Observations on hospital room contamination testing
Philip W. Smith A B C , Shawn Gibbs B , Harlan Sayles B , Angela Hewlett A , Mark E. Rupp A and Peter C. Iwen AA College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198, USA.
B College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: pwsmith@unmc.edu
Healthcare Infection 18(1) 10-13 https://doi.org/10.1071/HI12049
Submitted: 31 October 2012 Accepted: 22 November 2012 Published: 11 February 2013
Abstract
Background: The environment has increasingly been shown to be involved in transmission of healthcare-associated infections, but data on environmental cleanliness assessment are relatively sparse.
Method: Environmental samples were collected from 18 high touch surfaces in 10 different acute care hospital rooms before cleaning to provide data on the rank order of cleanliness by site using both adenosine triphosphate (ATP) detection and quantitative microbiology. In addition, pre- and post-cleaning pooled samples of surfaces from 10 rooms were analysed by culture and sensitivity analysis to detect organisms of concern in the hospital.
Results: Four surfaces were ranked in the top six for contamination by both ATP and culture detection (bedrail control panel, nurse call light, patient phone, and bedrail). Additionally, the top three areas for cleanliness were identical between the two methods (main light switch, mattress, and bathroom interior door handle). Overall, quantitative microbiology and ATP analysis showed directional agreement in assessment of environmental cleanliness with higher ATP readings found on surfaces designated as ‘dirty’ by quantitative microbiology. Several organisms of concern for hospital infection control were seldom detected in the pre-cleaning environmental samples, and not at all in the post-cleaning samples.
Conclusions: In this study environmental bioburden decreased after cleaning, and few hazardous nosocomial organisms were noted. Although quantitative microbiology and ATP detection measure somewhat different aspects of environmental contamination, they both generally agree in distinguishing clean from dirty surfaces.
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 |
[2] 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 |
[3] 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 |
[4] 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 |
[5] 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 |
[6] 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 |
[7] Sexton JD, Tanner BD, Maxwell SL, Gerba CP. Reduction in the microbial load on high-touch surfaces in hospital rooms by treatment with a portable saturated steam vapor disinfection system. Am J Infect Control 2011; 39 655–62.
| Reduction in the microbial load on high-touch surfaces in hospital rooms by treatment with a portable saturated steam vapor disinfection system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Weber DJ. Room decontamination with UV radiation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31 1025–9.
| Room decontamination with UV radiation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Iwen PC, Booth SJ, Woods GL. Comparison of media for screening of diarrheic stools for the recovery of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 1989; 27 2105–6.
| 1:STN:280:DyaL1MzotVyhtQ%3D%3D&md5=6edd09d221cd800d0b6fa13966e34facCAS |
[10] 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 |
[11] Guh A, Carling P, Environmental Work Group. Options for evaluating environmental cleaning. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2010. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/toolkits/Evaluating-Environmental-Cleaning.html [verified 24 January 2013].