Highlights
- •This study evaluated chemical disinfection efficacy in the operating room versus focused multivector ultraviolet (FMUV) disinfection.
- •Compliance in the control (chemical) phase was 92% and in the intervention (FMUV) phase was 99%.
- •The chemical disinfection colony-forming unit (CFU) reduction on operating room equipment was 38%, and for FMUV it was 96.5%.
- •After disinfection, the intervention (FMUV) CFU levels were 19.5 times better than the control (chemical) CFU levels.
- •The 90-second treatment cycle for the intervention (FMUV) was highly effective.
Background
This non-randomized comparative observational study evaluated the performance of a
standard manual-chemical disinfection process with an automated process employing
focused multivector ultraviolet (FMUV) light technology during operating room (OR)
terminal cleaning.
Methods
An Association of periOperative Registered Nurses terminal cleaning protocol was modified
to incorporate the use of automated FMUV technology that allows workers to occupy
the room during operation. This modified protocol was compared with a standard manual-chemical
cleaning and disinfection protocol. Equipment surfaces were pre-sampled before and
after terminal cleaning. A total of 165 objects were sampled in each process using
a 5-point multisided sampling method.
Results
The parallel process employing FMUV reduced the active microbial burden by 96.5% from
baseline (P < .0001), which was over 2.5 times better than the standard process. The standard
terminal manual-chemical disinfection process reduced the active microbial burden
on sampled objects by 38.4% from baseline (P < .0001).
Conclusions
The data demonstrates that the performance of standard manual-chemical disinfection
alone is variable in a live clinical setting even under the most ideal conditions.
By comparison, automated FMUV treatment incorporated in a parallel process consistently
produced thorough and significant reductions of microbial contamination levels on
all visibly clean patient care equipment.
Key Words
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to American Journal of Infection ControlAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Environmental cleaning for the prevention of healthcare-associated infections. Technical brief No. 22. AHRQ publication no. 15-EHC020-EF.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD2015
- Does improving surface cleaning and disinfection reduce health care-associated infections?.Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41: S12-S19
- Guidelines for perioperative practice.(AORN, editor)Guidelines for environmental cleaning. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses, Denver, CO2018: 7-27
- How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review.BMC Infect Dis. 2006; 6: 130-137
- The role of the surface environment in healthcare-associated infections.Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2013; 26: 338-344
- Association between healthcare-associated infection and exposure to hospital roommates and previous bed occupants with the same organism.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018; 39: 541-546
- Portable ultraviolet light surface-disinfecting devices for prevention of hospital-acquired infections: a health technology assessment.Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2018; 18: 1-73
- Assessment of focused multivector ultraviolet disinfection with shadowless delivery using 5-point multisided sampling of patient care equipment without manual-chemical disinfection.Am J Infect Control. 2019; 47: 409-414
- No-touch disinfection methods to decrease multidrug-resistant organism infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018; 39: 20-31
- Disinfectants used for environmental disinfection and new room decontamination technology.Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41: S36-S41
- Implementation lessons learned from the benefits of enhanced terminal room (BETR) disinfection study: process and perceptions of enhanced disinfection with ultraviolet disinfection devices.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018; 39: 157-163
- Room decontamination with UV radiation.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010; 31: 1025-1029
- Decontamination devices in health care facilities: practical issues and emerging applications.Am J Infect Control. 2019; 47S: A23-A28
- Options for environmental cleaning, the environmental evaluation workgroup.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA2010
- CDC environmental checklist for monitoring terminal cleaning.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA2010
- American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: surgical site infection guidelines, 2016 update.J Am Coll Surg. 2017; 224: 59-74
- Enhanced disinfection leads to reduction of microbial contamination and a decrease in patient colonization and infection.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018; 39: 1118-1121
- Assessing the feasibility of a focused multivector ultraviolet system between surgery cases with a parallel protocol for enhanced disinfection capabilities.Am J Infect Control. 2019; 47: 1006-1008
- Methods for assessing the adequacy of practice and improving room disinfection.Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41: S20-S25
- Monitoring the effectiveness of cleaning in four British hospitals.Am J Infect Control. 2007; 35: 338-341
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: November 30, 2019
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest: None to report.
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
