Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T11:28:01.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative assessment of the effectiveness of three disinfection protocols for reducing bacterial contamination of stethoscopes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2019

Patricia Sebastian Marcos ,
Darren Hermes  and
Mellora Sharman Open the ORCID record for Mellora Sharman [Opens in a new window]
Patricia Sebastian Marcos
Affiliation:
Small Animal Referral Centre, Animal Health Trust, Kentford, Suffolk, United Kingdom
Darren Hermes
Affiliation:
Diagnostic Microbiology, Animal Health Trust, Kentford, Suffolk, United Kingdom
Mellora Sharman*
Affiliation:
Small Animal Referral Centre, Animal Health Trust, Kentford, Suffolk, United Kingdom
*
Author for correspondence: Mellora Sharman, Email: Mellora.Sharman@aht.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a crossover study, 30 stethoscopes were assessed and disinfected using 3 protocols: isopropyl alcohol, a quaternary ammonia or biguanide disinfectant, and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI). All protocols effectively reduced bacterial loads, but UVGI was less effective at higher contamination levels (P = .0004). The effectiveness of each intervention was short in duration.

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 120 - 123
Copyright
© 2019 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

PREVIOUS PRESENTATION: This material was presented, in part, at the European College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ECVIM) Congress on September 14–16, 2017, in St. Julian’s, Malta.

References

Haque, M, Sartelli, M, McKimm, J, Abu Baka, M. Healthcare-associated infections—an overview. Infect Drug Resist 2018;11:2321–2333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchetti, A, Rossiter, R. Economic burden of healthcare-associated infection in US cute care hospitals: societal perspective. J Med Econ 2013;16:1399–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Flaherty, N, Fenelon, L. The stethoscope and healthcade-associated infection: a snake in the grass or innocent bystander? J Hosp Infect 2015;91:1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fujita, H, Hansen, B, Hanel, R. Bacterial contamination of stethoscope chest pieces and the effect of daily cleaning. J Vet Intern Med 2013;27:354–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kukanich, K, Ghosh, A, Skarbek, J, Lothamer, K, Zurek, L. Surveillance of bacterial contamination in small animal veterinary hospitals with special focus on antimicrobial resistance and virulence traits of enterococci. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012;240:437–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCord, K, Stanton, K, Botle, D, Hyatt, D, Lunn, K. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. contamination of stethoscopes in a small animal veterinary teaching hospital. J Vet Intern Med 2010;24:762.Google Scholar
Raghubanshi, B, Sapkota, S, Adhikari, A, Dutta, A, Bhattarai, U, Bhandari, R. Use of 90% ethanol to decontaminate stethoscopes in resource limited settings. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2017;6:68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wand, W . Bacterial resistance to hospital disinfection. In: C, Hurst, ed. Modeling the Transmission and Prevention of Infectious Disease. London: Springer International; 2017:19–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messina, G, Spataro, G, Rosadini, G, et al. A novel approach to stethoscope hygiene: a coat-pocket innovation. Infect Dis Health 2018;23:211–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, K, Barrett, J, Murney, S, Whipp, A, Elliott, J. Educational program to enhance stethoscope hygiene behavior. J Hosp Infect 2017;96:67–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, C, Hryhorskyj, L, Skinner, J. Factors influencing stethoscope cleanliness among clinical medical students. J Hosp Infect 2013;84:242–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeyakumari, D, Nagajothi, S, Praveen-Kumar, R, Ilayaperumal, G, Vigneshwaran, S. Bacterial colonization of stethoscope used in the tertiary care teaching hospita: a potential source of nosocomial infection. Int J Res Med Sci 2017;5:142–145.Google Scholar
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Annual Epidemiological Report 2016—Healthcare-Associated Infections Acquired in Intensive Care Units. Stockholm: ECDC; 2016.Google Scholar
Jelden, K, Gibbs, S, Smith, P, et al. Ultraviolet (UV)-reflective paint with ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) improves decontamination of nosocomial bacteria on hospital room surfaces. J Occupat Environ Hygiene 2017;14:456–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rock, C, Small, B, Thom, K. Innovative methods of hospital disinfection in prevention of healthcare-associated infections. Curr Treat Option Infect Dis 2018;10:65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M, Tuuri, R, Arif Dharsee, M, et al. Antimicrobial copper alloys decreased bacteria on stethoscope surfaces. Am J Infect Control 2017;45:642–647.Google ScholarPubMed
Kingston, L, O’Connell, N, Dunne, C. Hand hygiene-related clinical trials reported since 2010: a systematic review. J Hosp Infection 2016;92:309–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longtin, Y, Schneider, A, Tschopp, C, et al. Contamination of stethoscopes and physicians’ hands after a physical examination. Mayo Clin Proc 2014;89:3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schroeder, A, Schroeder, M, D’Amico, F. What’s growing on your stethoscope (and what you can do about it)? Alcohol-based foam can do double duty, cleansing hands and stethoscope heads with a single scrub. J Fam Pract 2009;58:404–410.Google Scholar