Search

The current pandemic caused by COVID-19 has underlined the importance of a joint effort and approach to ensure patient and health care worker safety in medical care throughout Europe. In addition, the recent flood disasters in Germany and other countries called for immediate joint action, in this case with regard to the prevention of water-borne infections. Environmental disasters will increase with consequences for hospitals and nursing homes. Cooperative efforts are needed for preventing and controlling associated infection outbreaks, new pathogens will appear and a geographic shift of infectious diseases previously not detected in certain areas has already been observed.This approach to infection prevention and control must entail structural as well as regulatory aspects. The principle of equal protection against infections in all European countries must be implemented. Prevention and control of infections, including nosocomial infections, infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria as well as pandemics, need to be based on equal standards in all of Europe.Protection against infections and other public health risks in all European countries is the best guarantor for building trust and identification of citizens in our common Europe.Experts in the fields of hygiene, microbiology, infectiology and epidemiology have to pool the expertise on the prevention and control of infections from different European countries and define key targets for achieving a high standard of hygiene measures throughout Europe. The participants of the Rudolf Schülke Foundation International Symposium call for immediate action and priority to be given to the realization of the proposed 16-point plan.

Hygiene procedures for hands, surfaces and fabrics are central to preventing spread of infection in settings including healthcare, food production, catering, agriculture, public settings, and home and everyday life. They are used in situations including hand hygiene, clinical procedures, decontamination of environmental surfaces, respiratory hygiene, food handling, laundry hygiene, toilet hygiene and so on. Although the principles are common to all, approaches currently used in different settings are inconsistent. A concern is the use of inconsistent terminology which is misleading, especially to people we need to communicate with such as the public or cleaning professionals.This paper reviews the data on current approaches, alongside new insights to developing hygiene procedures. Using this data, we propose a more scientifically-grounded framework for developing procedures that maximize protection against infection, based on consistent principles and terminology, and applicable across all settings.A key feature is use of test models which assess the state of surfaces after treatment rather than product performance alone. This allows procedures that rely on removal of microbes to be compared with those employing chemical or thermal inactivation. This makes it possible to ensure that a consistent “safety target level” is achieved regardless of the type of procedure used, and allows us deliver maximum health benefit whilst ensuring prudent usage of antimicrobial agents, detergents, water and energy.

[english] Background: The Rudolf Schuelke Foundation addresses topics related to hygiene, infection prevention and public health. In this context a panel of scientists from various European countries discussed “The Role of Surface Disinfection in Infection Prevention”. The most important findings and conclusions of this meeting are summarised in the present consensus paper.Aim: Although the relevance of surface disinfection is increasingly being accepted, there are still a number of issues which remain controversial. In particular, the following topics were addressed: Transferral of microbes from surface to patients as a cause of infection, requirements for surface disinfectants, biocidal resistance and toxicity, future challenges.Methods and findings: After discussion and review of current scientific literature the authors agreed that contaminated surfaces contribute to the transmission of pathogens and may thus pose an infection hazard. Targeted surface disinfection based on a risk profile is seen as an indispensable constituent in a multibarrier approach of universal infection control precautions. Resistance and cross-resistance depend on the disinfectant agent as well as on the microbial species. Prudent implementation of surface disinfection regimens tested to be effective can prevent or minimize adverse effects.Conclusions: Disinfection must be viewed as a holistic process. There is a need for defining standard principles for cleaning and disinfection, for ensuring compliance with these principles by measures such as written standard operating procedures, adequate training and suitable audit systems. Also, test procedures must be set up in order to demonstrate the efficacy of disinfectants including new application methods such as pre-soaked wipes for surface disinfection.

Background: The approval of ethanol by the Biocidal Products Regulation has been under evaluation since 2007. This follows concern over alcohol uptake from ethanol-based hand rubs (EBHR). If ethanol is classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), then this would affect infection prevention and control practices. Aim: A review was performed to prove that ethanol is toxicological uncritical and indispensable for hand antisepsis because of its unique activity against non-enveloped viruses and thus the resulting lack of alternatives. Therefore, the following main points are analyzed: The effectiveness of ethanol in hand hygiene, the evidence of ethanol at blood/tissue levels through hand hygiene in healthcare, and the evidence of toxicity of different blood/tissue ethanol levels and the non-comparability with alcoholic consumption and industrial exposure. Results: EBHR are essential for preventing infections caused by non-enveloped viruses, especially in healthcare, nursing homes, food industry and other areas. Propanols are effective against enveloped viruses as opposed to non-enveloped viruses but there are no other alternatives for virucidal hand antisepsis. Long-term ingestion of ethanol in the form of alcoholic beverages can cause tumours. However, lifetime exposure to ethanol from occupational exposure < 500 ppm does not significantly contribute to the cancer risk. Mutagenic effects were observed only at doses within the toxic range in animal studies. While reprotoxicity is linked with abuse of alcoholic beverages, there is no epidemiological evidence for this from EBHR use in healthcare facilities or from products containing ethanol in non-healthcare settings. Conclusion: The body of evidence shows EBHRs have strong efficacy in killing non-enveloped viruses, whereas 1-propanol and 2-propanol do not kill non-enveloped viruses, that pose significant risk of infection. Ethanol absorbed through the skin during hand hygiene is similar to consumption of beverages with hidden ethanol content (< 0.5% v/v), such as apple juice or kefir. There is no risk of carcinogenicity, mutagenicity or reprotoxicity from repeated use of EBHR. Hence, the WHO Task Force strongly recommend retaining ethanol as an essential constituent in hand rubs for healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of GMS Hygiene & Infection Control is the property of German Medical Science Publishing House gGmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Virtually no prevention strategy in hospital hygiene has been the focus of such frequent controversial discussions as the role of surface disinfection. Set against that background, the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention at the Robert Koch Institute founded a working group comprising members with divergent views of risk evaluation as regards the role of disinfection. This working group produced a most carefully drafted guideline on how to deal with various risk areas and also incorporated a new provision into the guideline, stating that: "Cleaning and disinfection procedures must be organized and implemented such that there is no increase in the microbial load or spread of facultatively pathogenic or pathogenic microorganisms on surfaces." Numerous studies have come to the conclusion that surface disinfection constitutes a basic infection control measure with which the spread of pathogens can be controlled. Conversely, when using only detergents such a form of control is not possible, something that must be taken into account in future when engaging in risk evaluation and formulating infection control measures. In view of the burgeoning trend in, for ex- ample, norovirus outbreaks, also in hospitals and nursing homes, such insights are of paramount importance and attest to the need for disinfection of surfaces and of areas with frequent hand and skin contacts. This discussion about the need for surface disinfection has, in addition to causing confusion among users, led to a decline in the willingness to accept hygienic practices, thus increasing the risk of occurrence of nosocomial infections as well as of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]