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
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

1079-1090

Subventions

Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Lesley Price (L)

SHIP Research Group, Research Centre for Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.

Lucyna Gozdzielewska (L)

SHIP Research Group, Research Centre for Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK. Electronic address: lucyna.gozdzielewska@gcu.ac.uk.

Ayodeji Matuluko (A)

SHIP Research Group, Research Centre for Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.

Didier Pittet (D)

Infection Control Programme and WHO Collaborating Center on Patient Safety, The University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.

Benedetta Allegranzi (B)

Infection Prevention and Control Technical and Clinical Hub, Department of Integrated Health Services, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Jacqui Reilly (J)

SHIP Research Group, Research Centre for Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH