Comparing the effectiveness of hand hygiene techniques in reducing the microbial load and covering hand surfaces in healthcare workers: Updated systematic review.
Alcohol-based handrub
Bacterial count
Decontamination
Evidence-based practice
Hand antisepsis
Healthcare
Journal
American journal of infection control
ISSN: 1527-3296
Titre abrégé: Am J Infect Control
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8004854
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
received:
07
12
2021
revised:
04
02
2022
accepted:
07
02
2022
pubmed:
16
2
2022
medline:
28
9
2022
entrez:
15
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This review, commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO), examined the effectiveness of the WHO 6-step hand hygiene (HH) technique in reducing microbial load on hands and covering hand surfaces, and compared its effectiveness to other techniques. Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, Web of Science, Mednar, and Google Scholar were searched for primary studies, published in English (1978-February 2021), evaluating the microbiological effectiveness or hand surface coverage of HH techniques in healthcare workers. Reviewers independently performed quality assessment using Cochrane tools. The protocol for the narrative review was registered (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021236138). Nine studies were included. Evidence demonstrated that the WHO technique reduced microbial load on hands. One study found the WHO technique more effective than the 3-step technique (P = .02), while another found no difference between these 2 techniques (P = .08). An adapted 3-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique in laboratory settings (P = .021), but not in clinical practice (P = .629). One study demonstrated that an adapted 6-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique (P = .001). Evidence was heterogeneous in application time, product, and volume. All studies were high risk of bias. Eight studies found that the WHO 6-step technique reduced microbial load on healthcare workers' hands; but the studies were heterogeneous and further research is required to identify the most effective, yet feasible technique.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This review, commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO), examined the effectiveness of the WHO 6-step hand hygiene (HH) technique in reducing microbial load on hands and covering hand surfaces, and compared its effectiveness to other techniques.
METHODS
Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, Web of Science, Mednar, and Google Scholar were searched for primary studies, published in English (1978-February 2021), evaluating the microbiological effectiveness or hand surface coverage of HH techniques in healthcare workers. Reviewers independently performed quality assessment using Cochrane tools. The protocol for the narrative review was registered (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021236138).
RESULTS
Nine studies were included. Evidence demonstrated that the WHO technique reduced microbial load on hands. One study found the WHO technique more effective than the 3-step technique (P = .02), while another found no difference between these 2 techniques (P = .08). An adapted 3-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique in laboratory settings (P = .021), but not in clinical practice (P = .629). One study demonstrated that an adapted 6-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique (P = .001). Evidence was heterogeneous in application time, product, and volume. All studies were high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Eight studies found that the WHO 6-step technique reduced microbial load on healthcare workers' hands; but the studies were heterogeneous and further research is required to identify the most effective, yet feasible technique.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35167898
pii: S0196-6553(22)00067-0
doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2022.02.003
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1079-1090Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.