Description
Using the two journal articles, write a reflection paper and specifically answer each question:1. How does using evidence to inform nursing practice differ from using tradition to inform practice?2. Consider a common nursing practice such as hand washing or bathing. Could evidence- based practice improve nursing practice for such common and simple skills? Explain.3. What is the risk of continuing to use tradition to inform nursing practice instead of evidence?4. 4. What role might you play in improving the theory-practice gap?
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Review
Evidence-based model for hand transmission during patient
care and the role of improved practices
Didier Pittet, Benedetta Allegranzi, Hugo Sax, Sasi Dharan, Carmem Lúcia Pessoa-Silva, Liam Donaldson, John M Boyce; on behalf of the WHO
Global Patient Safety Challenge, World Alliance for Patient Safety
Hand cleansing is the primary action to reduce health-care-associated infection and cross-transmission of
antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. Patient-to-patient transmission of pathogens via health-care workers’ hands
requires five sequential steps: (1) organisms are present on the patient’s skin or have been shed onto fomites in the
patient’s immediate environment; (2) organisms must be transferred to health-care workers’ hands; (3) organisms
must be capable of surviving on health-care workers’ hands for at least several minutes; (4) handwashing or hand
antisepsis by the health-care worker must be inadequate or omitted entirely, or the agent used for hand hygiene
inappropriate; and (5) the caregiver’s contaminated hand(s) must come into direct contact with another patient or
with a fomite in direct contact with the patient. We review the evidence supporting each of these steps and propose a
dynamic model for hand hygiene research and education strategies, together with corresponding indications for hand
hygiene during patient care.
Introduction
Hand hygiene is considered the most important measure
for preventing health-care-associated infections and the
spread of antimicrobial resistant pathogens.1 However,
non-compliance with hand hygiene remains a major
problem in health-care settings. Following recent
improvements in our understanding of the epidemiology
of hand hygiene compliance, new approaches for
promotion have been suggested. Guidelines for hand
hygiene have been revisited and should improve
standards and practices, and help to design successful
intervention strategies.1,2 A clear understanding of the
process of hand transmission is also crucial for the
success of education strategies.1,2 We review the evidence
for hand transmission of microbial pathogens during
patient care, and propose a model to help develop
strategies for education and to support the recently
reviewed,2 recognised indications for hand hygiene
practice. A related research agenda detailing areas where
there is a lack of knowledge or a paucity of data is also
proposed to help guide future studies.
Transmission of pathogens on hands
Transmission of health-care-associated pathogens from
one patient to another via health-care workers’ hands
requires five sequential steps (panel 1). Evidence
supporting each of these steps is given below.
Organisms present on patients skin or immediate
environment
Health-care-associated pathogens can be recovered not
only from infected or draining wounds, but also from
frequently colonised areas of normal, intact patient
skin.3–14 The perineal or inguinal areas tend to be the most
heavily colonised, but the axillae, trunk, and upper
extremities (including the hands) also are frequently
colonised (figure 1).6,7,9,10,12,14,15 The number of organisms,
such as Staphylococcus aureus, Proteus mirabilis, Klebsiella
spp, and Acinetobacter spp, present on intact areas of
http://infection.thelancet.com Vol 6 October 2006
some patients’ skin can vary from 100 to 10⁶ colony
forming units (CFU)/cm².7,9,13,16 People with diabetes,
patients undergoing dialysis for chronic renal failure, and
those with chronic dermatitis are particularly likely to
have areas of intact skin colonised with S aureus.17–24 Since
nearly 10⁶ skin squames containing viable microorganisms
are shed daily from normal skin,25 it is not surprising that
patient gowns, bed linen, bedside furniture, and other
objects in the immediate environment of the patient
become contaminated with patient flora.14,26–29 Such
contamination is probably caused by staphylococci or
enterococci, which are resistant to desiccation.
Organism transfer on health-care workers’ hands
Few data are available regarding the types of patient-care
activities that result in transmission of patient flora to
health-care workers’ hands (figure 2).10,28–34 In the past,
attempts have been made to stratify patient-care activities
into those most likely to cause hand contamination,35 but
such stratification schemes were never validated by
quantifying the level of bacterial contamination that
Panel 1: The five sequential steps for cross-transmission of
microbial pathogens.
1 Organisms are present on the patient’s skin or have been
shed onto inanimate objects immediately surrounding the
patient.
2 Organisms must be transferred to the hands of health-care
workers.
3 Organisms must be capable of surviving for at least several
minutes on health-care workers’ hands.
4 Handwashing or hand antisepsis by the health-care worker
must be inadequate or omitted entirely, or the agent used
for hand hygiene inappropriate.
5 The contaminated hand(s) of the caregiver must come
into direct contact with another patient or with an
inanimate object that will come into direct contact with
the patient.
Lancet Infect Dis 2006; 6:
641–52
Infection Control Programme,
University of Geneva Hospitals,
Geneva, Switzerland
(Prof D Pittet MD, H Sax MD,
S Dharan Dip HIC); WHO Global
Patient Safety Challenge
(Prof D Pittet, H Sax, S Dharan),
and World Alliance for Patient
Safety (L Donaldson MD),
Geneva; Department of
Infectious Diseases, University
of Verona, Verona, Italy
(B Allegranzi MD); Epidemic and
Pandemic Alert and Response,
WHO, Lyon, France
(B Allegranzi); HealthcareAssociated Infections
Programme, Department of
Epidemic and Pandemic Alert
and Response, WHO, Geneva,
Switzerland
(C L Pessoa-Silva MD); and
Infectious Diseases Section,
Hospital of Saint Raphael, New
Haven, CT, USA (J M Boyce MD)
Correspondence to:
Prof D Pittet, Infection Control
Programme, University of
Geneva Hospitals, 24 Rue
Micheli-du-Crest, 1211 Geneva
14, Switzerland.
Tel: +41-22-372-9828;
fax: +41-22-372-3987 ;
[email protected]
For further information on the
World Alliance or the Global
Patient Safety Challenge, see
http://www.who.int/
patientsafety/en
641
Review
Figure 1: Organisms present on patient skin or immediate environment
Bedridden patient colonised with Gram-positive cocci, in particular at nasal, perineal, and inguinal areas (not
shown), as well as axillae and upper extremities. Some environment surfaces close to the patient are contaminated
with Gram-positive cocci, presumably shed by the patient.
Figure 2: Organism transfer from patient to health-care worker’s hands
Contact between the health-care worker and the patient results in cross-transmission of microorganisms. In this
case, Gram-positive cocci from the patient’s own flora.
occurred. Casewell and Phillips31 showed that nurses
could contaminate their hands with 100–1000 CFU of
Klebsiella spp during “clean” activities such as lifting
patients, taking the patient’s pulse, blood pressure, or
oral temperature. Similarly, Ehrenkranz and Alfonso9
cultured the hands of nurses who touched the groin of
patients heavily colonised with P mirabilis and found
10–600 CFU/mL in glove juice samples.
642
Assessment of the contamination of health-care
workers’ hands before and after direct patient contact,
wound care, intravascular catheter care or respiratory
tract care, or before and after handling patient secretions,
showed that the number of bacteria recovered using agar
fingertip impression plates ranged from 0 to 300 CFU.34
Direct patient contact and respiratory tract care were
most likely to contaminate the fingers of caregivers.
Gram-negative bacilli accounted for 15% (54/372) of
isolates, and S aureus accounted for 11% (39/372).
Importantly, duration of patient-care activity was strongly
associated with the intensity of bacterial contamination
of health-care workers’ hands. A similar study of hand
contamination during routine neonatal care defined skin
contact, nappy change, and respiratory care as
independent predictors of hand contamination.36 In this
study, the use of gloves did not fully protect health-care
workers’ hands from bacterial contamination and glove
contamination was almost as high as naked hand
contamination after patient contact.
Other studies have shown that health-care workers can
also contaminate their hands with Gram-negative bacilli,
S aureus, enterococci, or Clostridium difficile by doing
clean procedures or touching intact areas of skin of
hospitalised patients.10,28,29,37 Furthermore, as expected,
hands could be contaminated after contact with body
fluids or waste.38
McBryde and colleagues39 estimated the frequency of
health-care workers’ glove contamination with meticillinresistant S aureus (MRSA) after contact with a colonised
patient. Health-care workers were intercepted after a
patient-care episode and cultures were taken from their
gloved hands before handwashing took place; 17%
(95% CI 9–25) of contacts with patients, patient clothing,
or patient beds resulted in transmission of MRSA from a
patient to the health-care worker’s gloves. Furthermore,
health-care workers caring for infants with respiratory
syncytial virus (RSV) infections have acquired RSV by
doing activities such as feeding infants, nappy change,
and playing with the infant.32 Caregivers who had contact
only with surfaces contaminated with the infants’
secretions also acquired RSV; thus, health-care workers
contaminated their hands with RSV and inoculated their
oral or conjunctival mucosa.
Additional studies have documented contamination of
health-care workers’ hands with potential pathogens, but
did not relate their findings to the specific type of
preceding patient contact.40–48 In studies done before glove
use was common among health-care workers, Ayliffe and
colleagues46 found that 15% of nurses working in an
isolation unit carried a median of 10⁴ CFU of S aureus on
their hands. 29% of nurses (53/180) working in a general
hospital had S aureus on their hands (median count,
3·8×10³ CFU), as did 78% (37/46) of those working in a
hospital for dermatology patients (median count,
14·3×10⁶ CFU). The same survey revealed that 17–30% of
nurses carried Gram-negative bacilli on their hands
http://infection.thelancet.com Vol 6 October 2006
Review
A
B
C
300
Bacterial colony count
Ungloved hands
200
100
Gloved hands
0
0
4
8
12
Duration of care (min)
16
Figure 3: Organism survival on health-care workers’ hands
(A) Microorganisms, in this case Gram-positive cocci, survive on hands. (B) When growing conditions are optimal (temperature, humidity, absence of hand cleansing, or friction), micoorganisms can
continue to grow. (C) Bacterial contamination increases linearly over time during patient contact. Adapted with permission from reference 34.
(median counts ranged from 3·4×10³ CFU to 38×10³
CFU). Daschner44 found that S aureus could be recovered
from the hands of 21% (67/328) of intensive care unit
(ICU) staff, and that 21% (69/328) of doctors and 5%
(16/328) of nurse carriers had more than three CFU of
the organism on their hands. Maki49 found lower levels of
colonisation on the hands of health-care workers working
in a neurosurgery unit, with an average of three CFU of
S aureus and 11 CFU of Gram-negative bacilli. Serial
cultures revealed that 100% of health-care workers carried
Gram-negative bacilli at least once, and 64% (16/25)
carried S aureus at least once. Gram-negative bacilli were
recovered from the hands of 38% (45/119) of nurses in
neonatal ICUs.48
Hands (or gloves) of health-care workers could also be
contaminated after touching inanimate objects in patient
rooms.29,36–39,50–53 Similarly, laboratory-based studies have
documented that touching contaminated surfaces can
transfer S aureus or Gram-negative bacilli to the fingers.54
Unfortunately, none of the studies dealing with healthcare worker hand contamination were designed to
determine whether the contamination resulted in the
transmission of pathogens to susceptible patients.
Organism survival on hands
Microorganisms can survive on hands for different
lengths of time (figure 3). In a laboratory study,
Acinetobacter calcoaceticus survived better than
Acinetobacter lwoffi 60 min after an inoculum of
10⁴ CFU per/finger.55 Similarly, epidemic and nonepidemic strains of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp
showed a 50% survival after 6 min and 2 min,
respectively.56 Both vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus
faecalis and Enterococcus faecium survived for at least 60
min on gloved and ungloved fingertips.57 Pseudomonas
aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia were transmissible
by handshaking for up to 30 min when contaminated
with organisms suspended in saline, and up to 180 min
http://infection.thelancet.com Vol 6 October 2006
with organisms suspended in sputum.58 Shigella
dysenteriae type 1 can survive on hands for up to 1 h.59
Ansari and colleagues60,61 studied rotavirus, human
parainfluenza virus 3, and rhinovirus 14 survival on
hands and potential for cross transfer. Survival
percentages for rotavirus 20 min and 60 min after virus
inoculation were 16·1% and 1·8 % of the initial inoculum,
respectively. When a clean hand was pressed against a
contaminated disk, the virus transfer was much the
same: 16·8% and 1·6 %, respectively. Contact between a
contaminated and a clean hand 20 min and 60 min after
virus inoculation resulted in the transfer of 6·6% and
2·8% of the viral inoculum, respectively.61 Therefore,
contaminated hands could be vehicles for the spread of
certain viruses.
Health-care workers’ hands become progressively
colonised with commensal flora as well as with
potential pathogens during patient care.34,36 Bacterial
contamination increases linearly over time (figure 3C).34
In the absence of hand hygiene action, the longer the
duration of care, the higher the degree of hand
contamination. Whether care is provided to adults or
neonates, both the duration and the type of patient care
affect health-care workers’ hand contamination.34,36
Furthermore, gloves do not provide complete protection
against hand contamination.33,38,43,62 The dynamics of
hand contamination are much the same on gloved
versus ungloved hands; while gloves protect hands from
acquiring bacteria during patient care, the glove surface
is contaminated,34,36 making cross-transmission via
contaminated gloved hands probable.
Defective hand cleansing results in hands remaining
contaminated
Only a few studies have attempted to show the adequacy
or inadequacy of hand cleansing by microbiological
proof. From these, it can be assumed that hands remain
contaminated with the risk of transmitting organisms
643
Review
a 5 s wash with two soaps did not completely remove the
organisms, with nearly 1% recovery. A 30 s wash with
either soap was necessary to completely remove the
organisms from hands.
Obviously, when health-care workers fail to clean their
hands between patient contact (figure 5) or during the
sequence of patient care, in particular when hands move
from a microbiologically contaminated to a cleaner body
site in the same patient (figure 6), microbial transfer
could occur.
Contaminated hands cross-transmit organisms
Figure 4: Incorrect hand cleansing
Inappropriate handwashing can result in hands remaining contaminated; in this
case, with Gram-positive cocci.
via hands (figure 4). In a laboratory-based study, Larson
and colleagues63 found that using only 1 mL of liquid
soap or alcohol-based handrub yielded lower log
reductions (greater number of bacteria remaining
on hands) than using 3 mL of the product to clean
hands. The findings have clinical relevance since some
health-care workers use as little as 0·4 mL of soap to
clean their hands. In a comparative cross-over study of
microbiological efficacy of handrubbing with an alcoholbased solution and handwashing with an unmedicated
soap, 15% (15/100) of health-care workers’ hands were
contaminated with transient pathogens before hand
hygiene;64 no transient pathogens were recovered after
handrubbing, whereas two cases were found after
handwashing. Trick and colleagues65 did a comparative
study of three hand hygiene agents (62% ethyl alcohol
handrub, medicated hand wipe, and handwashing with
plain soap and water) in a group of surgical ICU nurses.
Hand contamination with transient organisms was
significantly (p=0·02) less likely after the use of an
alcohol-based handrub compared with a medicated wipe
and soap and water. They also showed that ring-wearing
increased the frequency of hand contamination with
potential nosocomial pathogens. Wearing artificial
fingernails can also result in hands remaining
contaminated with pathogens after use of either soap or
alcohol-based hand gel,66 and has been associated with
infection outbreaks.67
In a study by Sala and colleagues,68 an outbreak of food
poisoning caused by norovirus was traced to an infected
food handler at the hospital cafeteria. Most of the
foodstuffs consumed during the outbreak were
handmade, thus supporting the evidence that inadequate
hand hygiene resulted in viral contamination of the food.
Noskin and colleagues57 showed that a 5 s handwash with
water alone had no effect on contamination with
vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE); 20% of the
initial inoculum was recovered on unwashed hands, and
644
Cross-transmission of organisms occurs through
contaminated hands (figure 5 and figure 6). Factors that
influence the transfer of microorganisms from surface
to surface and affect cross-contamination rates are type
of organism, source and destination surfaces, moisture
level, and size of inoculum. Contaminated hands can
cross-transfer bacteria from a clean paper towel dispenser
and vice versa69 with transfer rates ranging from 0·01%
to 0·64% and 12·4% to 13·1%, respectively.
Figure 5: Failure to cleanse hands results in between-patient crosstransmission
(A) The doctor had a prolonged contact with patient A colonised with Grampositive cocci and contaminated his hands. (B) He is now going to have direct
contact with patient B without cleansing his hands in between. Crosstransmission of Gram-positive rods from patient A to patient B through the
health-care worker’s hands is likely to occur.
http://infection.thelancet.com Vol 6 October 2006
Review
Norovirus-contaminated fingers have been shown to
sequentially transfer the virus to up to seven clean
surfaces, and novovirus has also been shown to transfer
from a contaminated cleaning cloth to clean hands and
surfaces.70 During an outbreak of multidrug-resistant
Acinetobacter baumannii, strains from patients, healthcare workers’ hands, and the environment were identical.71
The outbreak was terminated when remedial measures
were taken. Serratia marcescens was transmitted from
contaminated soap to patients via health-care wokers’
hands.72 Another study showed that VRE could be
transferred from the contaminated environment or
patients’ intact skin to clean sites via health-care workers’
hands or gloves in 10·6% of contacts.73 Finally, several
studies have shown that pathogens can be transmitted
from out-of-hospital sources to patients via health-care
workers’ hands—eg, an outbreak of postoperative
S marcescens wound infections was traced to a
contaminated jar of exfoliant cream in a nurse’s home.
An investigation suggested that the organism was
transmitted to patients via the hands of the nurse who
wore artificial fingernails.74 In another outbreak,
Malassezia pachydermatis was probably transmitted from
a nurse’s pet dogs to infants in a neonatal unit via the
nurse’s hands.75
Many parameters are associated with patient
colonisation, and include exogenous and endogenous
factors. The presence of medical devices, the disruption of
normal mechanical and other host defence mechanisms,
patient comorbidities, and exposure to medication—in
particular broad spectrum antimicrobials—are some
factors that might facilitate successful patient colonisation.
It is important to say, however, that colonisation can occur
in the normal host and that poor patient underlying
conditions are not a prerequisite for either exogenous or
endogenous colonisation.
Experimental and mathematical models of hand
transmission
Experimental models
Several investigators have studied the transmission of
infectious agents with different experimental models.
Ehrenkranz and Alfonso9 asked nurses to touch a
patient’s groin for 15 s as though they were taking a
femoral pulse. The patient was known to be heavily
colonised with Gram-negative bacilli. Nurses then
cleansed their hands by washing with plain soap and
water, or by using an alcohol-based handrub. After
cleansing their hands, they touched a piece of urinary
catheter material with their fingers and the catheter
segment was cultured. The study revealed that touching
patients’ intact areas of moist skin transferred enough
organisms to the nurses’ hands to allow subsequent
transmission to catheter material despite handwashing
with plain soap and water. Conversely, alcohol-based
handrubbing was effective.
Marples and Towers76 studied the transmission of
organisms from artificially contaminated donor fabrics
to clean recipient fabrics via hand contact and found that
the number of organisms transmitted was greater if the
donor fabric or the hands were wet. Overall, only 0·06%
of the organisms obtained from the contaminated donor
fabric were transferred to the recipient fabric via hand
contact. Using the same experimental model,
Staphylococcus saprophyticus, P aeruginosa, and Serratia
spp were transferred in greater numbers than E coli from
a contaminated to a clean fabric following hand contact.77
In another study, organisms were transferred to various
types of surfaces in much larger numbers (>10⁴) from
wet hands than from hands that had been dried carefully.78
Similarly, the transfer of S aureus from fabrics commonly
used for clothing and bed linen to fingerpads occurred
more frequently when fingerpads were moist.79
Mathematical models
Figure 6: Failure to cleanse hands during patient care results in withinpatient cross-transmission
The doctor is in close contact with the patient. He touched the urinary catheter
bag previously and his hands are colonised with Gram-negative rods from
touching the bag and lack of subsequent hand cleansing. Direct contact with
patients or patients’ devices would probably result in cross-transmission.
http://infection.thelancet.com Vol 6 October 2006
Mathematical modelling has been used to examine the
relations between the multiple factors that influence
the transmission of pathogens in health-care facilities.
These factors include hand hygiene compliance, nurse
staffing levels, frequency of introduction of colonised
or infected patients onto a ward, whether or not
cohorting is practised, patient characteristics, and
antibiotic stewardship practices, to name but a few.80
Most reports describing mathematical modelling of
health-care-associated pathogens have attempted to
quantify the influence of various factors on a single
ward, such as an ICU.81–84 Given that such units tend to
645
Review
house a small number of patients at any one time,
random variations (stochastic events), such as the
number of patients admitted with a particular pathogen
during a short time period, can have a substantial effect
on transmission dynamics. As a result, stochastic
models seem to be the most appropriate for estimating
the effect of various infection control measures,
including hand hygiene compliance, on colonisation
and infection rates.
In a mathematical model of MRSA infection in an ICU,
the number of patients who became colonised by strains
transmitted from health-care workers was one of the
most important determinants of transmission rates.81 Of
interest, the authors found that increasing hand hygiene
compliance rates had only a modest effect on the
prevalence of MRSA colonisation. Their model estimated
that if the prevalence of MRSA colonisation was 30%
without any hand hygiene, it would decrease to only 22%
if hand hygiene compliance increased to 40%, and
colonisation would decrease to 20% if hand hygiene
compliance increased to 60%. Antibiotic policies had
little effect in this model.
Reference
Hospital setting
Austin and colleagues82 used daily surveillance cultures
of patients, molecular typing of isolates, and monitoring
of compliance with infection control practices to study
the transmission dynamics of VRE in an ICU. Hand
hygiene and staff cohorting were predicted to be the most
effective control measures: for a given level of hand
hygiene compliance, adding staff cohorting would lead to
better control of VRE transmission. The rate at which
new VRE cases were admitted to the ICU had an important
role in the level of VRE transmission in the unit.
In a study using a stochastic model of transmission
dynamics, Cooper and colleagues85 predicted that
improving hand hygiene compliance from very low levels
by 20% or 40% significantly (p
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
