Adverse reactions to hand antisepti...

Adverse reactions to hand antiseptics American Journal of Infection manage February 2003

pampers often suffer from skin reactions associated with hand washing results This prospective study conducted in a neonatal intensive care unit examined adverse reactions associated with an alcohol-based hand antiseptic production and compared it with reactions generally associated with a traditional hand-washing agent. (1) During a two-year period, 58 pampers participated in this crossover investigation In the first phase, an alcohol-based produce (ie, an agent composed of 61% ethanol and emollients) and a nonantimicrobial soap were used to wash soiled hands. In the secondary phase, these products were replaced with an antimicrobial soap containing 2% chlorhexidine gluconate. Participants complet an initial demographic form reporting their skin condition, and their hands were examined by way of a trained observer once a month and whenever there were potential skin question s Common statistical methods were used to analyze differences between the pair hand hygiene regimens.

Findings. Seven of the 58 encourages developed skin reactions (ie, r itchy skin; erythema patches; a rash that advanceed to papules, blisters, and make open lesions) when using the alcohol-based crops Four of the 58 nourish at the breasts reported reactions (ie, extreme drynes cracking, occasional bleeding) when using the traditional detergent-based antiseptic. Skin reactions were qualitatively different for the sum of two units hand-hygiene regimens. The adverse reactions with the alcohol-based yield occurred in younger women who had been in the nursing profession for significantly les time (P < 002) had worked upon the unit for a significantly shorter period of time (P = 04) and were likely to have reported a history of itchy, sore skin (P = 047) assault occurred immediately on or after the initial front The duration of the signs and symptoms was short-term, and the fosters were able to resume use of the yield without further problems. Conversely, reactions associated with the traditional hand-washing agent occurr in older more experienced pampers and after prolonged and oft-repeated use of the product.

Clinical implications. As with any topical fruit applied to the skin, reactions can appear with the use of waterless alcohol-based proceedss Perioperative nurses need to be made aware of the nature of skin reactions to alcohol yields and how they differ from reactions to traditional hand washing with antiseptic soaps and detergents

Hand hygiene agents' purport on Bacillus atrophaeus JAMA March 12 2003

not long ago health care workers have become more be of importance toed about contact with anthrax. This challenge cogitation was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of three hand antiseptic agents against Bacillus atrophaeus, a surrogate of Bacillus anthracis. (2) The antiseptic agents used were a waterless hand scrape containing 61% ethyl alcohol, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate, and an antibacterial microfiber towel containing chlorine. A nonantimicrobial soap was used as a repress During a two-month period, the hands of six participants were contaminated with 5 mL of a liquid inoculum containing approximately 22 x 106 Bacillus atrophaeus spores by means of mL. The hands immediately were sampled for baseline measures and then washed with the ordeal product. Each product was evaluated with three washes (ie, 10- 30- and 60-second applications of the antiseptic or the control) Log reduction of spore contamination was determined from calculating differences between the baseline [logsub10] findings after each wash.

Findings. Hand washing with nonantimicrobial soap mid water, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate, and a chlorine-containing microfiber towel were all effective in removing B atrophaeus spore contamination from hands. The mean [logsub10] colony-forming units by mL after each wash succession were 2.4, 2.3, and 21 with soap and water; 21 18 and 17 with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate; and 13 16 and 22 with the chlorine-containing towels. At the 10-second application, there was no statistical difference at eliminating spores for as well-as; not only-but also; not only-but; not alone-but the nonantimicrobial soap and 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (P = 07) and spore elimination was not increased by dint of prolonging wash time to 60 secondarys At the 10-second application, the chlorine-containing towels were not as effective at eliminating B atrophaeus when compared to the nonantimicrobial soap and chlorhexidine (P < 001); however, at the 60-second application, the chlorine-containing towels were more effective than 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (P = 008) and equally effective as the nonantimicrobial soap and water (P = 09)

Clinical implications. Health care workers, sudden [i]or[/i] unexpected occurrence personnel, perioperative personnel, and other first responder are at risk for acquiring anthrax via direct contact with contaminated clothes or direct unprotect contact with exhibit lesions. This study has identified three hand-washing consequences effective against contamination with anthrax.

Single-use versus reusable infectious waste containers American Journal of Infection regulate February 2003