Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:57:23.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The importance of soap selection for routine hand hygiene in hospital

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2010

J. Ojajärvi
J. Ojajärvi
Affiliation:
The Department of Public Health Science, University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 3, 00290 Helsinki 29, Finland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Five different types of liquid soap were studied in hospital wards, each during two months' use. Altogether 1306 finger print samples were taken from the hands of the staff by sampling twice a week and the acceptability of the soaps was measured by a questionnaire. During the use of different soaps only slight differences were found in the numbers of total bacteria or in the occurrence of Staph. aureus and gram-negative bacilli on the hands. During the use of the emulsion-type product studied, several persons who had dermatological problems had lower mean bacterial counts of the fingers than during the use of the other soaps. This soap was also favourably accepted by the staff. After over one year's use of pine oil soap and alcohol, the staff of the hospital was satisfied with the method. However, several persons with skin problems admitted to not using soap or alcohol. The considerable differences found in the acceptability of soaps imply that for use in hospital the choice of a soap acceptable to the nursing staff is important in promoting proper hand hygiene.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 86 , Issue 3 , June 1981 , pp. 275 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

References

REFERENCES

Ayliffe, G. A. J., Babb, J. R., Bridges, K., Lilly, H. A., Lowbury, E. J. L., Varney, J. & Wilkins, M. D. (1975). Comparison of two methods for assessing the removal of total organisms and pathogens from the skin. Journal of Hygiene 75, 259–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, M. K., Langner, S. B. & Wells, R. W. (1974). How good are hand washing practices? American Journal of Nursing 74, 1676–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Lowbury, E. J. L., Lilly, H. A. & Bull, J. P. (1964). Disinfection of hands: removal of transient organisms. British Medical Journal 2, 230–3.Google Scholar
MacPherson, C. R., Sparkman, M. F. & Whitney, D. R. (1965).Lack of effect of two hexachlorophene-containing soaps under normal hospital working conditions. American Journal of Surgery 109, 699–704.Google Scholar
Mortimer, E. A. Jr., Wolinsky, E. & Rammelkamp, C. H. (1965). The transmission of staphylococci by the hands of personnel. In Skin Bacteria and their Role in Infection (ed. Maibach, H. I. & Hildick-Smith, G.) pp. 187–199. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Ojajärvi, J., Mäkelä, P. & Rantasalo, I. (1977). Failure of hand disinfection with frequent hand washing: a need for prolonged field studies. Journal of Hygiene 79, 107–19.Google Scholar
Ojajärvi, J. (1980). Effectiveness of hand washing and disinfection methods in removing transient bacteria after patient nursing. Journal of Hygiene 85, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprunt, K., Redman, W. & Leidy, G. (1973). Antibacterial effectiveness of routine hand washing. Pediatrics 52, 264–71.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. J. (1978 a). An evaluation of handwashing techniques 1. Nursing Times 74, 54–5.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. J. (1978 b). An evaluation of handwashing techniques 2. Nursing Times 74, 108–10.Google Scholar
Weatherall, J. A. C. & Winner, H. I. (1963). The intermittent use of hexachlorophene soap – a controlled trial. Journal of Hygiene 61, 443–9.Google Scholar