Disinfection
of shapes and sizes (with varying degrees of comfort), but all use the same mechanism. A charged nozzle applies a positive charge to the disinfectant particles as they are released from the sprayer. This does a number of very helpful things. First, the tightly packed fluid particles are all suddenly repelled from each other. This makes them spread out much further and faster, into a fine mist that covers a greater area. Secondly, the positively charged disinfectant seeks out negatively charged particles in the air, including all those troublesome microorganisms riding the air currents. This deodorises the air as any airborne bacteria are killed. Finally, these excited disinfectant particles behave differently as they fall, being drawn up under surfaces and around objects. This has a large number of benefits for the domestic cleaners who have access to it. The most prominent of these is the way the charged disinfectant seeks out microorganisms in the room being treated. One of the exercises I like to do when training is to show learners an image of a table and chairs. I ask the learners to guess where the touchpoints (places that receive the most contact) are on these items. They tend to point out the arms of the chair, the back perhaps, and the edge of the table. I then play a video and they all give a collective “ahh” when they watch a gentleman reach underneath his seat to draw it under him. The point of this exercise is to have learners
think creatively about where touchpoints are on objects. What we don’t tell these learners is that an electrostatic sprayer would reach all of these touchpoints, regardless of whether or not the cleaner was aware of them. This “wrapping around” effect has a multitude of applications for different elements within a room, particularly those elements which would otherwise be difficult to reach. High windowsills, curtain rails and light fittings are all usual suspects when looking for dust build-up that risks harbouring colonies of microorganisms. An electrostatic disinfectant solution cannot remove the dust, but it can combat the colonies living upon it. The benefits of this effect have already seen widespread and successful implementation for years now in agriculture, where the uniform deposition of solution and the ability to hit all surfaces aids in protecting crops.1
Electrostatic application in practice In a recent clinical trial at North Tees Hospital, electrostatic spraying technology formed part of the methodology used across three live wards to test the efficacy of a hypochlorous acid solution (a safe, water-based disinfectant). The trial reported a 30% reduction in CFUs (colony-
forming units) over nine weeks. The final 3-week phase of this trial introduced an additional step where domestic cleaners applied an electrostatic mist after cleaning, and this phase saw a sharp dip in the CFU numbers. This was due, in large part, to the solution being attracted towards the invisible colonies rather than hoping that the cleaners would locate every one of them. Similar studies conducted during the pandemic found similar results.2 The reason the electrostatic spray step was
introduced late in the trial was partly to highlight the difference between the manual spray-and- wipe method and this newer method. This had the unintended consequence of generating a lot of positive feedback from the staff using the electrostatic technology. They noted the increased speed of their disinfection regimen as the main benefit. The sprayers selected for use during the trial issued 4 litres of solution every 10 minutes, covering up to 10,000 square feet without needing a refill. Staff were delighted at the increased speed and the ease of use compared to the equivalent amount of wiping and dipping into buckets. This follows a similar benefit noted in a 2019 study that found electrostatic application was as effective as wiping when applying sporicidal disinfectant against C.difficile but was four times faster.3 What I found really interesting (and this is
not a judgement on any of the staff involved) was that the efficacy of the technology was not regarded as highly by the cleaning staff as the improvement that it made to their role. The fact that the electrostatic sprayers had caused a sharp drop in microbial load was secondary to the fact that the wards were cleaned quicker and with less physical effort. Backpacks filled with
solution made transport easier and refills less frequent, and a handheld nozzle attached to the pack by a short hose made application simple and safe from a manual handling perspective. The benefit to the end user of a faster clean
is obvious and understandable, but the wider implication for the environment’s other users is worth highlighting too. Due to the efficacy and speed of the disinfection provided by electrostatic technology, an area such as a hospital ward becomes more efficient – beds are turned around faster, rooms are ready quicker, and fogging of rooms (incurring long periods of inactivity) becomes a much rarer occurrence. This is not just when contrasted with traditional manual processes but also with other contemporary technologies such as UV, as a 2022 study in the US demonstrated.4
Factoring in resistance to change When introducing any technology, it is essential to engage with the end user and other stakeholder groups to ensure that everyone understands the purpose of the technology and has an opportunity to ask any questions, dispel any misconceptions and raise any concerns they may have. In our experience running trials at our Trust, we recognised early on that the technology would only succeed if it was adopted in good faith by our staff, so we provided specific training ahead of the introduction, not just as work instructions but as a forum for discussion and to embed those work instructions into the scientific principles of good, effective decontamination. We also engaged with patients and visitors to the trial areas. The image of cleaning staff
April 2023 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 61
▲
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
