Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T20:24:54.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of a fluorescent marker with quantitative bioburden methods to assess cleanliness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2018

I-Chen Hung ,
Hao-Yuan Chang ,
Aristine Cheng ,
An-Chi Chen ,
Ling Ting ,
Mei-Wen Chen ,
Yeur-Hur Lai  and
Wang-Huei Sheng
I-Chen Hung
Affiliation:
Center for Infection Control, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Hao-Yuan Chang
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
Aristine Cheng
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
An-Chi Chen
Affiliation:
Center for Infection Control, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Ling Ting
Affiliation:
Center for Infection Control, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Mei-Wen Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Nursing, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Yeur-Hur Lai
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Nursing, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Wang-Huei Sheng*
Affiliation:
Center for Infection Control, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
*
Author for correspondence: Wang-Huei Sheng MD, PhD, Center for Infection Control, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei 100, Taiwan. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Improvement of environmental cleaning in hospitals has been shown to decrease in-hospital cross transmission of pathogens. Several objective methods, including aerobic colony counts (ACCs), the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence assay, and the fluorescent marker method have been developed to assess cleanliness. However, the standard interpretation of cleanliness using the fluorescent marker method remains uncertain.

Objective

To assess the fluorescent marker method as a tool for determining the effectiveness of hospital cleaning.

Design

A prospective survey study.

Setting

An academic medical center.

Methods

The same 10 high-touch surfaces were tested after each terminal cleaning using (1) the fluorescent marker method, (2) the ATP assay, and (3) the ACC method. Using the fluorescent marker method under study, surfaces were classified as totally clean, partially clean, or not clean. The ACC method was used as the standard for comparison.

Results

According to the fluorescent marker method, of the 830 high-touch surfaces, 321 surfaces (38.7%) were totally clean (TC group), 84 surfaces (10.1%) were partially clean (PC group), and 425 surfaces (51.2%) were not clean (NC group). The TC group had significantly lower ATP and ACC values (mean ± SD, 428.7 ± 1,180.0 relative light units [RLU] and 15.6 ± 77.3 colony forming units [CFU]/100 cm2) than the PC group (1,386.8 ± 2,434.0 RLU and 34.9 ± 87.2 CFU/100 cm2) and the NC group (1,132.9 ± 2,976.1 RLU and 46.8 ± 119.2 CFU/100 cm2).

Conclusions

The fluorescent marker method provided a simple, reliable, and real-time assessment of environmental cleaning in hospitals. Our results indicate that only a surface determined to be totally clean using the fluorescent marker method could be considered clean.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 39 , Issue 11 , November 2018 , pp. 1296 - 1300
Copyright
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 

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. Weber, DJ, Rutala, WA, Miller, MB, Huslage, K, Sickbert-Bennett, E. Role of hospital surfaces in the transmission of emerging health care associated pathogens: norovirus, Clostridium difficile, and Acinetobacter species. Am J Infect Control 2010;38 Suppl 5:S25–S33.Google Scholar
2. Hayden, MK, Bonten, MJ, Blom, DW, Lyle, EA, Vijver, DA, Weinstein, RA. Reduction in acquisition of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus after enforcement of routine environmental cleaning measures. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:1552–1560.Google Scholar
3. Munoz-Price, LS, Birnbach, DJ, Lubarsky, DA, et al. Decreasing operating room environmental pathogen contamination through improved cleaning practice. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:897–904.Google Scholar
4. 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
5. Datta, R, Piatt, R, Yokoe, DS, et al. Environmental cleaning intervention and risk of acquiring multidrug-resistant organisms from prior room occupants. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:491–494.Google Scholar
6. Carling, PC, Huang, SS. Improving healthcare environmental cleaning and disinfection: current and evolving issues. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:507–513.Google Scholar
7. Carling, PC. Methods for assessing the adequacy of practice and improving room disinfection. Am J Infect Control 2013;41 Suppl 5 :S20–S25.Google Scholar
8. Rutala, WA, Weber, DJ. Monitoring and improving the effectiveness of surface cleaning and disinfection. Am J Infect Control 2016;44 Suppl 5 :e69–e76.Google Scholar
9. 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
10. 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;38:617–622.Google Scholar
11. Carling, PC, Parry, MF, Von Beheren, SM, et al. Identifying opportunities to enhance environmental cleaning in 23 acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:1–7.Google Scholar
12. 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
13. Carling, PC, Parry, MF, Bruno-Murtha, LA, Dick, B. Improving environmental hygiene in 27 intensive care units to decrease multidrug-resistant bacterial transmission. Crit Care Med 2010;38:1054–1059.Google Scholar
14. Ragan, K, Khan, A, Zeynalova, N, McKernan, P, Baser, K, Muller, MP. Use of audit and feedback with fluorescent targeting to achieve rapid improvements in room cleaning in the intensive care unit and ward settings. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:284–286.Google Scholar
15. Gillespie, E, Wright, PL, Snook, K, et al. The role of ultraviolet marker assessments in demonstrating. Am J Infect Control 2015;43:1347–1349.Google Scholar
16. Luick, L, Thompson, PA, Loock, MH, Vetter, SL, Cook, J, Guerrero, DM. Diagnostic assessment of different environmental cleaning monitoring methods. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:751–752.Google Scholar
17. 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
18. Snyder, GM, Holyoak, AD, Leary, KE, Sullivan, BF, Davis, RB, Wright, SB. Effectiveness of visual inspection compared with non-microbiologic methods to determine the thoroughness of post-discharge cleaning. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2013;2:26.Google Scholar
19. Smith, PW, Beam, E, Sayles, H, et al. Impact of adenosine triphosphate detection and feedback on hospital room cleaning. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:564–569.Google Scholar
20. Huang, YS, Chen, YC, Chen, ML, et al. Comparing visual inspection, aerobic colony counts, and adenosinetriphosphate bioluminescence assay for evaluating surface cleanliness at a medical center. Am J Infect Control 2015;43:882–886.Google Scholar