The Use of Antiseptics for Delaying Decomposition of Cut Flowers in a Hospital Ward

Smellie, Hugh; Brincklow, P

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(63)90573-7

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Treatment of flower vase water with antiseptics has previously been reported (Smellie and Brinklow, 1963 ;Johansen et al, 1974). Our studies have confirmed the .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Bacteria in flower vase water: Incidence and significance in general ward practice

Bartzokas

Holley

Sharp

1975

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Culture of flower vase water from wards in the David Lewis Northern Hospital, Liverpool, revealed large numbers of potentially pathogenic bacteria. The types of organisms isolated may reflect the particular ecology of this hospital as they differed in some ways from those reported from other centres. The incidence of wound infections during the period of study was low (5-2 per cent) despite the regular overgrowth of bacteria in flower vases, and there did not appear to be any definite correlation between the types of bacteria isolated from flower vase water and those responsible for wound infections. The addition of hydrogen peroxide to flower vases proved a very effective antiseptic and is recommended for general use as a precautionary measure.

show abstract

“…Treatment of flower vase water with antiseptics has previously been reported (Smellie and Brinklow, 1963 ;Johansen et al, 1974). Our studies have confirmed the .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Bacteria in flower vase water: Incidence and significance in general ward practice

Bartzokas

Holley

Sharp

1975

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The earliest published paper was concerned with the amount of time required to maintain cut flowers in hospital wards, with infection control considered as a secondary issue (Smellie and Brincklow, 1963). When this paper was published it was customary to change the water in flower vases every day to eliminate the unpleasant odour caused by the stems decomposing.…”

Section: Literature Searchesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most infection control teams today would not recommend it for general use because it is expensive and less effective than disinfectants intended for environmental use (Wilson, 2001). The bacteriological studies undertaken by Smellie and Brincklow (1963) were reported in minimal detail and it is unlikely that either of the authors (a senior medical registrar and a staff nurse) would have had much knowledge of bacteriological laboratory methods. Nevertheless, their paper has been very widely quoted as evidence that infection risks from fresh flowers can be reduced by adding antiseptic to the water (see, for example, Johanson, 1974).…”

Section: Literature Searchesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, evidence from the literature and the empirical data collected for the present study both confirm that apart from any risk of infection, the introduction of traditional cut flowers into the clinical setting can be problematic. Unless the water is changed and dead blooms are regularly removed, they look unsightly and generate offensive odour (Smellie and Brincklow, 1963). Maintenance is time-consuming and even if devolved to carers and volunteers, the other drawbacks identified by the respondents would still not be resolved.…”

Section: Infection and Other Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The early evidence that cut flowers do not present an infection hazard (Smellie and Brincklow, 1963) was probably based on the results of poor, or at least inadequately interpreted, bacteriological studies, given that later investigations revealed heavy contamination with potentially pathogenic bacteria in every case (Watson and Koons, 1973;Schroth et al, 1973;Rosenzweig, 1973;Kates et al, 1991). However, there is also evidence that these bacteria may colonise flowers and plants without giving rise to cross-infection (Bartzokas et al, 1975;Siegman-Igra et al, 1986) and no firm evidence that they have ever been transferred to patients or caused clinical infection (Schroth et al, 1973).…”

Section: Infection and Other Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Flowers in the clinical setting: Infection risk or workload issue?

Gould

Gammon

Salem³

et al. 2004

NT Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flowers in the clinical setting: Infection risk or workload issue?Healthcare-associated infection has become a topic of interest to the general public in the United Kingdom, kindled by media accounts of poor hygiene and the risks of cross-infection. In the spring of 2003, one of the broadsheet newspapers published an article debating the hygiene and infection risks associated with cut flowers brought into clinical areas. There were reports that in many wards this practice is no longer allowed because flowers are considered dirty, trigger allergies and the water is regarded as harbouring bacteria, leading to infection.Discussion with infection control experts revealed that questions concerning the risks associated with flowers are among those most frequently asked. A literature search was undertaken to establish the evidence base, and a questionnaire study was performed with a purposive sample of 39 nurses to document how they manage flowers in the clinical setting. Empirical research studies were difficult to obtain. Early work had been undertaken to explore the added workload associated with maintaining fresh flowers and ways of reducing it. Later studies revealed that the water in flower vases and cut plants both harbour large numbers of Gram-negative pathogens. Cross-infection and cases of clinical infection have never been documented, thus flowers have not been considered a risk, except to severely immunocompromised patients. However, scrutiny of the more general literature relating to Gram-negative sepsis indicated that cross-infection has been documented from a wide range of environmental sources and it ispossible that it may take place from flowers via the hands of staff if they are not properly decontaminated. Nevertheless, these risks can be reduced by scrupulous attention to hand hygiene and commonsense measures.Over half the nurses (n = 26, 66.6%) thought that flowers constituted an infection risk and a number of other disadvantages were cited. Most nurses (n = 31, 80%) were not in favour of flowers in the clinical setting and there was some evidence that this attitude was related to the amount of work generated, with infection and other risks used to justify it. Interest in the topic was considerable and the results can be used to stimulate discussion and emphasise the importance of controlling health-related infection.

show abstract