You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
Comparison of Waterless Hand Antisepsis Agents at Short Application Times: Raising the Flag of Concern
Sasi Dharan , MT, Stéphane Hugonnet , MD, MSc, Hugo Sax , MD and Didier Pittet , MD, MS
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Vol. 24, No. 3 (March 2003), pp. 160-164
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/502182
Page Count: 6
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Gels, Hands, Broths, Antisepsis, Infection control, Health care industry, Fingers, Antimicrobials, Antiseptics, Teaching hospitals
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
OBJECTIVE. Although alcohol‐based hand rinses and gels have recommended application times of 30 to 60 seconds, healthcare workers usually take much less time for hand hygiene. We compared the efficacies of four alcohol‐based hand rubs produced in Europe (hand rinses A, B, and C and one gel formulation) with the efficacy of the European Norm 1500 (EN 1500) reference waterless hand antisepsis agent (60% 2‐propanol) at short application times. DESIGN. Comparative crossover study. SETTING. Infection Control Program laboratory of a large tertiary‐care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS. Twelve healthy volunteers. INTERVENTION. Measurement of residual bacterial counts and log reduction factors following inoculation of fingertips with Staphylococcus aureus American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) 6538, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442, and a clinical isolate of Enterococcus faecalis. RESULTS. All hand rinses satisfied EN 1500 standards following a single application for 15 and 30 seconds, but reduction factors for the gel formulation were significantly lower for all tested organisms (all P < .025). CONCLUSIONS. Under stringent conditions similar to clinical practice, all three hand rinses proved to be more efficacious than the marketed alcohol‐based gel in reducing bacterial counts on hands. Further studies are necessary to determine the in vivo efficacy of alcohol‐based gels and whether they are as efficacious as alcohol‐based rinses in reducing the transmission of nosocomial infections.
© 2003 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.