首页> 外文期刊>GMS Hygiene and Infection Control >Comparison of steam technology and a two-step cleaning (water/detergent) and disinfecting (1,000 resp. 5,000 ppm hypochlorite) method using microfiber cloth for environmental control of multidrug-resistant organisms in an intensive care unit
【24h】

Comparison of steam technology and a two-step cleaning (water/detergent) and disinfecting (1,000 resp. 5,000 ppm hypochlorite) method using microfiber cloth for environmental control of multidrug-resistant organisms in an intensive care unit

机译:比较蒸汽技术与使用两步清洗(水/洗涤剂)和消毒(1,000次氯酸5,000 ppm次氯酸盐)方法使用超细纤维布对重症监护室中耐多药生物的环境控制

获取原文
           

摘要

Aim: The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the impact of two cleaning and disinfecting methods and the use of steam against methicillin-resistant Staphyl ococcus aureus , vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis , carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and multidrug-resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter baumannii in a tertiary referral hospital. Methods: McFarland 0.5 suspensions (content 1.5 x 10 8 cfu/ml) of four challenge bacterial species were prepared and used to inoculate different sites in three ICU rooms. One of the following methods was used in each room: steam technology (Tecnovap Evo 304) resp. cleaning with microfiber cloths, soaked with detergent and water, thereafter disinfection with 1,000 ppm hypochlorite or the same procedure with 5,000 ppm hypochlorite. Qualitative microbiology and ATP bioluminescence were performed before and after cleaning with each method. The Wilcoxon test was used for paired samples to check for ordinal variables. The cost of each cleaning method was analyzed. Results: Environmental cleaning with steam technology was found to be as effective against MDR microorganisms as a two-step cleaning process (water/detergent and disinfecting with 1,000 resp. 5,000 ppm hypochlorite) in ICUs. No bacterial growth was detected after any of the three cleaning methods. Steam technology was 76% and 91% cheaper than using 5,000 ppm and 1,000 ppm hypochlorite, respectively. Conclusions: When compared to, steam technology was found to have an advantage over the 2-step procedure with cleaning and disinfection, because it avoids the use of chemicals, reduces water consumption, labor time and costs for cleaning.
机译:目的:这项前瞻性观察研究的目的是评估两种清洁和消毒方法以及使用蒸汽对耐甲氧西林的金黄色葡萄球菌,耐万古霉素的粪便肠球菌,耐碳青霉烯的铜绿假单胞菌和耐多药(MDR)的影响。鲍曼不动杆菌在三级转诊医院。方法:制备四种挑战细菌的McFarland 0.5悬浮液(含量1.5 x 10 8 cfu / ml),并用于在三个ICU室中接种不同部位。每个房间使用以下方法之一:蒸汽技术(Tecnovap Evo 304)。用超细纤维布清洁,再用洗涤剂和水浸泡,然后用1,000 ppm次氯酸盐消毒,或者用5,000 ppm次氯酸盐消毒。定性微生物学和ATP生物发光分别在每种方法清洗之前和之后进行。配对样本使用Wilcoxon检验来检查序数变量。分析了每种清洁方法的成本。结果:在ICU中,使用蒸汽技术进行的环境清洁被发现对MDR微生物的效果与两步清洁过程(水/洗涤剂和用1,000或5,000 ppm次氯酸盐的消毒)一样有效。三种清洁方法中的任何一种均未检测到细菌生长。蒸汽技术分别比使用5,000 ppm和1,000 ppm次氯酸盐便宜76%和91%。结论:与之相比,蒸汽技术在清洗和消毒的两步法方面具有优势,因为它避免了化学药品的使用,减少了用水量,劳动时间和清洁成本。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号