Report of the Month


REPORT OF THE MONTH, Volume XII, Number 2 - 2008

- - - - -

from the
North Carolina Statewide Program for Infection Control and Epidemiology


CONTENTS:

NEWS FEATURE

QUESTION OF THE MONTH REGULATORY/LEGISLATIVE COURSES AND CONFERENCES FOR THE INFECTION PREVENTIONIST NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS RECOGNITIONS


NEWS FEATURE

Virus Transfer from Personal Protective Equipment to Healthcare Employees' Skin and Clothing

Caring for patients with communicable diseases places healthcare workers (HCWs) at risk. Infected HCWs may suffer serious illness or death, and may spread infection to other HCWs, their families, or patients. Methods to prevent HCW infections include vaccination, hand hygiene, and isolation of patients with communicable diseases.

A key aspect of patient isolation is proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect HCWs from pathogen exposure during patient care. PPE includes use of barriers (gowns, gloves, eye shields) and respiratory protection (masks, respirators) to protect mucous membranes, airways, skin, and clothing from contact with infectious agents. The importance of PPE was underscored in the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). HCWs accounted for approximately 20% of cases and developed SARS while performing patient care. Studies demonstrated that failure to properly use PPE was a risk factor for HCW infection.

This outbreak raised concern that HCWs could contaminate their skin or clothes with pathogens during PPE removal, resulting in accidental self-inoculation as well as subsequent virus spread to patients, other HCWs, or fomites. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) addressed this by designing a protocol to minimize wearer contamination during the PPE removal process. However, the effectiveness of this protocol in preventing self-contamination has not been validated.

By examining the fate of viruses after removal of experimentally contaminated PPE under controlled conditions, it can be determined if removing PPE according to the CDC protocol prevents viral contamination of the wearer. A human challenge study was undertaken using a non-pathogenic virus to determine the fate of viruses on items of PPE when a wearer removes PPE in accordance with the CDC protocol.

PPE (gowns, gloves, respirators, and goggles) donned by volunteers was contaminated with bacteriophage MS2, a non-enveloped, non-pathogenic RNA virus suspended in 0.01M PBS. Sites of contamination were: front shoulder of the gown, back shoulder of the gown, right side of the N95 respirator, upper right front of the goggles, and palm of the dominant hand. Each site was contaminated with a total of 104 plaque forming units (PFU) of MS2 in 5 drops of 5 μL each. Participants performed a health care task (measuring blood pressure on a mannequin) and then removed PPE according to the CDC protocol. Hands, items of PPE, and scrubs worn underneath were sampled for virus using the most probable number (MPN) enrichment infectivity assay.

Transfer of virus to both hands, the initially uncontaminated glove on the non-dominant hand, and the scrub shirt and pants worn underneath the PPE was observed in most volunteers (i.e., 80% to nondominant glove, 90% to skin of right hand, 70% to the skin of left hand, 100% scrub suit and 75% scrub pants). The amount of virus recovered ranged from 1-3 log10 MPN for hands and 1-4 log10 MPN for scrubs. The mean amount of virus recovered from the right hand (the dominant hand of 9/10 volunteers) was greater than that recovered from the left hand.

PPE is vital for protecting HCWs from occupationally acquired infection during patient care, particularly droplet- or airborne-transmitted diseases. However, removing PPE after patient care without contaminating skin or clothes is important. PPE is usually worn only for short periods, while viruses such as influenza and SARS-CoV can survive for hours on surfaces, and viral infection can be spread by surface-to-hand and hand-to-hand contact.

Developing and validating an algorithm for the removal of PPE that prevents contamination of the skin and clothes of HCWs is key to interrupting nosocomial transmission of potentially serious infectious agents, including SARS and avian influenza. These experiments showing viral transfer to the hands and clothing demonstrate that an altered protocol or other measures are needed to prevent healthcare worker contamination.

L Casanova, E Alfano-Sobsey, WA Rutala, DJ Weber, M Sobsey. Emerg Inf Dis 2008;14:1291

 

QUESTION OF THE MONTH

Q: I have been told that healthcare facilities should have splash guards built next to sinks in some situations. Can you clarify the rationale and provide references?

A: During an outbreak investigation in an ICU setting, the soiled utility sink was strongly implicated as the inanimate reservoir for HAI pathogens. Rodac samples from sterile items on the counter and environmental surfaces near the soiled utility sink demonstrated a variety of gram-negative bacilli similar to those recovered from the patients.(1) In another study, Holder demonstrated that contaminated splash from a sink reached a distance of 48 inches from the sink.(2) Therefore, it has been recommended that sinks should be situated to avoid splashing at a minimum of 36 inches from patients or clean supplies, or supplied with a splash guard made of nonporous materials to avoid splash contamination.(3)

References
1. Dandalides PC, WA Rutala and FA Sarubbi, Jr. Postoperative infections following cardiac surgery: Association with an environmental reservoir in a cardiothoracic intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 1984;5:378-384.
2. Holder, IA: Epidemiology of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a burns hospital. In: Young VM (ed): Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Ecological Aspects and Patient Colonization. New York, Raven Press, 1977:77-95.
3. Bartley J, APIC State-of-the-Art Report: The role of infection control during construction in health care facilities. AJIC, 2000;28:156-169.

 

REGULATORY/LEGISLATIVE

Hand Hygiene and The Joint Commission (TJC)

A medical center in North Carolina received a "Requirement for Improvement" for the failure to perform hand hygiene prior to donning nonsterile gloves. This hospital appealed the survey finding regarding hand hygiene before nonsterile glove placement prior to patient contact issue. It stated in its appeal that neither the CDC guideline nor the WHO guideline on hand hygiene recommends hand hygiene before nonsterile glove use and patient contact. The CDC guideline does recommend "decontaminate hands before having direct contact with patients" and lists two references. The two references are dated 1861 (Semmelweis) and 1962 (Mortimer), both publications are before nonsterile glove use in patient care. The hospital staff spoke to Dr. Boyce, first author of the CDC Hand Hygiene guideline, about this requirement. He said that he has spoken to The Joint Commission and told them there are no data that demonstrate that hands must be washed before nonsterile glove placement prior to patient contact. He also mentioned a paper that investigated glove contamination when hands were washed versus not washed and the investigators found no difference in glove contamination rates. Since there are no data that this practice provides patient benefit he believed that this should not be a Joint Commission recommendation (and will slow clinical care and may increase the likelihood of dermatologic problems in healthcare workers due to increase hand hygiene) and that health care facilities should emphasize hand hygiene practices that have been shown to prevent infections. It was also mentioned in the appeal that decontaminating hands before donning sterile gloves when inserting central intravascular catheters is a CDC recommendation which is the practice at the cited medical center.

The appeal was denied and now the hospital is reeducating all health care workers regarding the indications for hand hygiene to include prior to direct contact with patients. Full compliance with TJC recommendation will require a compliance rate of 90% with the CDC guidelines.

 

COURSES FOR THE INFECTION PREVENTIONIST

SPICE Infection Control Courses in 2009, Friday Center, Chapel Hill, NC:
(Information on all SPICE courses can be found on the Course page of the SPICE website: www.unc.edu/depts/spice/courses.html)

 

CONFERENCES FOR THE INFECTION CONTROL PROFESSIONAL

58th Annual Tuberculosis/Respiratory Disease Institute Conference:

The TBRD Institute has moved to a new location this year, Carolina Beach, NC, from October 29 to 31st. PURPOSE OF COURSE: To provide continuing education in the form of current diagnostic, management and research concepts as presented by local and regional experts. You can register for the conference and make hotel reservations by following the link:
http://www.mrsnv.com/evt/home.jsp?id=2168

 

NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

RECOGNITIONS

 


Contributors to Report of the Month: Karen K. Hoffmann, RN, MS, CIC; William A. Rutala, PhD, MPH; David J. Weber, MD, MPH; Eva P. Clontz, MEd, Debby Pyatt, BA


To subscribe to the Report of the Month, send email to spice@unc.edu

Report of the Month is also available on the home page of the Statewide Program for Infection Control and Epidemiology at http://www.unc.edu/depts/spice/. The Statewide Program for Infection Control and Epidemiology (SPICE) is funded by the General Assembly of North Carolina to serve the State. The SPICE is not a regulatory agency but provides education and consultation to North Carolina healthcare facilities.

Posted: October 28, 2008

Copyright 2008 Statewide Program for Infection Control and Epidemiology


Previous issues of Report of the Month