Effect of antiseptic handwashing vs alcohol sanitizer on health care-associated infections in neonatal intensive care units.
BACKGROUND
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga, recommend use of waterless alcohol hand products in lieu of traditional handwashing for patient care, but there are few data demonstrating the impact of this recommendation on health care-associated infections.


OBJECTIVE
To compare the effect of 2 hand hygiene regimens on infection rates and skin condition and microbial counts of nurses' hands in neonatal intensive care units.


METHODS
Clinical trial using a crossover design in 2 neonatal intensive care units in Manhattan, NY, from March 1, 2001, to January 31, 2003, including 2932 neonatal hospital admissions (51 760 patient days) and 119 nurse participants.


METHODS
Two hand hygiene products were tested: a traditional antiseptic handwash and an alcohol hand sanitizer. Each product was used for 11 consecutive months in each neonatal intensive care unit in random order.


RESULTS
After adjusting for study site, birth weight, surgery, and follow-up time, there were no significant differences in neonatal infections between the 2 products; odds ratios for alcohol compared with handwashing were 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.25) for any infection, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.77-1.33) for bloodstream infections, 1.61 (95% CI, 0.57-5.54) for pneumonia, 1.78 (95% CI, 0.94-3.37) for skin and soft tissue infections, and 1.26 (95% CI, 0.42-3.76) for central nervous system infections. The skin condition of participating nurses was significantly improved during the alcohol phase (P = .02 and P = .049 for observer and self-assessments, respectively), but there were no significant differences in mean microbial counts on nurses' hands (3.21 and 3.11 log(10) colony-forming units for handwashing and alcohol, respectively; P = .38).


CONCLUSIONS
Infection rates and microbial counts on nurses' hands were equivalent during handwashing and alcohol phases, and nurses' skin condition was improved using alcohol. However, assessing the impact on infection rates of a single intervention is challenging because of multiple contributory factors such as patient risk, unit design, and staff behavior. Other practices such as frequency and quality of hand hygiene are likely to be as important as product in reducing risk of cross-transmission.
Larson
Elaine L
EL
School of Nursing, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 630 W 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA. ell23@columbia.edu
Cimiotti
Jeannie
J
Haas
Janet
J
Parides
Michael
M
Nesin
Mirjana
M
Della-Latta
Phyllis
P
Saiman
Lisa
L
D000328:Adult; D000891:Anti-Infective Agents, Local / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects; D002710:Chlorhexidine / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000031:analogs & derivatives*; D003428:Cross Infection / Q000517:prevention & control*; D004812:Epidemiologic Methods; D000431:Ethanol / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects; D005260:Female; D006225:Hand / Q000382:microbiology; D006235:Hand Disinfection / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007363:Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; D008297:Male; D009741:Nursing Staff, Hospital
D000891:Anti-Infective Agents, Local; D000431:Ethanol; C010882:chlorhexidine gluconate; D002710:Chlorhexidine