Advertisement

Comparative evaluation of operating room terminal cleaning by two methods: Focused multivector ultraviolet (FMUV) versus manual-chemical disinfection

Published:November 30, 2019DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.10.009

      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 access
      One-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 Control
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Leas BF
        • Sullivan N
        • Han JH
        • Pegues DA
        • Kaczmarek JL
        • Umscheid CA
        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
        • Donskey CJ
        Does improving surface cleaning and disinfection reduce health care-associated infections?.
        Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41: S12-S19
        • Wood A
        • Conner R.
        Guidelines for perioperative practice.
        (AORN, editor)Guidelines for environmental cleaning. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses, Denver, CO2018: 7-27
        • Kramer A
        • Schwebke I
        • Kampf G
        How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review.
        BMC Infect Dis. 2006; 6: 130-137
        • Weber DJ
        • Anderson D
        • Rutala WA
        The role of the surface environment in healthcare-associated infections.
        Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2013; 26: 338-344
        • Cohen B
        • Liu J
        • Cohen AR
        • Larson E
        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
        • Health Quality Ontario
        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
        • Armellino D
        • Walsh TJ
        • Petraitis V
        • Kowalski W
        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
        • Marra AR
        • Schweizer ML
        • Edmond MB
        No-touch disinfection methods to decrease multidrug-resistant organism infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018; 39: 20-31
        • Rutala WA
        • Weber DJ
        Disinfectants used for environmental disinfection and new room decontamination technology.
        Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41: S36-S41
        • Anderson DJ
        • Knelson LP
        • Moehring RW
        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
        • Rutala WA
        • Gergen MF
        • Weber DJ
        Room decontamination with UV radiation.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010; 31: 1025-1029
        • Donskey CJ
        Decontamination devices in health care facilities: practical issues and emerging applications.
        Am J Infect Control. 2019; 47S: A23-A28
        • Guh A
        • Carling P
        • Environmental Evaluation Workgroup
        Options for environmental cleaning, the environmental evaluation workgroup.
        Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA2010
        • CDC
        CDC environmental checklist for monitoring terminal cleaning.
        Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA2010
        • Ban KA
        • Minei JP
        • Laronga C
        • Harbrecht BG
        • Jensen EH
        • Fry DE
        • et al.
        American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: surgical site infection guidelines, 2016 update.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2017; 224: 59-74
        • Rutala WA
        • Kanamori H
        • Gergen MF
        • Knelson LP
        • Sickbert-Bennett EE
        • Chen LF
        • et al.
        Enhanced disinfection leads to reduction of microbial contamination and a decrease in patient colonization and infection.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018; 39: 1118-1121
        • Armellino D
        • Walsh TJ
        • Petraitis V
        • Kowalski W
        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
        • Carling P
        Methods for assessing the adequacy of practice and improving room disinfection.
        Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41: S20-S25
        • Cooper RA
        • Griffith CJ
        • Malik RE
        • Obee P
        • Looker N
        Monitoring the effectiveness of cleaning in four British hospitals.
        Am J Infect Control. 2007; 35: 338-341