Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infections are a challenging health problem worldwide, especially when caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens. In ICUs, inanimate surfaces and equipment (e.g., bedrails, stethoscopes, medical charts, ultrasound machine) may be contaminated by bacteria, including MDR isolates. Cross-transmission of microorganisms from inanimate surfaces may have a significant role for ICU-acquired colonization and infections. Contamination may result from healthcare workers’ hands or by direct patient shedding of bacteria which are able to survive up to several months on dry surfaces. A higher environmental contamination has been reported around infected patients than around patients who are only colonized and, in this last group, a correlation has been observed between frequency of environmental contamination and culture-positive body sites. Healthcare workers not only contaminate their hands after direct patient contact but also after touching inanimate surfaces and equipment in the patient zone (the patient and his/her immediate surroundings). Inadequate hand hygiene before and after entering a patient zone may result in cross-transmission of pathogens and patient colonization or infection. A number of equipment items and commonly used objects in ICU carry bacteria which, in most cases, show the same antibiotic susceptibility profiles of those isolated from patients. The aim of this review is to provide an updated evidence about contamination of inanimate surfaces and equipment in ICU in light of the concept of patient zone and the possible implications for bacterial pathogen cross-transmission to critically ill patients.

High-quality chest compressions are pivotal to improve survival from cardiac arrest. Basic life support training of school students is an international priority. The aim of this trial was to assess the effectiveness of a real-time training software (Laerdal QCPR^®) compared to a standard instructor-based feedback for chest compressions acquisition in secondary school students. After an interactive frontal lesson about basic life support and high quality chest compressions, 144 students were randomized to two types of chest compressions training: 1) using Laerdal QCPR^® (QCPR group– 72 students) for real-time feedback during chest compressions with the guide of an instructor who considered software data for students’ correction 2) based on standard instructor-based feedback (SF group– 72 students). Both groups had a minimum of a 2-minute chest compressions training session. Students were required to reach a minimum technical skill level before the evaluation. We evaluated all students at 7 days from the training with a 2-minute chest compressions session. The primary outcome was the compression score, which is an overall measure of chest compressions quality calculated by the software expressed as percentage. 125 students were present at the evaluation session (60 from QCPR group and 65 from SF group). Students in QCPR group had a significantly higher compression score (median 90%, IQR 81.9–96.0) compared to SF group (median 67%, IQR 27.7–87.5), p = 0.0003. Students in QCPR group performed significantly higher percentage of fully released chest compressions (71% [IQR 24.5–99.0] vs 24% [IQR 2.5–88.2]; p = 0.005) and better chest compression rate (117.5/min [IQR 106–123.5] vs 125/min [115–135.2]; p = 0.001). In secondary school students, a training for chest compressions based on a real-time feedback software (Laerdal QCPR^®) guided by an instructor is superior to instructor-based feedback training in terms of chest compression technical skill acquisition. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000383460

Intensive care unit- (ICU-) acquired infections are a major health problem worldwide. Inanimate surfaces and equipment contamination may play a role in cross-transmission of pathogens and subsequent patient colonization or infection. Bacteria contaminate inanimate surfaces and equipment of the patient zone and healthcare area, generating a reservoir of potential pathogens, including multidrug resistant species. Traditional terminal cleaning methods have limitations. Indeed patients who receive a bed from prior patient carrying bacteria are exposed to an increased risk (odds ratio 2.13, 95% confidence intervals 1.62–2.81) of being colonized and potentially infected by the same bacterial species of the previous patient. Biofilm formation, even on dry surfaces, may play a role in reducing the efficacy of terminal cleaning procedures since it enables bacteria to survive in the environment for a long period and provides increased resistance to commonly used disinfectants. No-touch methods (e.g., UV-light, hydrogen peroxide vapour) are under investigation and further studies with patient-centred outcomes are needed, before considering them the standard of terminal cleaning in ICUs. Healthcare workers should be aware of the role of environmental contamination in the ICU and consider it in the broader perspective of infection control measures and stewardship initiatives.