB. A Stereomicroscopic Method For The Determination Of Moisturizing Efficacy In Humans. Presented May 30, 1976, SCC Annual Seminar, St. Louis, Mo; 1975.
• [17]Fitzpatrick TB. The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Arch Dermatol. 1988; 124:869-871.
• [18]Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336:601–5.