Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:31:25.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Adenosine Triphosphate Detection and Feedback on Hospital Room Cleaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

Philip W. Smith ,
Elizabeth Beam ,
Harlan Sayles ,
Mark E. Rupp ,
R. Jennifer Cavalieri ,
Shawn Gibbs  and
Angela Hewlett
Philip W. Smith*
Affiliation:
College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Elizabeth Beam
Affiliation:
College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Harlan Sayles
Affiliation:
College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Mark E. Rupp
Affiliation:
College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
R. Jennifer Cavalieri
Affiliation:
College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Shawn Gibbs
Affiliation:
College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Angela Hewlett
Affiliation:
College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
*
College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 985400 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To assess the effect of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) device measurement of hospital room cleaning and feedback of pooled results to environmental service workers (EVS) to improve cleaning efficacy.

Design.

Nonrandomized controlled trial conducted over 20 months.

Setting.

Three hospitals of varying size.

Participants.

EVS workers, randomly selected on the basis of convenience sample of rooms.

Interventions.

Environmental cleanliness composite scores were combined with layered educational interventions and used to provide feedback to EVS workers on specific hospital units. Trends in cleaning efficacy were observed after the interventions.

Results.

Cleaning efficacy improved significantly with each intervention (P < .01) and decreased during the washout period.

Conclusions.

The ATP detection device combined with educational feedback for EVS workers resulted in significant improvement in cleaning efficacy of the hospital room environment.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , May 2014 , pp. 564 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2014

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. Guh, A, Carling, P; Environmental Evaluation Workgroup. Options for evaluating environmental cleaning, http://www.cdc.gov/hai/toolkits/evaluating-environmental-cleaning.html. Updated 2010. Accessed October 1, 2013.Google Scholar
2. Otter, JA, Yezli, S, Salkeld, JA, French, GL. Evidence that contaminated surfaces contribute to the transmission of hospital pathogens and an overview of strategies to address contaminated surfaces in hospital settings. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:S6–S11.Google Scholar
3. Huang, SS, Datta, R, Platt, R. Risk of acquiring antibiotic-resistant bacteria from prior room occupants. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1945–1951.Google Scholar
4. 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.Google Scholar
5. Boyce, JM, Havill, NL, Lipka, A, Havill, H, Rizvani, R. Variations in hospital daily cleaning practices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:99–101.Google Scholar
6. 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;32:1187–1193.Google Scholar
7. Smith, P, Sayles, H, Hewlett, AL, Cavalieri, R, Gibbs, S, Rupp, M. A study of three methods for assessment of hospital environmental cleaning. Healthcare Infect 2013;18:80–85.Google Scholar
8. 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;72:140–146.Google Scholar
9. Carling, PC, Parry, MM, Rupp, ME, et al. Improving cleaning of the environment surrounding patients in 36 acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:1035–1041.Google Scholar
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;30:678–684.Google Scholar
11. Smith, PW, Gibbs, S, Sayles, H, Hewlett, A, Rupp, ME, Iwen, PC. Observations on hospital room contamination testing. Healthcare Infection 2013;18:10–13.Google Scholar
12. Huslage, K, Rutala, WA, Sickbert-Bennett, E, Weber, DJ. A quantitative approach to defining “high-touch” surfaces in hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:850–853.Google Scholar
13. Horan, TC, Andrus, M, Dudeck, MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:309–332.Google Scholar
14. Dumigan, DG, Boyce, JM, Havill, NL, Golebiewski, M, Balogun, O, Rizvani, R. Who is really caring for your environment of care? developing standardized cleaning procedures and effective monitoring techniques. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:387–392.Google Scholar
15. Boyce, JM, Havill, NL, Dumigan, DG, Golbiewski, M, Balogun, O, Rizvani, R. Monitoring the effectiveness of hospital cleaning practices using an ATP bioluminescence assay. Paper presented at: Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Annual Scientific Meeting; April 5-8, 2008; Orlando, Florida (Poster 276).Google Scholar
16. Matlow, AG, Wray, R, Richardson, SE. Attitudes and beliefs, not just knowledge, influence the effectiveness of environmental cleaning by environmental service workers. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:260–262.Google Scholar
17. Rebmann, T, Aureden, K; Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. Preventing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission in long-term care facilities: an executive summary of the APIC Elimination Guide. Am J Infect Control 2011;39:235–238.Google Scholar
18. Havill, NL. Best practices in disinfection of noncritical surfaces in the health care setting: creating a bundle for success. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:S26–S30.Google Scholar
19. Aziz, A. Can education and training for domestic staff increase awareness of infection control practices and improve cleanliness within hospitals? J Infect Preven 2009;10:171–177.Google Scholar
20. Guerrero, DM, Carling, PC, Jury, LA, Ponnada, S, Nerandzic, MM, Donskey, CJ. Beyond the Hawthorne effect: reduction of Clostridium difficile environmental contamination through active intervention to improve cleaning practices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:524–526.Google Scholar
21. Pauli, P. Using games to demonstrate competency. I Nurses Staff Dev 2005;21:272–276.Google Scholar
22. Whiteley, GS, Derry, C, Glasbey, T. Reliability testing for portable adenosine triphosphate bioluminometers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:538–540.Google Scholar