1 / 92

Safer Healthcare Environments for Infection Prevention

Explore advanced technologies in healthcare for infection prevention. Learn about reprocessing instruments, sterilization methods, and disinfection advancements. Stay updated on new trends and improvements in patient safety.

robertoholt
Download Presentation

Safer Healthcare Environments for Infection Prevention

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Safer Healthcare Environments for Infection Prevention William A. Rutala, PhD, MPH Director, Hospital Epidemiology, Occupational Health and Safety; Professor of Medicine and Director, Statewide Program for Infection Control and Epidemiology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA

  2. DISCLOSURES • Consultation • Advanced Sterilization Products, Clorox • Honoraria (speaking) • Advanced Sterilization Products, 3M • Grants • CDC

  3. Safer Healthcare Environments for Infection PreventionNew Technologies and Future Challenges • Reprocessing reusable medical/surgical instruments • Hospital surfaces • Water • Air

  4. disinfectionandsterilization.org

  5. Safer Healthcare Environments for Infection PreventionNew Technologies and Future Challenges • Reprocessing reusable medical/surgical instruments • Hospital surfaces • Water • Air

  6. DISINFECTION AND STERILIZATION • EH Spaulding believed that how an object will be disinfected depended on the object’s intended use • CRITICAL- objects which enter normally sterile tissue or the vascular system or through which blood flows should be sterile • SEMICRITICAL - objects that touch mucous membranes or skin that is not intact require a disinfection process (high-level disinfection[HLD]) that kills all microorganisms but high numbers of bacterial spores • NONCRITICAL - objects that touch only intact skin require low-level disinfection

  7. New Trends in Sterilization of Patient Equipment • Alternatives to ETO-CFC ETO-CO2, ETO-HCFC, 100% ETO • New Low Temperature Sterilization Technology Hydrogen Peroxide Gas Plasma-most common Vaporized hydrogen peroxide-limited clinical use Ozone-limited clinical use

  8. Rapid Readout BIs for Steam Now Require a 1-3h Readout Compared to 24-48h

  9. Attest™ Super Rapid Readout Biological IndicatorsCommercially available in early 2013 • 1491 BI (blue cap) • Monitors 270°F and 275°F gravity –displacement steam sterilization cycles • 30 minute result (from 1 hour) • 1492V BI (brown cap) • Monitors 270°F and 275°F dynamic-air-removal (pre-vacuum) steam sterilization cycles • 1 hour result (from 3 hours)

  10. DISINFECTION AND STERILIZATION • EH Spaulding believed that how an object will be disinfected depended on the object’s intended use • CRITICAL - objects which enter normally sterile tissue or the vascular system or through which blood flows should be sterile • SEMICRITICAL - objects that touch mucous membranes or skin that is not intact require a disinfection process (high-level disinfection[HLD]) that kills all microorganisms but high numbers of bacterial spores • NONCRITICAL - objects that touch only intact skin require low-level disinfection

  11. High-Level Disinfection of “Semicritical Objects” Exposure Time > 8m-45m (US), 20oC Germicide Concentration_____ Glutaraldehyde > 2.0% Ortho-phthalaldehyde0.55% Hydrogen peroxide* 7.5% Hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid* 1.0%/0.08% Hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid* 7.5%/0.23% Hypochlorite (free chlorine)* 650-675 ppm Accelerated hydrogen peroxide 2.0% Peracetic acid 0.2% Glut and isopropanol 3.4%/26% Glut and phenol/phenate** 1.21%/1.93%___ *May cause cosmetic and functional damage; **efficacy not verified

  12. Automated Endoscope Reprocessors with Cleaning Claim Product Definition: Integrated double-bay AER Eliminates manual cleaning Uses New High-Level Disinfectant (HLD) with IP protection Single-shot HLD Automated testing of endoscope channels and minimum effective concentration of HLD Incorporates additional features (LAN, LCD display) Eliminates soil and microbes equivalent to optimal manual cleaning. BMC ID 2010; 10:200

  13. DISINFECTION AND STERILIZATIONRutala, Weber, HICPAC. 2008. www.cdc.gov • EH Spaulding believed that how an object will be disinfected depended on the object’s intended use • CRITICAL - objects which enter normally sterile tissue or the vascular system or through which blood flows should be sterile • SEMICRITICAL - objects that touch mucous membranes or skin that is not intact require a disinfection process (high-level disinfection[HLD]) that kills all microorganisms but high numbers of bacterial spores • NONCRITICAL- objects that touch only intact skin require low-level disinfection

  14. LOW-LEVEL DISINFECTION FOR NONCRITICAL EQUIPMENT AND SURFACES Exposure time > 1 min Germicide Use Concentration Ethyl or isopropyl alcohol 70-90% Chlorine 100ppm (1:500 dilution) Phenolic UD Iodophor UD Quaternary ammonium UD Improved hydrogen peroxide (HP) 0.5%, 1.4% ____________________________________________________ UD=Manufacturer’s recommended use dilution

  15. IMPROVED HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (HP) SURFACE DISINFECTANT • Advantages • 30 sec -1 min bactericidal and virucidal claim (fastest non-bleach contact time) • 5 min mycobactericidal claim • Safe for workers (lowest EPA toxicity category, IV) • Benign for the environment; noncorrosive; surface compatible • One step cleaner-disinfectant • No harsh chemical odor • EPA registered (0.5% RTU, 1.4% RTU, wet wipe) • Disadvantages • More expensive than QUAT

  16. BACTERICIDAL ACTIVITY OF DISINFECTANTS (log10 reduction) WITH A CONTACT TIME OF 1m WITH/WITHOUT FCS. Rutala et al. ICHE. In press Improved hydrogen peroxide is significantly superior to standard HP at same concentration and superior or similar to the QUAT tested

  17. Hospital Privacy Curtains(sprayed “grab area” 3x from 6-8” with 1.4% IHP and allowed 2 minute contact; sampled)

  18. Decontamination of Curtains with Activated HP (1.4%)Rutala, Gergen, Weber. 2012 * All isolates after disinfection were Bacillus sp

  19. Safer Healthcare Environments for Infection PreventionNew Technologies and Future Challenges • Reprocessing reusable medical/surgical instruments • Hospital surfaces (increasing evidence to support the contribution of the environment to disease transmission) • Water • Air

  20. HAZARDS IN THE HOSPITAL MRSA, VRE,C. difficile, Acinetobacter spp., norovirus Endogenous flora 40-60% Cross-infection (hands): 20-40% Antibiotic driven: 20-25% Other (environment): 20% Weinstein RA. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):179S

  21. THE ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN DISEASE TRANSMISSION • Over the past decade there has been a growing appreciation that environmental contamination makes a contribution to HAI with MRSA, VRE, Acinetobacter, norovirus and C. difficile • Surface disinfection practices are currently not effective in eliminating environmental contamination • Inadequate terminal cleaning of rooms occupied by patients with MDR pathogens places the next patients in these rooms at increased risk of acquiring these organisms

  22. TRANSMISSION MECHANISMS INVOLVING THE SURFACE ENVIRONMENT Rutala WA, Weber DJ. In:”SHEA Practical Healthcare Epidemiology” (Lautenbach E, Woeltje KF, Malani PN, eds), 3rd ed, 2010.

  23. ACQUISITION OF MRSA ON HANDS AFTER CONTACT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SITES

  24. TRANSFER OF MRSA FROM PATIENT OR ENVIRONMENT TO IV DEVICE AND TRANSMISSON OF PATHOGEN

  25. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION LEADS TO HAIsWeber, Rutala, Miller et al. AJIC 2010;38:S25 • Microbial persistence in the environment • In vitro studies and environmental samples • MRSA, VRE, AB, CDI • Frequent environmental contamination • MRSA, VRE, AB, CDI • HCW hand contamination • MRSA, VRE, AB, CDI • Relationship between level of environmental contamination and hand contamination • CDI

  26. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION LEADS TO HAIs Weber, Rutala, Miller et al. AJIC 2010;38:S25 • Person-to-person transmission • Molecular link • MRSA, VRE, AB, CDI • Housing in a room previously occupied by a patient with the pathogen of interest is a risk factor for disease • MRSA, VRE, CDI • Improved surface cleaning/disinfection reduces disease incidence • MRSA, VRE, CDI

  27. KEY PATHOGENS WHERE ENVIRONMENTIAL SURFACES PLAY A ROLE IN TRANSMISSION • MRSA • VRE • Acinetobacter spp. • Clostridium difficile • Norovirus • Rotavirus • SARS

  28. C. difficile Environmental ContaminationRutala, Weber. SHEA. 3rd Edition. 2010 • Frequency of sites found contaminated~10->50% from 13 studies-stethoscopes, bed frames/rails, call buttons, sinks, hospital charts, toys, floors, windowsills, commodes, toilets, bedsheets, scales, blood pressure cuffs, phones, door handles, electronic thermometers, flow-control devices for IV catheter, feeding tube equipment, bedpan hoppers • C. difficile spore load is low-7 studies assessed the spore load and most found <10 colonies on surfaces found to be contaminated. Two studies reported >100; one reported a range of “1->200” and one study sampled several sites with a sponge and found 1,300 colonies C. difficile.

  29. FREQUENCY OF ACQUISITION OF MRSA ON GLOVED HANDS AFTER CONTACT WITH SKIN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SITES No significant difference on contamination rates of gloved hands after contact with skin or environmental surfaces (40% vs 45%; p=0.59) Stiefel U, et al. ICHE 2011;32:185-187

  30. Risk of Acquiring MRSA and VREfrom Prior Room Occupants • Admission to a room previously occupied by an MRSA-positive patient or VRE-positive patient significantly increased the odds of acquisition for MRSA and VRE (although this route is a minor contributor to overall transmission). Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1945. • Prior environmental contamination, whether measured via environmental cultures or prior room occupancy by VRE-colonized patients, increases the risk of acquisition of VRE. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:678. • Prior room occupant with CDAD is a significant risk for CDAD acquisition. Shaughnessy et al. ICHE 2011;32:201

  31. A Targeted Strategy for C. difficile Orenstein et al. 2011. ICHE;32:1137 Daily cleaning with bleach wipes on high incidence wards reduced CDI 85% (24.2 to 3.6 cases/10,000 patient days and prolonged median time between HA CDI from 8 to 80 days

  32. Thoroughness of Environmental CleaningCarling et al. ECCMID, Milan, Italy, May 2011 >110,000 Objects Mean = 32%

  33. WipesCotton, Disposable, Microfiber Wipe should have sufficient wetness to achieve the disinfectant contact time. Discontinue use of a disposable wipe if it no longer leaves the surface visibly wet for > 1m

  34. SURFACE DISINFECTIONEffectiveness of Different Methods, Rutala et al. 2012

  35. EFFECTIVENESS OF DISINFECTANTS AGAINST MRSA AND VRE Rutala WA, et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:33-38.

  36. Mean proportion of surfaces disinfected at terminal cleaning is 32% Terminal cleaning methods ineffective (products effective practices deficient [surfaces not wiped]) in eliminating epidemiologically important pathogens

  37. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION LEADS TO HAIs • There is increasing evidence to support the contribution of the environment to disease transmission • This supports comprehensive disinfecting regimens (goal is not sterilization) to reduce the risk of acquiring a pathogen from the healthcare environment

  38. MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CLEANINGCooper et al. AJIC 2007;35:338 • Visual assessment-not a reliable indicator of surface cleanliness • ATP bioluminescence-measures organic debris (each unit has own reading scale, <250-500 RLU) • Microbiological methods-<2.5CFUs/cm2-pass; can be costly and pathogen specific • Fluorescent marker

  39. TERMINAL ROOM CLEANING: DEMONSTRATION OF IMPROVED CLEANING • Evaluated cleaning before and after an intervention to improve cleaning • 36 US acute care hospitals • Assessed cleaning using a fluorescent dye • Interventions • Increased education of environmental service workers • Feedback to environmental service workers †Regularly change “dotted” items to prevent targeting objects Carling PC, et al. ICHE 2008;29:1035-41

  40. NEW APPROACHES TO ROOM DECONTAMINATION

  41. ROOM DECONTAMINATION UNITSRutala, Weber. ICHE. 2011;32:743

  42. UV Room Decontamination • Fully automated, self calibrates, activated by hand-held remote • Room ventilation does not need to be modified • Uses UV-C (254 nm range) to decontaminate surfaces • Measures UV reflected from walls, ceilings, floors or other treated areas and calculates the operation time to deliver the programmed lethal dose for pathogens. • UV sensors determines and targets highly-shadowed areas to deliver measured dose of UV energy (12,000µWs/cm2 bacteria) • After UV dose delivered, will power-down and audibly notify the operator • Reduces colony counts of pathogens by >99.9% within 20-25m

  43. EFFECTIVENESS OF UV ROOM DECONTAMINATION Rutala WA, et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31:1025-1029.

  44. HP SYSTEMS FOR ROOM DECONTAMINATION

  45. HP SYSTEMS FOR DECONTAMINATION OF THE HOSPITAL ENVIRONMENT Falagas, et al. J Hosp Infect. 2011;78:171. • Reliable biocidal activity against a wide range of pathogens

  46. ROOM DECONTAMINATION WITH HPV • Study design • Before and after study of HPV • Outcome • C. difficile incidence • Results • HPV decreased environmental contamination with C. difficile (p<0.001), rates on high incidence floors from 2.28 to 1.28 cases per 1,000 pt days (p=0.047), and throughout the hospital from 1.36 to 0.84 cases per 1,000 pt days (p=0.26) Boyce JM, et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29:723-729.

  47. UV ROOM DECONTAMINATION: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages Reliable biocidal activity against a wide range of pathogens Surfaces and equipment decontaminated Room decontamination is rapid (~15 min) for vegetative bacteria HVAC system does not need to be disabled and room does not need to be sealed UV is residual free and does not give rise to health and safety concerns No consumable products so operating costs are low (key cost = acquisition) Disadvantages No studies evaluating whether use reduces HAIs Can only be done for terminal disinfection (i.e., not daily cleaning) All patients and staff must be removed from room Substantial capital equipment costs Does not remove dust and stains which are important to patients/visitors Sensitive use parameters (e.g., UV dose delivered) Rutala WA, Weber DJ. ICHE 2011;32:743-747

  48. HP ROOM DECONTAMINATION: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages Reliable biocidal activity against a wide range of pathogens Surfaces and equipment decontaminated Demonstrated to decrease disease incidence (C. difficile) Residual free and does not give rise to health and safety concerns (aeration units convert HPV into oxygen and water) Useful for disinfecting complex equipment and furniture Disadvantages Can only be done for terminal disinfection (i.e., not daily cleaning) All patients and staff must be removed from room Decontamination takes approximately 3-5 hours HVAC system must be disabled and the room sealed with tape Substantial capital equipment costs Does not remove dust and stains which are important to patients/visitors Sensitive use parameters (e.g., HP concentration) Rutala WA, Weber DJ. ICHE (In press)

More Related