Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:21:46.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of procedures for hygienic hand-disinfection: controlled parallel experiments on the Vienna test model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

M. L. Rotter ,
W. Koller ,
G. Wewalka ,
H. P. Werner ,
G. A. J. Ayliffe  and
J. R. Babb
M. L. Rotter
Affiliation:
Institute of Hygiene of the University, Vienna, Austria
W. Koller
Affiliation:
Institute of Hygiene of the University, Vienna, Austria
G. Wewalka
Affiliation:
Institute of Hygiene of the University, Vienna, Austria
H. P. Werner
Affiliation:
Institute of Hygiene of the University, Mainz, West Germany
G. A. J. Ayliffe
Affiliation:
Hospital Infection Research Laboratory, Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham B18 7QH, UK
J. R. Babb
Affiliation:
Hospital Infection Research Laboratory, Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham B18 7QH, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Controlled parallel experiments were performed on the Vienna test model for the evaluation of procedures for hygienic hand-disinfection in three laboratories (Vienna, Mainz, Birmingham). The degerming activity of four procedures, each taking 1 min, was assessed repeatedly and compared with that of a standard disinfection procedure (ST) using isopropanol 60 % (v/v). The mean log reductions (mean log RF) for each procedure were as follows: n−propanol 50% (v/v) 4·85 and 5·14 in Vienna (V) and Mainz (M) respectively, ethanol 70 % (v/v) + chlorhexidinegluconate 0·5% (w/v), 4·01 (V), 3·76 (M) and 4·00 in Birmingham (B). Washing procedures were less effective, mean log RF 's of 3·19 (V), 3·49 (M) and 3·04 (B) were obtained with povidone-iodine soap, and 2·91 (V), 3·37 (M) and 3·27 (B) with a liquid phenolic soap. Analysis of variance on the data from Vienna and Mainz revealed significant differences of means not only between procedures (‘preparations’) but also on repeat testing. To compensate for the influence of variables such as test subjects, laboratory and day, the Vienna test model provides a method of standardization by testing a ST in parallel with the test procedure (P).

Standardization of the results was obtained by pair-wise substraction, log . Analysis of variance on the resulting values demonstrated that comparability of the results between laboratories and on repeat testing was achieved. The relative variation of the measurements within the laboratories ranged from 0·9 to 4·2%. As assessed by power-analysis, a disinfection procedure will be detected as significantly (P= 0·1) inferior to the standard processes in 95 of 100 experiments if it produces a mean log RF that is at least 0·55–0·65 log units smaller than that of the standard.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 96 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 27 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

References

REFERENCES

Ayliffe, G. A. J. & Babb, J. R. (1979) Hygienic hand disinfection: selection of test organisms. Hospital-Hygiene, Sanderheft, 09 pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Ayliffe, G. A. J., Babb, J. R. & Quoraishi, A. H. (1978). A test for ‘hygienic’ hand disinfection. Journal of Clinical Pathology 31, 923–928.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1977). In Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, revised edition. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hygiene und Mikrobioloqie (1981). Richtlinien für die Prüfung und Bewertung chemischer Desinfektionsverfahre – erster Teilabschnitt. Zentralbatt für Bakteriologie und Hygiene (I. Abteilung Orginale, Reihe B) 172, 528–556.Google Scholar
Kundi, M., Roller, W., Mittermayer, H. & Rotter, M. (1975). Zur erstellung von Anforderungen an Verfahren zur Hygienischen Händedesinfektion. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie und Hygiene I. Abteilung Originale, Reihe B) 161, 165–177.Google Scholar
Österreichische Gesellschaft Für Hygiene, Mikrobiologie und Präventivmedizin (1981). Richtlinie vom 4 November 1980 für die Bewertung der Desinfektionswirkung von Verfahren für die Hygienische Händedesinfektion. Österreichische Krankenhauszeitung 22, 23–31; Hygiene±Medizin 6, 4–9.Google Scholar
Rotter, M., Roller, W. & Kundi, M. (1977). Eignung dreier Alkohole für eine Standard-Desinfektionsmethode in der Wertbestimmung von Verfahren für die Hygienische Händedesinfektion. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie und Hygiene (I. Abteilung Originate, Reihe B) 164, 428–438.Google Scholar
Rotter, M., Mittermayer, H. & Kundi, M. (1974). Untersuchungen zum Modell derkünstlich kontaminierten Hand – Vorschlag für eine Prüfmethode. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie und Hygiene (I. Abteilung Originale, Reihe B) 159, 560–581.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests. In Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, pp. 75–83. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar