FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2074920502> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2074920502 endingPage "1054" @default.
• W2074920502 startingPage "1051" @default.
• W2074920502 abstract "Future MicrobiologyVol. 8, No. 9 EditorialFree AccessWhat strategies are in place to control microbial burden in hospital environments and how could these change in the future?Ioana Chirca & Cassandra D SalgadoIoana ChircaInfectious Diseases, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Rutledge Ave, MSC 752, Charleston, SC 29425, USASearch for more papers by this author & Cassandra D Salgado* Author for correspondenceInfectious Diseases, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Rutledge Ave, MSC 752, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. Search for more papers by this authorEmail the corresponding author at salgado@musc.eduPublished Online:10 Sep 2013https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb.13.99AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Keywords: cleaningcopper surfacesdisinfectionenvironment of careenvironmental contaminationhealthcare-acquired infectionshydrogen peroxide vaporUV lightMore than 150 years ago, Soren Kierkegaard stated, “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” It was around this time in history that the scientific study of hospital infections was beginning and by the mid-20th century the first full-time infection control position was created in the UK. Modern infection control programs have learned from looking backwards and are now complex, multidisciplinary efforts designed to better understand the epidemiology of hospital infections to provide effective, safe care to vulnerable patients.There is renewed interest in defining the role of environmental contamination in transmission of nosocomial pathogens and development of hospital-acquired infection (HAI). Patients shed microorganisms into their environment and despite methodological variability among studies attempting to quantitate this burden, there is high-quality evidence for the presence of organisms, especially on high-touch surfaces [1]. Other factors, for example, the body site of colonization or infection and the fact that infected patients shed more organisms into the environment compared with colonized patients, are also important when assessing environmental contamination. Additionally, organisms may persist in the patient care environment from hours to months under certain conditions [2]. This has been documented for worrisome Gram-positive pathogens (Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant strains, Enterococcus, including vancomycin-resistant strains and Clostridium difficile) and Gram-negative pathogens (Pseudomonas, Klebsiella and Acinetobacter sp.), as well as viruses [2]. Transmission of pathogens in hospitals is complex; however, most often, patients acquire organisms via the contaminated hands of the healthcare worker, use of contaminated equipment or contamination of the room from a prior occupant [3,4]. Hence, the CDC has issued guidelines for hand hygiene and personal protective equipment use as well as for cleaning and disinfection of the environment of care [101].Decreasing the level of environmental contamination through CDC-recommended routine cleaning and disinfection has been shown to reduce transmission of nosocomial pathogens and the rate of HAIs; however, multiple studies have reported that this is frequently inadequate [5]. It is also noted that the effectiveness of routine cleaning and disinfection techniques depends on several factors, such as location, number, intrinsic resistance of organisms and biofilm formation, as well as the concentration and potency of products and compliance with recommended use, such as application and contact time. All of these characteristics have been used to recommend the most appropriate method to reduce microbial burden (MB) in the environment as well as to estimate what level of contamination is acceptable to mitigate risk of HAI. A quantitative aerobic colony count of less than 500–250 CFU/100 cm2 on high-touch surfaces has been proposed as an acceptable threshold above which environmental cleaning is considered inadequate [6]. The average MB of common surfaces within the patient intensive care unit room was recently described. Bed rails harbored 17,336 CFU/100 cm2, over bed tray tables harbored 3925 CFU/100 cm2 and the nurses call button harbored 7118 CFU/100 cm2[7]. Few data exist that directly relate the risk of infection to MB; however, another recent study that prospectively followed infection rates in the intensive care unit among patients in rooms that were sampled weekly found that the risk of HAI significantly increased as MB increased [8]. The same research group also demonstrated that, as expected, cleaning was effective at significantly reducing MB by 82% on traditional plastic bed rails; however, within 6.5 h, this burden had returned to nearly precleaning levels [9]. The CDC does not recommend routine microbiological sampling and thus most facilities rely on visual inspection alone, but new novel techniques such as adenosine-triphosphate bioluminescense analysis or UV light markers are attractive options to assess the effectiveness of environmental cleaning and disinfection when used as an adjunct to visual inspection and checklists [10,11].Routine and terminal environmental cleaning followed by disinfection are the mainstay of environmental bioburden control and multiple studies have demonstrated that measures to increase the efficacy of cleaning and disinfection have reduced environmental contamination. For example, an educational intervention to enforce environmental cleaning demonstrated reduction in acquisition of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) and C. difficile[12]. Another study showed that increasing the volume of disinfectant along with an educational intervention and feedback decreased the frequency of VRE and S. aureus[11]. The CDC recommends use of disinfectants such as alcohols, chlorine, aldehydes, quaternary ammonium compounds, hydrogen peroxide, iodophors, peracetic acid and phenolics, alone or in combination. Liquid disinfectants, use of microfiber cleaning materials and steam cleaning, while still controversial, may be more effective than traditional methods and underscore technological developments in hospital environmental cleaning [13].The methods described above are typically bundled as infection control practices to enhance and optimize environmental cleaning and disinfection; however, failure to comply with all processes every time may limit the benefit. In an attempt to limit human variability in cleaning practices, novel disinfecting agents, no-touch delivery systems and antimicrobial surfaces have been developed. These include, but are not limited to, hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV), UV light decontamination units, antibiotic impregnated surfaces and copper-surfaced objects.HPV via microcondensation or dry-gas delivery systems has reportedly been very effective in decreasing the MB of pathogens such as S. aureus, VRE and C. difficile but there is also evidence for decreasing HAI, specifically C. difficile-associated diarrhea [14,15]. Strict safety measures must be complied with during the use of HPV and this requires additional training of environmental services personnel. Additionally, cost-effective analyses must be conducted that take into account the extra time necessary for use after terminal cleaning.Several studies have also documented effective MB reduction using UV light units; up to 93% for methicillin-resistant S. aureus and VRE and 80% for vegetative C. difficile and up to 99.8% for C. difficile spores [16]. Robust studies of the impact of UV light on HAI are lacking; however, these devices have the advantage of being completely automated, easy to use, do not require monitoring or supervision by an operator and have virtually no risk for personnel when appropriate precautions are utilized. Like HPV, it is important to recognize that precleaning of rooms to remove visible contamination is needed as this has been shown to decrease effectiveness [17]. Additionally, efficacy may be lower in shadowed areas of the room, thus adding additional time and effort [18]. Recent data comparing HPV and UV light confirms the effective reduction of microbial and spore burden in patient rooms for both methods, but finds significantly better effect for HPV when considering out-of-sight areas [19].Another emerging technology for reduction of MB is self-disinfecting surfaces. Metallic silver and copper have intrinsic broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and have the advantage of being continuously active in a patient room when incorporated into medical devices or onto the surfaces of objects such as bedrails, doorknobs and furniture. In vitro, hospital-based studies have consistently shown that copper alloy-surfaced materials reduce MB, which is maintained for hours following standard disinfection [7,9]. Schmidt and colleagues reported that copper-alloy surfaces placed into patient rooms reduced the average MB significantly by 83% during regular use and routine cleaning conditions [7]. Furthermore, a reduction of more than 50% in the composite outcome measure of HAI or methicillin-resistant S. aureus/VRE colonization in patients treated in hospital rooms with these copper alloy-surfaced objects was realized [8]. Antimicrobial polymers in solution or on surfaces, such as silicone polymers containing light-activated methylene blue with or without gold nanoparticles, have also shown promising results regarding MB reduction; however, their clinical utility in reducing HAI has yet to be demonstrated [20]. The advantages of antimicrobial surfaces include the fact that they do not require active participation or compliance from healthcare workers (except that they should be kept in the room and need to be cleaned routinely) and they do not appear to be associated with serious long-term adverse effects on humans who come into contact with them. Like HPV and UV light, the use of these novel surfaces must be studied with respect to cost–effectiveness.There is mounting evidence that MB in the hospital environment plays a central role in the development of HAI, and that controlling it may significantly reduce these deadly consequences of healthcare. Therefore, let us learn from the work of the recent past to describe what future measures hospitals could employ for enhanced environmental control of MB. Certainly, a facility will employ recommended cleaning and disinfection measures and perhaps utilize newer technology, such as ATP bioluminescense, to guide the frequency by which this needs to occur. Furthermore, the use of enhanced cleaning measures, including novel no-touch HPV and UV light, would be employed for use in areas where patients with epidemiologically important organisms are receiving care and the use of antimicrobial surfaces, specifically copper-alloy surfaces, for those patient populations at highest risk (those in intensive care). Further research is needed to establish the optimal combination or bundling of these methods, feasibility of implementation and the cost–effectiveness required for large-scale usage.Financial & competing interests disclosureThe authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.References1 Huslage K, Rutala WA, Sickbert-Bennett E, Weber DJ. A quantitative approach to defining “high-touch” surfaces in hospitals. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.31,850–853 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2 Otter JA, Yezli S, Salkeld JAG, French GL. Evidence that contaminated surfaces contribute to the transmission of hospital pathogens and an overview of strategies to address contaminated surfaces in hospital settings. Am. J. Infect. Control41,S6–S11 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3 Duckro AN, Blom DW, Lyle EA, Weinstein RA, Hayden MK. Transfer of vancomycin-resistant enterococci via health care worker hands. Arch. Intern. Med.165,302–307 (2005).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Huang SS, Datta R, Platt R. Risk of acquiring antibiotic-resistant bacteria from prior room occupants. Arch. Intern. Med.166,1945–1951 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5 Otter JA, Yezli S, French GL. The role played by contaminated surfaces in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.32,687–699 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6 Dancer SJ, White LF, Lamb J, Girvan EK, Robertson C. Measuring the effect of enhanced cleaning in a UK hospital: a prospective cross-over study. BMC Med.7,28 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7 Schmidt MG, Attaway HH, Sharpe PA et al. Sustained reduction of microbial burden on common hospital surfaces through introduction of copper. J. Clin. Microbiol.50,2217–2223 (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8 Salgado CD, Sepkowitz KA, John JF et al. Copper surfaces reduce the rate of healthcare-acquired infections in the intensive care unit. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.34,479–486 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar9 Schmidt MG, Attaway Iii HH, Fairey SE, Steed LL, Michels HT, Salgado CD. Copper continuously limits the concentration of bacteria resident on bed rails within the intensive care unit. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.34,530–533 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10 Boyce JM, Havill NL, Dumigan DG, Golebiewski M, Balogun O, Rizvani R. Monitoring the effectiveness of hospital cleaning practices by use of an adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.30,678–684 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar11 Goodman ER, Platt R, Bass R, Onderdonk AB, Yokoe DS, Huang SS. Impact of an environmental cleaning intervention on the presence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci on surfaces in intensive care unit rooms. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.29,593–599 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar12 Eckstein BC, Adams DA, Eckstein EC et al. Reduction of clostridium difficile and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus contamination of environmental surfaces after an intervention to improve cleaning methods. BMC Infect. Dis.7,61 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar13 Abernethy M, Gillespie E, Snook K, Stuart RL. Microfiber and steam for environmental cleaning during an outbreak. Am. J. Infect. Control doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2013.02.011 (2013) (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar14 French GL, Otter JA, Shannon KP, Adams NM, Watling D, Parks MJ. Tackling contamination of the hospital environment by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): a comparison between conventional terminal cleaning and hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination. J. Hosp. Infect.57,31–37 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar15 Boyce JM, Havill NL, Otter JA et al. Impact of hydrogen peroxide vapor room decontamination on clostridium difficile environmental contamination and transmission in a healthcare setting. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.29,723–729 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar16 Nerandzic MM, Cadnum JL, Pultz MJ, Donskey CJ. Evaluation of an automated ultraviolet radiation device for decontamination of Clostridium difficile and other healthcare-associated pathogens in hospital rooms. BMC Infect. Dis.10,197 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar17 Nerandzic MM, Cadnum JL, Eckart KE, Donskey CJ. Evaluation of a hand-held far-ultraviolet radiation device for decontamination of Clostridium difficile and other healthcare-associated pathogens. BMC Infect. Dis.12,120 (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar18 Boyce JM, Havill NL, Moore BA. Terminal decontamination of patient rooms using an automated mobile UV light unit. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.32,737–742 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar19 Havill NL, Moore BA, Boyce JM. Comparison of the microbiological efficacy of hydrogen peroxide vapor and ultraviolet light processes for room decontamination. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.33,507–512 (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar20 Ismail S, Perni S, Pratten J, Parkin I, Wilson M. Efficacy of a novel light-activated antimicrobial coating for disinfecting hospital surfaces. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.32,1130–1132 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar101 CDC. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/Disinfection_Nov_2008.pdfGoogle ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 8, No. 9 STAY CONNECTED Metrics History Published online 10 September 2013 Published in print September 2013 Information© Future Medicine LtdKeywordscleaningcopper surfacesdisinfectionenvironment of careenvironmental contaminationhealthcare-acquired infectionshydrogen peroxide vaporUV lightFinancial & competing interests disclosureThe authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.PDF download" @default.
• W2074920502 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2074920502 creator A5056062827 @default.
• W2074920502 creator A5058901430 @default.
• W2074920502 date "2013-09-01" @default.
• W2074920502 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2074920502 title "What strategies are in place to control microbial burden in hospital environments and how could these change in the future?" @default.
• W2074920502 cites W1992963352 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2005835083 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2012750109 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2021467014 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2026279856 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2040218336 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2072761448 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2118868248 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2123522802 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2124234511 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2133116927 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2135144784 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2135479278 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2141267388 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2146460502 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2147675653 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2155672131 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2155904369 @default.
• W2074920502 cites W2165462300 @default.
• W2074920502 doi "https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb.13.99" @default.
• W2074920502 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24020731" @default.
• W2074920502 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2074920502 type Work @default.
• W2074920502 sameAs 2074920502 @default.
• W2074920502 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2074920502 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2074920502 hasAuthorship W2074920502A5056062827 @default.
• W2074920502 hasAuthorship W2074920502A5058901430 @default.
• W2074920502 hasConcept C107826830 @default.
• W2074920502 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2074920502 hasConcept C2775924081 @default.
• W2074920502 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2074920502 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2074920502 hasConceptScore W2074920502C107826830 @default.
• W2074920502 hasConceptScore W2074920502C154945302 @default.
• W2074920502 hasConceptScore W2074920502C2775924081 @default.
• W2074920502 hasConceptScore W2074920502C39432304 @default.
• W2074920502 hasConceptScore W2074920502C41008148 @default.
• W2074920502 hasIssue "9" @default.
• W2074920502 hasLocation W20749205021 @default.
• W2074920502 hasLocation W20749205022 @default.
• W2074920502 hasOpenAccess W2074920502 @default.
• W2074920502 hasPrimaryLocation W20749205021 @default.
• W2074920502 hasRelatedWork W1967782764 @default.
• W2074920502 hasRelatedWork W2358374921 @default.
• W2074920502 hasRelatedWork W2373232777 @default.
• W2074920502 hasRelatedWork W2387705531 @default.
• W2074920502 hasRelatedWork W2389266787 @default.
• W2074920502 hasRelatedWork W2915258068 @default.
• W2074920502 hasRelatedWork W2992943792 @default.
• W2074920502 hasRelatedWork W3187910787 @default.
• W2074920502 hasRelatedWork W4205577494 @default.
• W2074920502 hasRelatedWork W4320000422 @default.
• W2074920502 hasVolume "8" @default.
• W2074920502 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2074920502 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2074920502 magId "2074920502" @default.
• W2074920502 workType "article" @default.