Infection Control Today

DEC 2018

ICT delivers to infection preventionists & their colleagues in the operating room, sterile processing/central sterile, environmental services & materials management, timely & relevant news, trends & information impacting the profession & the industry

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 23 of 32

23 December 2018 ICT Reduce the Risk Implement SteraMist™ into your facility today! 800.525.1698 | Reduce the spead of dangerous pathogens that causes HAIs EPA registered solution and equipment combination for hospital-healthcare disinfecting No wipe, no rinse, and leaves no residue Offers a shorter turnover time between patients 7.8% hydrogen peroxide only active ingredient As Sexton, et al. (2018) observe, "Although soft surfaces such as linens and clothing can be laundered, other soft surfaces such as upholstered furniture must be treated on site. Fomites, such as waiting room chairs with fabric upholstery, can become sources of contamination when ill patients shed large numbers of microbes via body secretions, including blood, feces, urine, saliva, and nasal fuid. Contact with these soft surfaces may lead to direct contact with the bodily secretions and microbes aerosolized via talking, sneezing, coughing, and vomiting. Contact of unwashed hands with soft surface fomites can also lead to pathogen transmission and transfer to other points or other surfaces in the building. Performing hand hygiene after contact with soft surfaces will aid in diminishing the opportunities for microbial transfer between surfaces. This study, along with others that address the disinfection of soft and hard surfaces, demonstrates the need for proper hand hygiene and adherence to hygiene policies in healthcare settings as a primary way to decrease the amount of microbial transfer." They add, "The composition of the soft surfaces can infuence the absorption rate of the sanitizer. Various types of fabrics have different absorptive potentials allowing the sanitizer to be absorbed more quickly. In this study, the sanitizer was observed to absorb more quickly into the chair surfaces than privacy curtains, which may explain why greater log10 reductions were seen in chair samples. In a study comparing antimicrobial and plain curtains, the median amount of time for an antimicrobial curtain to become contaminated was 14 days compared with two days with plain curtains. However, after 4 weeks, 27 of the 30 antimicrobial curtains were contaminated. This demonstrates that antimicrobial materials may be helpful by increasing the amount of time for the initial contamination but may not be helpful in preventing contamination long term." Potential Solutions UV-C decontamination may be a feasible adjunct measure to conventional laundering to preserve the cleanliness of healthcare textiles in ward rooms. Smolle, et al. (2018) tested the ability of an automated ultraviolet-C (UV-C) room disinfection device to decontaminate textiles inoculated with Enterococcus faecium in a clinical setting. Contaminated polycotton (50/50 polyester/cotton) swatches were distributed to predefned locations in a ward room and exposed to UV-C light. UV-C decontamination reduced E. faecium counts by a mean log10 reduction factor of 1.37. The median time required for decontamination was 111 (range 108–165) min, and UV-C decontamination reduced the bacterial count, on average, by a log10 reduction factor of 1.37. The greatest reduction was seen in the samples placed on the foor adjoining the bed (log10 reduction factor −1.97), while the smallest reduction was seen in samples placed in the cupboard (log10 reduction factor −0.57). In all samples, the reduction was signifcant. As the researchers explain, "In this study, the greatest reduction in E. faecium viable counts was seen in samples placed on the foor adjoining the bed; this was most likely due to the fact that this sample, as well as the sample placed on the bed, was closest (approximately 1 m) to the device. In contrast to the sample on the bed, however, whose surface was parallel to the direction of the light, the sample on the foor was exposed to UV-C light in a more perpendicular fashion. This may serve as an explanation for the better decontamination of the sample on the foor. To the authors' knowledge, only one comparable study has assessed the effcacy of UV-C light for decontamination of fabrics, but that was under laboratory conditions and used a single mercury lamp placed directly over the swatches instead of the UV-C device. The

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Infection Control Today - DEC 2018