A study of three methods for assessment of hospital environmental cleaning
Philip W. Smith A C , Harlan Sayles B , Angela Hewlett A , R. Jennifer Cavalieri A , Shawn G. Gibbs B and Mark E. Rupp A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-5400, USA.
B College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-4320, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: pwsmith@unmc.edu
Healthcare Infection 18(2) 80-85 https://doi.org/10.1071/HI13001
Submitted: 1 January 2013 Accepted: 25 January 2013 Published: 23 April 2013
Abstract
Background: The environment is increasingly appreciated as a factor in healthcare associated infections. Several methods for measuring environmental contamination are available. Our goal was to compare quantitative microbiology to adenosine triphosphate (ATP) detection on a sample of hospital surfaces both pre- and post-cleaning, and to assess fluorescent marker results in the same rooms.
Methods: In a sample of 10 rooms, ATP readings by relative light units (RLU) and quantitative determination of colony forming units (CFU) were measured pre- and post-cleaning on 10 high-touch hospital environmental surfaces. Removal of fluorescent markers (FM) was evaluated post-cleaning in the same rooms. Methods were compared using correlational analyses.
Results: The ATP readings were usually higher than CFU readings compared with their respective norms for cleanliness. The direction of change in cleanliness assessment (usually down after cleaning) was consistent between the RLU and CFU methods. In addition, CFU and RLU values correlated pre-cleaning, but not post-cleaning. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve suggested a ‘clean’ cutoff of 8 RLU/cm2 for the ATP assay, higher than 2.5 RLU/cm2 cutoff most often used. Neither method correlated well with FM results.
Conclusions: The methods for measuring environmental cleanliness have shown inconsistent correlation, but measure different parameters. Additional studies are needed to assess the correlation and predictive value of the three methods for room cleanliness assessment.
Additional keywords: ATP device, environmental cleanliness assessment.
References
[1] Yokoe DS, Mermel LA, Anderson DJ, Arias KM, Burstin H, Calfee DP, et al A compendium of strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29 S12–21.| A compendium of strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections in acute care hospitals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18840084PubMed |
[2] Dancer SJ. How do we assess hospital cleaning? A proposal for microbiological standards for surface hygiene in hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2004; 56 10–5.
| How do we assess hospital cleaning? A proposal for microbiological standards for surface hygiene in hospitals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2c%2FhtVWjtw%3D%3D&md5=a54f2cdbae6c78d857515c2c71b59780CAS | 14706265PubMed |
[3] Carling PC, Parry MM, Rupp ME, Po JL, Dick B, Von Beheren S, et al Improving cleaning of the environment surrounding patients in 36 acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29 1035–41.
| Improving cleaning of the environment surrounding patients in 36 acute care hospitals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18851687PubMed |
[4] Guh A, Carling P, Environmental Work Group. Options for evaluating environmental cleaning. 2011 Available from: www.cdc.gov/HAI/toolkits/Evaluating-Environmental-Cleaning.html [Verified March 2013]
[5] Lewis T, Griffith C, Gallo M, Weinbren M. A modified ATP benchmark for evaluating the cleaning of some hospital environmental surfaces. J Hosp Infect 2008; 69 156–63.
| A modified ATP benchmark for evaluating the cleaning of some hospital environmental surfaces.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1czjvVKisA%3D%3D&md5=9520ae317a2140f14f299cf163250d01CAS | 18468725PubMed |
[6] Goodman ER, Platt R, Bass R, Onderdonk AB, Yokoe DS, Huang SS. Impact of an environmental cleaning intervention on the presence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci on surfaces in intensive care unit rooms. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29 593–9.
| Impact of an environmental cleaning intervention on the presence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci on surfaces in intensive care unit rooms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18624666PubMed |
[7] Moore G, Smyth D, Singleton J, Wilson P. The use of adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence to assess the efficacy of a modified cleaning program implemented within an intensive care setting. Am J Infect Control 2010; 38 617–22.
| The use of adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence to assess the efficacy of a modified cleaning program implemented within an intensive care setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20605265PubMed |
[8] Boyce JM, Havill NL, Lipka A, Havill H, Rizvani R. Variations in hospital daily cleaning practices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31 99–101.
| Variations in hospital daily cleaning practices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19951203PubMed |
[9] Mulvey D, Redding P, Robertson C, Woodall C, Kingsmore P, Bedwell D, et al Finding a benchmark for monitoring hospital cleanliness. J Hosp Infect 2011; 77 25–30.
| Finding a benchmark for monitoring hospital cleanliness.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3M%2FmvVGgsg%3D%3D&md5=5bb109e43ce9c232b4ca1fe45106827dCAS | 21129820PubMed |
[10] Boyce JM, Havill NL, Dumigan DG, Golebiewski M, Balogun O, Rizvani R. Monitoring the effectiveness of hospital cleaning practices by use of an adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009; 30 678–84.
| Monitoring the effectiveness of hospital cleaning practices by use of an adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19489715PubMed |
[11] Huslage K, Rutala WA, Sickbert-Bennett E, Weber DJ. A quantitative approach to defining “high-touch” surfaces in hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31 850–3.
| A quantitative approach to defining “high-touch” surfaces in hospitals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20569115PubMed |
[12] Davidson CA, Griffith CJ, Peters AC, Fielding LM. Evaluation of two methods for monitoring surface cleanliness-ATP bioluminescence and traditional hygiene swabbing. Luminescence 1999; 14 33–8.
| Evaluation of two methods for monitoring surface cleanliness-ATP bioluminescence and traditional hygiene swabbing.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK1MXktFGntbo%3D&md5=31fd2beaa07cf0a3c3490682a1d4feb6CAS | 10398558PubMed |
[13] Boyce JM, Havill NL, Havill HL, Mangione E, Dumigan DG, Moore BA. Comparison of fluorescent marker systems with 2 quantitative methods of assessing terminal cleaning practices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32 1187–93.
| Comparison of fluorescent marker systems with 2 quantitative methods of assessing terminal cleaning practices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22080657PubMed |
[14] Havill NL, Havill HL, Mangione E, Dumigan DG, Boyce JM. Cleanliness of portable medical equipment disinfected by nursing staff. Am J Infect Control 2011; 39 602–4.
| Cleanliness of portable medical equipment disinfected by nursing staff.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21496956PubMed |
[15] Sherlock O, O’Connell N, Creamer E, Humphreys H. Is it really clean? An evaluation of the efficacy of four methods for determining hospital cleanliness. J Hosp Infect 2009; 72 140–6.
| Is it really clean? An evaluation of the efficacy of four methods for determining hospital cleanliness.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1MzhsFyitw%3D%3D&md5=1788fa7a8363db7923cc8418fc9ded68CAS | 19321226PubMed |
[16] Boyce JM, Havill NL, Moore BA. Terminal decontamination of patient rooms using an automated mobile UV light unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32 737–42, discussion 743–7.
| Terminal decontamination of patient rooms using an automated mobile UV light unit.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21768755PubMed |
[17] White LF, Dancer SJ, Robertson C, McDonald J. Are hygiene standards useful in assessing infection risk? Am J Infect Control 2008; 36 381–4.
| Are hygiene standards useful in assessing infection risk?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18538706PubMed |
[18] Carling PC, Parry MF, Von Beheren SM, Healthcare Environmental Hygiene Study Group Identifying opportunities to enhance environmental cleaning in 23 acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29 1–7.
| Identifying opportunities to enhance environmental cleaning in 23 acute care hospitals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1c%2FmvFOkug%3D%3D&md5=f5618d8e93a1c5167726eb4c747d52c2CAS | 18171180PubMed |
[19] Carling PC, Bartley JM. Evaluating hygienic cleaning in health care settings: what you do not know can harm your patients. Am J Infect Control 2010; 38 S41–50.
| Evaluating hygienic cleaning in health care settings: what you do not know can harm your patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20569855PubMed |
[20] Murphy CL, MacBeth DA, Derrington P, Gerrard J, Faloon J, Kenway K, et al An assessment of high touch object cleaning thoroughness using a fluorescent marker in two Australian hospitals. Healthc Infect 2011; 16 156–63.
| An assessment of high touch object cleaning thoroughness using a fluorescent marker in two Australian hospitals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[21] Cheng KL, Boost MV, Chung JW. Study on the effectiveness of disinfection with wipes against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and implications for hospital hygiene. Am J Infect Control 2011; 39 577–80.
| Study on the effectiveness of disinfection with wipes against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and implications for hospital hygiene.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21641084PubMed |