Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-01T01:26:35.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bacterial Contamination of Keyboards: Efficacy and Functional Impact of Disinfectants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

William A. Rutala ,
Matthew S. White ,
Maria F. Gergen  and
David J. Weber
William A. Rutala*
Affiliation:
Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Health Care System, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Matthew S. White
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Maria F. Gergen
Affiliation:
Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Health Care System, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
David J. Weber
Affiliation:
Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Health Care System, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
*
CB #7030; 130 Mason Farm Road, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7030 ([email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background.

Computers are ubiquitous in the healthcare setting and have been shown to be contaminated with potentially pathogenic microorganisms. This study was performed to determine the degree of microbial contamination, the efficacy of different disinfectants, and the cosmetic and functional effects of the disinfectants on the computer keyboards.

Methods.

We assessed the effectiveness of 6 different disinfectants (1 each containing chlorine, alcohol, or phenol and 3 containing quaternary ammonium) against 3 test organisms (oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [ORSA], Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus species) inoculated onto study computer keyboards. We also assessed the computer keyboards for functional and cosmetic damage after disinfectant use.

Results.

Potential pathogens cultured from more than 50% of the computers included coagulase-negative staphylococci (100% of keyboards), diphtheroids (80%), Micrococcus species (72%), and Bacillus species (64%). Other pathogens cultured included ORSA (4% of keyboards), OSSA (4%), vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus species (12%), and nonfermentative gram-negative rods (36%). All disinfectants, as well as the sterile water control, were effective at removing or inactivating more than 95% of the test bacteria. No functional or cosmetic damage to the computer keyboards was observed after 300 disinfection cycles.

Conclusions.

Our data suggest that microbial contamination of keyboards is prevalent and that keyboards may be successfully decontaminated with disinfectants. Keyboards should be disinfected daily or when visibly soiled or if they become contaminated with blood.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , April 2006 , pp. 372 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

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.Burke, JP. Infection control—a problem for patient safety. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:651–656.Google Scholar
2.Bures, S, Fishbain, JT, Uyehara, CF, Parker, JM, Berg, BW. Computer keyboards and faucet handles as reservoirs of nosocomial pathogens in the intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control 2000; 28:465–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Neely, AN, Maley, MP, Warden, GD. Computer keyboards as reservoirs for Acinetobacter baumannii in a burn hospital. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 29:1358–1360.Google Scholar
4.Devine, J, Cooke, RPD, Wright, EP. Is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) contamination of ward-based computer terminals a surrogate marker for nosocomial MRSA transmission and handwashing compliance? J Hosp Infect 2001; 48:72–75.Google Scholar
5.Man, GS, Olapoju, M, Chadwick, MV, et al. Bacterial contamination of ward-based computer terminals. J Hosp Infect 2002; 52:314–318.Google Scholar
6.Schultz, M, Gill, J, Zubairi, S, Huber, R, Gordin, F. Bacterial contamination of computer keyboards in a teaching hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:302–303.Google Scholar
7.Hartmann, B, Benson, M, Junger, A, et al. Computer keyboard and mouse as a reservoir of pathogens in an intensive care unit. J Clin Monit Comput 2004; 18:7–12.Google Scholar
8.Boyce, JM, Pittet, D, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23:S3–S40.Google Scholar
9.Stickler, DJ, King, JB. Bacterial sensitivity and resistance: intrinsic resistance. In: Russell, AD, Hugo, WB, Ayliffe, GAJ, eds. Principles and Practice of Disinfection, Preservation and Sterilization. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd; 1999:284–296.Google Scholar
10.Neely, AN, Maley, MP. Dealing with contaminated computer keyboards and microbial survival. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29:131–132.Google Scholar