880 infection control & hospital epidemiology july 2017, vol. 38, no. 7


4. Wehrl M, Michels W. A method for testing the cleaning of MIS robotic instruments. Central Service 2013;3:202–207.


5. Wehrl M, Albers G, Bühler K, et al. Round robin tests conducted by the working group Da Vinci (AG DaVinci) to establish a method for testing the cleaning of MIS robotic instruments. Central Service 2014;3:173–179.


6. Carter A, Krüger S, Schmidt V, et al. Guideline compiled by the DGKH, DGSV and AKI for validation and routine monitoring of automated cleaning and disinfection processes for heat-resistant medical devices as well as advice on selecting washer-disinfectors. Central Service 2007;15:1–48.


7. Tollefson MK, Frank I, Gettman MT. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy decreases the incidence and morbidity of surgical site infections. Urology 2011;78:827–831.


8. Southworth PM. Infections and exposures: reported incidents associated with unsuccessful decontamination of reusable surgi- cal instruments. J Hosp Infect 2014;88:127–131.


9. MAUDE—Manufacturer and user facility device experience. US Food and Drug Administration website: http://www.accessdata. fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/detail.cfm? mdrfoi__id=5878988&pc=NAY. Published 2016. Accessed April 10, 2017.


10. Wendorf KA, Kay M, Baliga C, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-associated AmpC Escherichia coli outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:634–642.


alcohol-moisthands canresultin burns because static electricity may cause ignition of the vapor from the hand rub, although this is extremely uncommon. The goal certainly remains to make hand hygiene easier


for augmented compliance especially in hospital unitswithmany indications per healthcare worker and per shift.5 But how can this goal be achieved? If hands are rubbed until dry and shorter application times are desired, smaller volumes per application will be needed on average size hands, (eg, 1.5 or 2mL).Avolume of 1.5mL is considered sufficient for hand coverage by 95.8% of HCWs, and a volume of 2mLis considered sufficient by 98.5%.2 A volume of ~2mL would also be acceptable to users.6 Average- sized hands are dry after ~30 seconds. But based on efficacy data obtained with European Standard EN 1500, these volumes usually fail the EN 1500 efficacy requirement with mean log10 reductions between 3.05 and 4.03.3,4 Healthcare workers will certainly welcome shorter but


The Puzzle of Volume, Coverage, and Application Time in Hand Disinfection


To the Editor—Pires et al1 provide some interesting data and suggest that using 3mL hand rub and rubbing the volume into both hands for either 15 or 30 seconds yields a similar bacterial reduction on healthcare worker (HCW) hands. Although they did not look at the coverage of both hands after 15 or 30 seconds (eg, with a fluorescent dye), the data nevertheless suggest that once the hand rub is fairly distributed to both hands within 15 seconds, further rubbing does not add to the overall efficacy of 60% isopropanol. The general application of 3mL, however, deserves further consideration. Based on data from France, the use of 3mL is regarded by 99.8% of HCW as sufficient for complete hand coverage.2 At the same time, all studies indicate that on regular hands the application of 3mL keeps hands moist for more than 30 seconds,3,4 sometimes even for 60 seconds.2 The other side of this correlation is that an HCW will require a volume between 1.7 and 2.1mL depending on the type of hand rub3 if hands are to remain moist for 30 seconds. If the setting used by Pires et al with 3mL per application for a 15-second durationwere transferred into clinical practice, hands would still bemoist after 15 seconds and would need to dry during the next 15–45 seconds before further patient care activities. What would an HCW be able to do during the drying time? Also, having


equally effective hand disinfection. Recommending a smaller volume, however, should be assured from various viewpoints. This new volume should ensure coverage of both hands; this technique should be easy to perform and be effective on small and large hands. Coverage of hands can quite easily be measured with a fluorescent dye. At the same time, the sim- plicity of the rub-in technique can be evaluated. These mea- surements could provide the basis for testing the efficacy of such a change (eg, according to EN 1500). It may be time to review some parameters of current efficacy


testing standards. Hand size currently has no place in EN 1500. Why not have 3 subgroups of subjects with small, medium,


and large hands, respectively? A proposal for hand-size classi- fication has been made already.7 Each participant would initially have to determine how much volume is necessary to keep both hands wet (eg, for 20 or 30 seconds), resulting in a specific test volume per subject and application time. This volume would later be used for efficacy testing against the reference procedure. A second parameter for review may be the type of contamination in EN 1500. Having half of the hands in an Escherichia coli broth is associated with a high organic load on both hands. If the broth contained a black dye, hands would probably be classified as “visibly soiled” and should be washed instead of treated with a hand rub.8 A different type of contamination with a high inoculum but a substantially lower amount of organic load may better resemble clinical practice9; it may even show that 2mL of a hand rub is very effective.


acknowledgments


Financial support: No financial support was received in relation to this article. Potential conflict of interest: The author has worked in the past for Bode Chemie GmbH, Hamburg, Germany.


Günter Kampf, MD


Affiliation: University Medicine Greifswald, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald, Germany.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136