-
JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and... May 2015Gloves are worn to protect hands from contamination from microorganisms and to reduce the risks of transmission of microorganisms from healthcare workers to patients and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gloves are worn to protect hands from contamination from microorganisms and to reduce the risks of transmission of microorganisms from healthcare workers to patients and vice versa. However, gloves should be changed between patient contacts and hand washing is necessary before putting on gloves and immediately after removing gloves.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review was to evaluate and synthesize the best available research evidence that investigates clinical use of gloves in the prevention of cross transmission.
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS
Health care workers.Types of intervention(s): Glove use intervention. Types of outcomes: Contamination of healthcare workers' hands, transmission of infections, adherence to glove usage, inappropriate uses of gloves, and adherence to hand hygiene. Types of studies: Quasi-experimental studies and descriptive studies.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The search sought to find published and unpublished studies. The time period of the search covered articles published from 2000 to 2012 in English and Thai. The databases searched included: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Direct, Current Content Connect, Blackwell synergy, Thai Nursing Research Database, Thai thesis database, Digital Library of Thailand Research Fund, Research of National Research Council of Thailand, and Database of Office of Higher Education.
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY
Studies selected for retrieval were assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument software.
DATA COLLECTION
Data extraction was performed using the standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument software.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A meta-synthesis was not possible due to the methodological heterogeneity of the included papers. The evidence was thus presented as a narrative summary.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were included in this review. The results indicated that contamination of a healthcare worker's gloves with bacteria during routine care activities is common. The use of gloves can protect the hands of healthcare workers from bacterial contamination, but the protection afforded by the gloves was incomplete. Adherence to glove utilization among healthcare workers was suboptimal. Gloves were overused and often misused. The major break in compliance with glove use was failure to change gloves between procedures on the same patient. Inappropriate glove use can increase the risk of cross transmission. It is unclear if modifications in glove use alter compliance with hand hygiene among healthcare workers.
CONCLUSION
Gloving can reduce acquisition of microorganisms on the hands. However, gloving does not completely prevent contamination of the hands. Compliance with glove use among healthcare workers is poor. Gloves were also overused and often misused. Inappropriate glove use can increase the risk of cross transmission via contaminated gloved hands. There is still not enough evidence to prove the influence of glove use on adherence to hand hygiene.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
This review strengthens the recent suggestion on the use of gloves to reduce bacterial contamination. However, gloving does not completely prevent contamination, thus emphasizing the need for hand antisepsis before and after patient contact. Intervention to improve the use of gloves and hand hygiene compliance after gloving in the healthcare settings should be implemented.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Further studies should target poor compliers with glove use and promote strategies that can be evaluated.
Topics: Antisepsis; Cross Infection; Disease Transmission, Infectious; Gloves, Surgical; Hand Hygiene; Health Personnel; Humans; Thailand
PubMed: 26447080
DOI: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1817 -
Systematic Reviews Jan 2019Architectural division of aseptic and septic operating theatres is a distinct structural feature of surgical departments in Germany. Internationally, hygienists and...
BACKGROUND
Architectural division of aseptic and septic operating theatres is a distinct structural feature of surgical departments in Germany. Internationally, hygienists and microbiologists mainly recommend functional separation (i.e. aseptic procedures first) without calling for separate operating floors and rooms. However, patients with severe musculoskeletal infections (e.g. joint empyema, spondylodiscitis, deep implant-associated infections) may benefit from the permanent availability of septic operating capacities without delay caused by an ongoing aseptic surgical program. A systematic literature review on the influence of a structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality has not yet been conducted.
METHODS
Systematic literature search in PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, screening of referenced citations, and assessment of grey literature.
RESULTS
A total of 572 articles were found through the systematic literature search. No head-to-head studies (neither randomised, quasi-randomised nor observational) were identified which examined the impact of structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality.
CONCLUSIONS
This review did not identify evidence in favour nor against architectural separation of septic or aseptic operating theatre. Specifically, there is no evidence of a harmful effect of architectural separation. Unless prospective studies, ideally randomised trials, will be available, it is unjustified to call for abolishing established hospital structures. Future investigations must address patient-centered endpoints, surgical site infections, process quality and hospital economy.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews): CRD42018086568.
Topics: Asepsis; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Multiple; Equipment Contamination; Germany; Hospital Design and Construction; Humans; Infection Control; Operating Rooms; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Quality Improvement; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 30626433
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0937-9 -
Infection Control and Hospital... Jan 2020Cutaneous antisepsis with chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine, usually with alcohol, has been extensively studied. This review of published studies reveals that sequential...
Cutaneous antisepsis with chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine, usually with alcohol, has been extensively studied. This review of published studies reveals that sequential use of povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine leads to a greater reduction in the bioburden of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria on the skin, lower risk of intravascular catheter colonization, and lower risk of surgical site infection compared to use of either agent alone. As such, sequential use of cutaneous antiseptic agents may further reduce risk of surgical site infections, as well as infections associated with insertion of transdermal devices such as nephrostomy tubes, left-ventricular assistance devices, and intravascular catheters.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Alcohols; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bacteria, Aerobic; Bacteria, Anaerobic; Bacterial Load; Catheter-Related Infections; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Skin; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 31619301
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2019.287 -
The Journal of Knee Surgery Jul 2022Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most prevalent and devastating complications following lower extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Strategies to reduce...
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most prevalent and devastating complications following lower extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Strategies to reduce the rates can be divided into preoperative, perioperatives, and postoperative measures. A multicenter trial is underway to evaluate the efficacy of implementing a bundled care program for SSI prevention in lower extremity TJA including: (1) nasal decolonization; (2) surgical skin antisepsis; (3) antimicrobial incise draping; (4) temperature management; and (5) negative-pressure wound therapy for selected high-risk patients. The purposes of this systematic review were to provide a background and then to summarize the available evidence pertaining to each of these SSI-reduction strategies with special emphasis on total knee arthroplasty. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. Five individual literature searches were performed to identify studies evaluating nasal decolonization temperature management, surgical skin antisepsis, antimicrobial incise draping, and negative-pressure wound therapy. The highest level of evidence reports was used in each product review, and if there were insufficient arthroplasty papers on the particular topic, then papers were further culled from the surgical specialties to form the basis for the review. There was sufficient literature to assess all of the various prophylactic and preventative techniques. All five products used in the bundled program were supported for use as prophylactic agents or for the direct reduction of SSIs in both level I and II studies. This systematic review showed that various pre-, intra-, and postoperative strategies are efficacious in decreasing the risks of SSIs following lower extremity TJA procedures. Thus, including them in the armamentarium for SSI-reduction strategies for hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons should decrease the incidence of infections. We expect that the combined use of these products in an upcoming study will support these findings and may further enhance the reduction of total knee arthroplasty SSIs in a synergistic manner.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Humans; Lower Extremity; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 34875715
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740394 -
Acta Ophthalmologica May 2024Topical antimicrobials and antiseptics are used perioperatively to reduce the ocular surface bacteria flora (OSBF) that are involved in the development of post-operative... (Review)
Review
Topical antimicrobials and antiseptics are used perioperatively to reduce the ocular surface bacteria flora (OSBF) that are involved in the development of post-operative infectious complications. However, their effectiveness is still a controversial topic. This systematic review, performed according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO, aims to provide an overview of the efficacy of the agents currently used in peri-cataract surgery and -intravitreal injections (IVI) in lowering the OSBF. Although effective in lowering OSBF, perioperative topical antimicrobials are associated with the risk of resistance development, with no obvious additional benefit compared with topical antisepsis. Conversely, the effectiveness of topical antiseptics before cataract surgery and IVI is strongly supported. Based on the available evidence, perioperative antimicrobials are not recommended, whereas the perioperative use of antiseptics is strongly recommended as prophylactic treatment for lowering the infection due to OSBF. Post-operative antimicrobials may be considered in eyes at higher risk for infection.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Eye; Cataract
PubMed: 37427851
DOI: 10.1111/aos.15732 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical procedures conducted annually the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Antiseptics are thought to be toxic to bacteria and therefore aid their mechanical removal. The effectiveness of preoperative skin preparation is thought to be dependent on both the antiseptic used and the method of application, however, it is unclear whether preoperative skin antisepsis actually reduces postoperative wound infection, and, if so, which antiseptic is most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether preoperative skin antisepsis immediately prior to surgical incision for clean surgery prevents SSI and to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseptics.
SEARCH METHODS
For this third update we searched just the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 27 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of preoperative skin antiseptics applied immediately prior to incision in clean surgery. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on language of publication, date or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were undertaken independently by two review authors.
MAIN RESULTS
There were no new studies added to the review in the third updateThirteen studies were included in this review (2,623 participants). These evaluated several different types of skin antiseptics - leading to 11 different comparisons being made. Although the antiseptics evaluated differed between studies, all trials involved some form of iodine. Iodine in alcohol was compared to alcohol alone in one trial; one trial compared povidone iodine paint (solution type not reported) with soap and alcohol. Six studies compared different types of iodine-containing products with each other and five compared iodine-containing products with chlorhexidine-containing products.There was evidence from one study suggesting that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits led to a reduced risk of SSI compared with an alcohol based povidone iodine solution: RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.82). However, it is important to note that the trial does not report important details regarding the interventions (such as the concentration of povidone iodine paint used) and trial conduct, such that risk of bias was unclear.There were no other statistically significant differences in SSI rates in the other comparisons of skin antisepsis. Overall the risk of bias in included studies was unclear.A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was conducted and this suggested that alcohol-containing products had the highest probability of being effective - however, again the quality of this evidence was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive review of current evidence found some evidence that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits was associated with lower rates of SSIs following clean surgery than alcohol-based povidone iodine paint. However this single study was poorly reported. Practitioners may therefore elect to consider other characteristics such as costs and potential side effects when choosing between alternatives.The design of future trials should be driven by the questions of high priority to decision makers. It may be that investment in at least one large trial (in terms of participants) is warranted in order to add definitive and hopefully conclusive data to the current evidence base. Ideally any future trial would evaluate the iodine-containing and chlorhexidine-containing solutions relevant to current practice as well as the type of solution used (alcohol vs. aqueous).
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Ethanol; Humans; Iodine Compounds; Povidone-Iodine; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 25897764
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003949.pub4 -
The Journal of Hospital Infection Jun 2024Guidelines for pre-operative skin antisepsis recommend using chlorhexidine in an alcohol-based solution. However, other antiseptics such as aqueous povidone-iodine or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Guidelines for pre-operative skin antisepsis recommend using chlorhexidine in an alcohol-based solution. However, other antiseptics such as aqueous povidone-iodine or alcohol-based solutions continue to be used. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in caesarean section are rare and do not include all possible comparisons of antiseptics. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy (reduction of surgical site infections) of chlorhexidine at two different concentrations (0.3% and 2%) and povidone-iodine in aqueous or alcohol-based solutions using a network meta-analysis, including only RCTs of caesarean sections. Fragility indices and prediction intervals were also estimated. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were performed. RCTs published up to February 2024 were collected from PubMed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library. Interventions included alcohol-based povidone-iodine, aqueous povidone-iodine, and alcohol-based chlorhexidine 2% and 0.3%. The primary outcome measure was surgical site infection. Nine RCTs with 4915 patients and four interventions were included in the network meta-analysis. All credible intervals of the compared interventions overlapped. Alcohol-based 2% chlorhexidine had the highest probability of being effective in preventing surgical site infections, followed by alcohol-based povidone-iodine. The fragility index ranged from 4 to 18. The prediction intervals were wide. On the basis of rank probabilities, chlorhexidine 2% in an alcohol-based solution was most likely to be effective in preventing surgical site infections after caesarean section, followed by alcohol-based povidone-iodine. Given the paucity of literature and the relatively small difference between povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine found in our meta-analysis, we suggest that either can be used in an alcohol-based solution as antisepsis for planned or emergency caesarean section.
Topics: Humans; Cesarean Section; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Network Meta-Analysis; Chlorhexidine; Female; Povidone-Iodine; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38688391
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2024.03.021 -
American Journal of Infection Control Oct 2022This 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... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Hand; Hand Hygiene; Health Personnel; Humans; World Health Organization
PubMed: 35167898
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2022.02.003 -
Veterinary Surgery : VS Jul 2022To provide a systematic assessment of the efficacy of preoperative skin asepsis using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine based protocols for surgical site infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To provide a systematic assessment of the efficacy of preoperative skin asepsis using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine based protocols for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention in veterinary surgery.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic meta-analytical review according to PRISMA-P guidelines.
SAMPLE POPULATION
Studies comparing preoperative skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine in veterinary surgery identified by systematic search between 1990 and 2020.
METHODS
A search using MEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of Science and CAB Abstracts was performed, followed by secondary searches of Google Scholar, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, and relevant bibliographic articles. Primary and secondary outcome measures were the efficacy of skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine on SSI incidence and skin bacterial colonization, respectively. A meta-analysis was performed with a random-effect model, with effect size calculated as risk ratio (RR) or mean standard deviation (MSD) with 95% CI. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.
RESULTS
Among 1067 publications that met the initial search criteria, 9 relevant studies were eligible for analysis. No difference in the incidence of postoperative SSI or skin bacterial colonization between preoperative asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine was found. Insufficient information and detail were frequent among studies and precluded a clear assessment of bias.
CONCLUSION
This study showed that asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine were comparable to povidone-iodine in preventing postoperative SSI and reducing skin bacterial colonization.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Given the limitations of the studies that were included in terms of both quality and quantity, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Asepsis; Chlorhexidine; Clinical Protocols; Ethanol; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Povidone-Iodine; Preoperative Care; Surgery, Veterinary; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35437786
DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13810 -
Implant Dentistry Feb 2019The aim of the present study was to review the effectiveness, side effects, and patient acceptance of different concentrations and formulation of chlorhexidine-based...
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present study was to review the effectiveness, side effects, and patient acceptance of different concentrations and formulation of chlorhexidine-based mouthwashes used after periodontal and implant surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PRISMA guideline was adopted in the search strategy using electronic databases PubMed and MEDLINE to identify randomized and case-control prospective studies on humans written in English language and published up to September 2017.
RESULTS
A total of 10 articles were selected for a total of 344 patients. Because of the significant heterogeneity of the outcome measures, meta-analysis was not performed, and the data were summarized in a table. A positive relationship between the use of chlorhexidine and reduction of plaque was found, demonstrating the effectiveness of the substance in terms of antisepsis and decrease of inflammation after periodontal and implant surgery.
CONCLUSION
Chlorhexidine is recognized as the primary agent for plaque control and the gold standard in preventing infection, although the presence of largely known side effects would affect patient compliance. Future research should be directed at finding chlorhexidine formulation with negligible adverse effects, without compromising or even increasing its effectiveness as the antiseptics and antiplaque agent.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Dental Implantation; Dental Plaque; Humans; Mouthwashes; Periodontal Diseases; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 30648980
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000854