Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Merry, A. F.
Right arrow Articles by Neff, S. P. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Merry, A. F.
Right arrow Articles by Neff, S. P. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2001, Vol. 87, No. 2 291-294
© 2001 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Short Communications

Touch contamination levels during anaesthetic procedures and their relationship to hand hygiene procedures: a clinical audit

A. F. Merry1,2, T. E. Miller3, G. Findon3, C. S. Webster1,2 and S. P. W. Neff1

1Department of Anaesthesia, Green Lane Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 2Section of Anaesthesia, Department of Pharmacology and 3Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, New Zealand*Corresponding author

After different methods of hand preparation, volunteers rolled segments of sterile central venous catheter between their fingertips, and bacterial transfer was evaluated by standardized quantitative culture. The number of bacteria transferred differed between methods (P<0.001). Comparisons were made with the control group (no preparation at all; median, third quartile and maximum count=6.5, 24, 55). Bacterial transfer was greatly increased with wet hands (1227, 1932, 3254; P<0.001). It was reduced with a new rapid method, based on thorough drying with a combination of 10 s using a cloth towel followed by either 10 or 20 s with a hot-air towel (0, 3, 7 and 0, 4, 30, respectively; P=0.007 and 0.004, respectively). When asked to follow their personal routines, 10 consultant anaesthetists used a range of methods. Collectively, these were not significantly better than control (7.5, 15, 55; P=0.73), and neither was an air towel alone (2.5, 15, 80; P=0.176) nor the hospital’s standard procedure (0, 1, 500; P=0.035). If hand preparation is needed, an adequate and validated method should be used, together with thorough hand drying.

Br J Anaesth 2001; 87: 291–4


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin. Microbiol. Rev.Home page
G. Kampf and A. Kramer
Epidemiologic Background of Hand Hygiene and Evaluation of the Most Important Agents for Scrubs and Rubs
Clin. Microbiol. Rev., October 1, 2004; 17(4): 863 - 893.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.