Bacterial Contamination of the Hands of Hospital Staff During Routine Patient Care

Abstract

Background: Cross-transmission of microorganisms by the hands of health care workers is considered the main route of spread of nosocomial infections.

Nosocomial infection in the Intensive Care Unit at Teaching Hospital Karapitiya, Galle; an audit

“…Sherertz and coworkers documented a fall in catheter related infections from 4.51 to 2.93 infections per 1,000 patients days (p < 0.01) in 18 months after a 1 day infection control training course on venous catheters (9). Several studies have reported high rates of contamination with potentially pathogenic organisms by the hands of health care workers (10,11). Hand disinfection with the use of alcohol based antiseptic hand rub solutions have been shown to be effective in reducing hand contamination (12).…”

Myths and Legends in Orthopaedic Practice: Are We All Guilty?

“…Tangential support to this argument can be gleaned from the literature [11,29,34,43,70,75,84,87,89,92,100,104,125]. The hands of physicians are a known link in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens [70].…”

“…The hands of physicians are a known link in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens [70]. In the absence of gloves, there is a considerable increase in bacterial contamination of healthcare workers' hands after patient contact [75,87,100]. Numerous studies have investigated the rates of hand contamination after patient care, and hand contamination may occur even if gloves are worn [11,29,34,43,75,84,87,92,101,125].…”

Hand Hygiene in the New Millennium: Drawing the Distinction Between Efficacy and Effectiveness

“…8911 In one study, the microbial load on the five fingertips of one hand was as high as 300 CFU following certain high-risk patient care activities; however, the median degree of contamination following the care of any individual patient was only 39 CFU. 11 In contrast, the microbial load introduced to the fingertips of volunteers in the study by Dharan et al was at least 10 7 and rubs were deemed non-efficacious according to the EN 1500 criteria because they were able to reduce microbial counts by "only" approximately 10 4 . 2 Therefore, based on what is known about the degree of contamination that commonly occurs in clinical practice, it appears that the EN 1500 criteria may be excessively stringent.…”