Effectiveness of Liquid Soap vs. Chlorhexidine Gluconate for the Removal of Clostridium Difficile from Bare Hands and Gloved Hands

1994 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 697-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Bettin ◽  
Connie Clabots ◽  
Pamela Mathie ◽  
Keith Willard ◽  
Dale N. Gerding
Keyword(s):  
Clostridium Difficile ◽  
Chlorhexidine Gluconate ◽  
Liquid Soap

Effectiveness of Liquid Soap vs. Chlorhexidine Gluconate for the Removal ofClostridium difficilefrom Bare Hands and Gloved Hands

1994 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 697-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Bettin ◽  
Connie Clabots ◽  
Pamela Mathie ◽  
Keith Willard ◽  
Dale N. Gerding
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clostridium Difficile ◽  
Chlorhexidine Gluconate ◽  
The Other ◽  
Epidemic Strain ◽  
Liquid Soap ◽  
Bacterial Counts ◽  
Statistical Comparison ◽  
Two Agents ◽  
Colony Forming Units

AbstractObjective:To compare liquid soap versus 4% chlorhexidine gluconate in 4% alcohol for the decontamination of bare or gloved hands inoculated with an epidemic strain ofClostridium difficile.Design:C difficile(6.7 log10colony-forming units [CFU], 47% spores), was seeded onto bare or latex gloved hands of ten volunteers and allowed to dry. Half the volunteers initially washed with soap and half with chlorhexidine, followed by the other agent 1 week later. Cultures were done with Rodac plates at three sites on the hand: finger/thumbtips, the palmar surfaces of the fingers, and the palm. Statistical comparison was by paired Student’sttest.Results:On bare hands, soap and chlorhexidine did not differ in residual bacterial counts on the finger/thumbtips (log10CFU, 2.0 and 2.1, P= NS) and fingers (log10CFU, 2.4 and 2.5,P=NS). Counts were too high on bare palms to quantitate. On gloved hands, soap was more effective than chlorhexidine on fingers (log10CFU 1.3 and 1.7, P<.01) and palms (log10CFU 1.5 and 2.0, P<.01), but not finger/thumbtips (log10CFU 1.6 with each, P=NS). ResidualC difficilecounts were lower on gloved hands than bare hands (P<0.01 to <0.0001).Conclusions:The two agents did not differ significantly in residual counts of Cdifficileon bare hands, but on gloved hands residual counts were lower following soap wash than following chlorhexidine wash. These observations support the use of either soap or chlorhexidine as a handwash for removal ofC difficile,but efficacy in the prevention ofC difficiletransmission must be determined by prospective clinical trials.

Quantity of Soap as a Variable in Handwashing

1987 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 371-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine L. Larson ◽  
Paul I. Eke ◽  
Mary P. Wilder ◽  
Barbara E. Laughon
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
General Population ◽  
Nosocomial Infection ◽  
Chlorhexidine Gluconate ◽  
Liquid Soap ◽  
Microbial Counts ◽  
Hospital Nursing ◽  
Colony Forming Units ◽  
Block Randomization

AbstractThe purposes of this study were to assess the effect of two quantities (1 mL or 3 mL) of four different handwashing products on reductions in log colony-forming units (CFU) from the hands and to determine the amount of liquid soap used for handwashing by personnel in one hospital. First, 40 subjects were assigned by block randomization to one of four handwashing products (4% chlorhexidine gluconate in a detergent base, two alcohol hand rinses, and a liquid, nonantimicrobial soap) to be used in either 1 mL or 3 mL amounts per wash. Each subject washed his or her hands 15 times per day for five days. After one and five days of handwashing there were significant reductions over baseline in log CFU between handwashing products (P<0.001). Additionally, subjects using 3 mL of antiseptic soap had significantly greater reductions in log CFU than those using 1 mL (P<0.001). Among subjects using control liquid soap there was no such dose response. Second, a survey of 47 members of a hospital nursing staff from nine specialty areas and ten individuals in the general population was conducted to measure amounts of two liquid soaps used for handwashing. Amount of soap ranged from 0.4 to 9 mL per handwash. Personnel working in clinical areas where patients were at high risk for nosocomial infection used significantly more soap than did others (P<0.05). We conclude that quantity of soap used for handwashing is one variable influencing the microbial counts on hands, and that the quantity of soap used by health care personnel varies considerably.

Clostridium difficile Infections May Be Increasing

2010 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
SHARON WORCESTER
Keyword(s):  
Clostridium Difficile
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document