Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:28:36.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Double-Bagging of Items from Isolation Rooms is Unnecesary as an Infection Control Measure: A Comparative Study of Surface Contamination with Single- and Double-Bagging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Dennis G. Maki ,
Carla Alvarado  and
Carol Hassemer
Dennis G. Maki*
Affiliation:
Infection Control Department, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, and the Infectious Disease Section, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin
Carla Alvarado
Affiliation:
Infection Control Department, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, and the Infectious Disease Section, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin
Carol Hassemer
Affiliation:
Infection Control Department, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, and the Infectious Disease Section, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin
*
University of Wisconsin Medical Center, Madison, WI53792
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many hospitals, waste materials and used linens from the rooms of patients in isolation or the clinical laboratories are routinely double-bagged to reduce contamination of the external surface of the bag that could be transmitted to hospital personnel subsequently handling them. No studies have prospectively examined the value, if any, of double-bagging. We randomly assigned waste and linens from the rooms of 42 patients in contact isolation to be transported in single bags or double bags. Shortly after a single (or double) bag had been set outside the patient's room, the surface was cultured quantitatively in two locations near the knot; over 2 months, 209 bags were cultured. Surface contamination by Staphylococcus aureus (3% to 5%), enteric gram-negative bacilli (6% to 7%), or either (9% to 12%) was infrequent and comparable in both groups; moreover, quantitative levels of contamination in the two groups were almost identical (mean, 27 and 29 colony forming units [cfu] per bag). These data suggest that there is no advantage, as regards asepsis, to double-bagging potentially contaminated items from isolation rooms or clinical laboratories as compared with using a single bag. The use of a single-bag system with a heavyduty bag, as compared with double-bagging, saved our hospital $9,400 in 1985.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 7 , Issue 11 , November 1986 , pp. 535 - 537
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1986

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.)

References

1.Maki, DG: Control of colonization and transmission of pathogenic bacteria in the hospital. Ann Intern Med 1978; 89:777–780.Google Scholar
2.Centers for Disease Control: Isolation techniques for use in hospitals. Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, 1970. (DHEW publication no. [CSC] 78-8314), pp 1–104.Google Scholar
3.Garner, JS, Simmons, BP: Centers for Disease Control: Guidelines for isolation precautions in hospitals. Infect Control 1983; 4(Suppl):245–325.Google Scholar
4.McGowan, JE Jr: Environmental factors in nosocomial infection—A selective focus. Rev Infect Dis 1981; 3:760–769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Maki, DG, Alvarado, CJ, Hassemer, CA, Zilz, MA: Relation of the inanimate hospital environment to endemic nosocomial infection. N Engl J Med 1982; 307:1562–1566.Google Scholar
6.Garner, JS, Bennett, JV, Scheckler, WE, Maki, DG, Brachman, PS: Surveillance of nosocomial infections, in Brachman, PS, Eickhoff, TE (eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Nosocomial Infections, August 3-6, 1970. Chicago, American Hospital Association, 1971, 277–281.Google Scholar
7.Emori, TG, Haley, RW, Garner, JS: Techniques and uses of nosocomial infection surveillance in US hospitals, 1976-1977. Am J Med 1981; 70:933–940.Google Scholar
8.Lennette, E, Balows, A, Hausler, W, Shadomy, H (eds): Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 4 ed, Washington DC, American Society for Microbiology, 1985.Google Scholar
9.Maki, DG, Zilz, MA, Alvarado, CJ: Evaluation of the antibacterial efficacy of four agents for handwashing, in Nelson, JD, Grassi, C, (eds): Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Chemotherapy and the 19th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Boston, October 1-5, 1979. Washington, DC, American Society for Microbiology, 1980, pp 1089–1090.Google Scholar
10.McCormick, RD, Maki, DG: Epidemiology of needle-stick injuries in hospital personnel. Am J Med 1981; 70:928–932.Google Scholar
11.Rutala, WA, Sarubbi, FA: Management of infectious wastes from hospitals. Infect Control 1983; 4(4):198–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed