Hand hygiene
to exhibit long-term moisturising capabilities on a range of skin types. Notably, the product demonstrated consistent and extended skin moisturisation even after the initial application and displayed no signs of irritation for a 48-hour period.
Broad spectrum efficacy The battle against HCAIs involves combating various types of pathogens, including bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other microorganisms. To effectively address this challenge, a comprehensive hand hygiene solution must offer broad spectrum efficacy. Innovations should undergo rigorous testing to prove their effectiveness against a wide range of pathogens commonly found in healthcare settings. By equipping healthcare professionals and individuals with the means to combat the diversity of microbes encountered, the risk of HCAIs can be minimised. Innovation in hand hygiene should go beyond
introducing new products; it should entail delivering solutions that surpass existing standards of care. In the pursuit of innovative hand hygiene, it is vital to prioritise proven effectiveness. Rigorous scientific studies and real-world data should substantiate claims of improved protection against HCAIs. By adopting an evidence-based approach, hand hygiene practices can be driven by demonstrable results, ensuring the highest level of effectiveness. Earlier this year, the results of a controlled
evaluation, undertaken in a care home in Manchester, were presented at the Infection Prevention & Control conference, Birmingham. The purpose of the evaluation was to compare the efficacy of Primel Skin Protection powered by TridAnt against a well-known regularly used hand sanitiser on the hands of 35 healthcare workers over a ten-day period.
The inside of the volunteers’ gloves were tested after the one-hour timepoint, and the gloves of Primel Skin Protection users were found to have 84% less pathogens. After immediate application it was 75% effective and after 1 hour 72% effective, therefore maintaining its efficacy, while the regularly used hand sanitiser dropped its efficacy considerably from 54% to 26%, respectively.
The results demonstrated that Primel Skin
Protection “provides superior protection against pathogens”, including some of the most drug- resistant microbes, on immediate application and over a prolonged period of time, as well as showing surfaces were cleaner after contact. The evaluation is claimed to represent “the first comprehensive comparison of a long-term hand sanitiser efficacy in a real-world scenario”. The comparative evaluation recovered samples taken from the hands of healthcare workers at four different points, including: l Before the application of either product (regularly used hand sanitiser and Primel Skin Protection).
l Immediately after application of either product.
l One hour after application of either product. l During the one-hour period, the volunteers wore gloves which were collected, and samples taken from the inside at the end of the time period, to assess the transmission of germs from hands to gloves.
Overall, the analysis showed that application of the solution resulted in the recovery of significantly less viable microorganisms compared to the established regularly used hand sanitiser across all time points. The evaluation highlights that Primel Skin Protection was 21% more effective after immediate application compared to the well-known regularly used hand sanitiser. The second result confirmed that Primel Skin Protection was 46% more effective after one hour of use compared to a well-known, regularly used hand sanitiser. Additionally, the inside of the volunteers’
gloves were tested after the one-hour timepoint, and the gloves of Primel Skin Protection users were found to have 84% less pathogens. After immediate application it was 75% effective and after 1 hour 72% effective, therefore maintaining its efficacy, while the regularly used hand sanitiser dropped its efficacy considerably from 54% to 26%, respectively. The testing showed that Primel Skin
30
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com I December 2023
Protection can disinfect pathogens, including some of the most drug resistant microbes, in 15 seconds, significantly quicker than other options regularly used. The “Kill on Touch” Technology was able to improve the protection against pathogens over prolonged periods of time while being able to reduce the amount that was transferred from surface to surface.
Minimal environmental impact In today’s era of growing environmental consciousness, it is also crucial to consider the ecological footprint of hand hygiene products and prioritise a minimal environmental impact. By using sustainable materials, reducing waste, and minimising the carbon footprint associated with production and disposal, innovative hand hygiene solutions can align with sustainability goals and create a holistic approach to healthcare that extends to our planet’s well-being.
The role of regulatory authorities Innovation in hand hygiene must go hand-in- hand with regulatory oversight. Regulatory authorities play a crucial role in ensuring that new hand hygiene technologies and products meet rigorous safety and efficacy standards. Close collaboration between innovators and regulatory bodies is essential to bring novel solutions to market, expediting the development and approval of innovations that genuinely reduce the transmission of HCAIs. Furthermore, regulatory authorities can
encourage innovation through incentives and grants that boost research and development efforts. This ensures that the best and most effective hand hygiene solutions are brought to the forefront, benefiting healthcare facilities, and ultimately improving patient safety and quality care.
The economics and value of innovation in hand hygiene While innovations in hand hygiene may come at a cost, the economic implications of HCAIs far outweigh the investment required for cutting-
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
