The information on this page is updated as new research is published. This page was last updated 20.2.2020
The current focus for hygiene research is on the healthcare environment, including personnel, and how it contributes to the transmission of Healthcare Acquired Infections (HAI), a common and mostly preventable patient safety issue. This is due to a pattern of findings within the research that highlight that:
Although it is not yet established how clean surfaces must be in order to prevent the transmission of HAIs1, preliminary research has investigated the levels of contamination and whether implementing various interventions may contribute to a reduction in colony counts after certain time periods.
The most common interventions have been education, monitoring and cleaning intensity. One study found that it would take one additional full time staff member whose role solely focused on high touch surfaces to significantly reduce the rates of MRSA in the hospital setting1.
Whilst research in the area of environmental contamination is relatively new, data has been collated to demonstrate the level of contamination, particularly within hospital settings. Schabrun (2006)2 reports that over 70% of equipment is contaminated whilst Dancer (2014)3 found that screening confirms repeated contamination of items, equipment, and general sites in bed spaces and rooms of infected patients and often throughout multiple clinical areas in a health care institution.
Interestingly, equipment in less critical areas, such as general wards, outpatients, or allied health departments, are less likely to have stringent cleaning protocols, predisposing these departments to carrying larger numbers of microorganisms2.Further, several studies show evidence of the ability for bacteria to survive from days to weeks on inanimate objects (MRSA was found to survive nine weeks)4 underscoring the importance of environmental hygiene in the control of infection and cross-transmission4, 5.
It has also been shown that merely touching a contaminated surface can result in the same frequency of MRSA contamination as touching the infected patient5 reiterating the need for increased measures in protection such as protective barriers and stringency in cleaning protocol.
A 2016 study of Australian hospitals found a great discrepancy between cleaning practices amongst facilities and wards, despite detailed guidelines, leading to subjective standards of cleanliness across facilities6. With varying resources, general standards, protocol adherence and monitoring, it is extremely difficult to establish a baseline against which all facilities can be measured, nor can a general program be easily rolled out to address any issues. There have been several studies which have examined the efficacy of particular interventions.
One such study examined the effectiveness of a trio of strategies such as ‘hygiene bundles’, ongoing education and stricter monitoring of hygiene protocol; whilst successful short term, replication and maintenance in the “real world” was not sustainable due to inadequate training, skill level of workers, as well as general non-compliance to the prescribed protocol7. Otter et al (2013)8 reported that hospital hand hygiene compliance was significantly more likely following patient contact as opposed to patient environment contact, meaning any transfer of contaminants was likely to persist for longer and play a more significant role in forward transmission of disease.
In terms of effective cleaning measures, 70% alcohol was found to be the most effective agent with up to 80% reduction of contamination2. However, it is unknown how this agent will affect the quality of the equipment and fabrics in the long term. Another major drawback in the use of these cleaning agents, is the gap between the recommended instructions and real life application and use. Adherence to correct cleaning protocol is not closely monitored, and many infection prevention institutions provide ‘guidelines’ to ensure adherence which primarily use a subjective visibility scale to determine cleanliness. Additionally, it has been established that some illness causing bacteria persist despite more than one cycle of cleaning using hospital grade disinfectant9; 27% of rooms remained contaminated with MRSA following 4 rounds of bleach disinfection. Similarly, 43% of surfaces were contaminated with norovirus RNA after 1 round of bleach disinfection, and 16% of surfaces were contaminated after 2 rounds of bleach disinfection8.
With the use of towels, studies have demonstrated that the more absorbent a towel, the longer a microorganism can survive10. In particular, it was shown that Staph can survive up to three weeks in cotton towels – which are commonly used in therapy clinics and hospitals - despite regular laundering10. It was concluded that normal washing, or laundering of towels – whether done in house or externally, was not enough to remove all viable microorganisms from them10.Read the Australian Hygiene Guidelines 🡢
You think you’re doing everything right for the safety and care of your clients. Day in and day out you take measures to wash your hands, wipe down surfaces and more. However, a couple of the most common hygiene solutions you’re relying on, are letting you down.
Purifas® is quickly catching the attention of therapists worldwide! The FaceShield™ was recently reviewed by Private Practice Hub, a leading advice website for UK therapists in private practice. We’re thrilled to have scored an overall rating of 9.5/10!