Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are the most common adverse outcomes due to delivery of medical care. HAIs increase morbidity and mortality, prolong hospital stay, and are associated with additional healthcare costs. Contaminated surfaces, particularly those that are touched frequently, act as reservoirs for pathogens and contribute towards pathogen transmission. Therefore, healthcare hygiene requires a comprehensive approach whereby different strategies may be implemented together, next to targeted, risk-based approaches, in order to reduce the risk of HAIs for patients. This approach includes hand hygiene in conjunction with environmental cleaning and disinfection of surfaces and clinical equipment. This review focuses on routine environmental cleaning and disinfection including areas with a moderate risk of contamination, such as general wards. As scientific evidence has not yet resulted in universally accepted guidelines nor led to universally accepted practical recommendations pertaining to surface cleaning and disinfection, this review provides expert guidance for healthcare workers in their daily practice. It also covers outbreak situations and suggests practical guidance for clinically relevant pathogens. Key elements of environmental cleaning and disinfection, including a fundamental clinical risk assessment, choice of appropriate disinfectants and cleaning equipment, definitions for standardized cleaning processes and the relevance of structured training, are reviewed in detail with a focus on practical topics and implementation.

We report on an HIV-negative but immunocompromised patient with disseminated acanthamoebiasis, granulomatous amoebic encephalitis, and underlying miliary tuberculosis and tuberculous meningitis. The patient responded favorably to treatment with miltefosine, an alkylphosphocholine. The patient remained well with no signs of infection 2 years after treatment cessation.

Background.: The use of sterile gloves is part of general aseptic procedure, which aims to prevent surgical team members from transmitting infectious agents to patients during procedures performed in an operating room. In addition, surgical gloves also protect team members against patient-transmitted infectious agents. Adequate protection, however, requires that the glove material remain intact. The risk of perforations in surgical gloves is thought to correlate with the duration of wear, yet very few prospective studies have addressed this issue.Methods.: We prospectively collected 898 consecutive pairs of used surgical gloves over a 9-month period in a single institution. After surgical team members wore the gloves during surgical procedures, the gloves were examined for microperforations using the watertight test described in European Norm 455, part 1. The gloves were analyzed as a pair; if 1 glove had a perforation, the pair was considered to be perforated. In addition, we evaluated the use of a hand cream that contained a suspension of cornstarch and ethanol to determine its potential influence on the rate of microperforation.Results.: Wearing gloves for 90 minutes or less resulted in microperforations in 46 (15.4%) of 299 pairs of gloves, whereas wearing gloves for 91-150 minutes resulted in perforation of 54 (18.1%) of 299 pairs, and 71 of (23.7%) of 300 pairs were perforated when the duration of wear was longer than 150 minutes (P = .05). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in the rates of microperforation for surgeons (56 [23.0%] of 244 pairs of gloves perforated), first assistants (43 [19.0%] of 226 pairs perforated), and surgical nurses (53 [20.5%] of 259 pairs perforated). Of 171 microperforations, 114 (66.7%) were found on the left hand glove (ie, the glove on subjects' nondominant hand), predominantly on the left index finger (55 [32.3%]). The use of the hand cream had no influence on the rate of microperforation.Conclusion.: Because of the increase in the rate of microperforation over time, it is recommended that surgeons, first assistants, and surgical nurses directly assisting in the operating field change gloves after 90 minutes of surgery.

Background: Despite the increasing promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs and the worldwide use of ethanol-based hand rubs in hospitals only few studies have specifically addressed the issue of ethanol absorption when repeatedly applied to human skin. The aim of this study was to assess if ethanol absorption occurs during hygienic and surgical hand disinfection using three different alcohol-based hand-rubs, and to quantify absorption levels in humans. Methods: Twelve volunteers applied three hand-rubs containing 95% (hand-rub A), 85% (hand-rub B) and 55% ethanol (hand-rub C; all w/w). For hygienic hand disinfection, 4 mL were applied 20 times for 30 s, with 1 minute break between applications. For surgical hand disinfection, 20 mL of each hand rub was applied to hands and arms up to the level of the elbow 10 times for 3 minutes, with a break of 5 minutes between applications. Blood concentrations of ethanol and acetaldehyde were determined immediately prior and up to 90 minutes after application using head space gas chromatography. Results: The median of absorbed ethanol after hygienic hand disinfection was 1365 mg (A), 630 mg (B), and 358 mg (C). The proportion of absorbed ethanol was 2.3% (A), 1.1% (B), and 0.9% (C). After surgical hand disinfection, the median of absorbed ethanol was 1067 mg (A), 1542 mg (B), and 477 mg (C). The proportion of absorbed ethanol was 0.7% (A), 1.1% (B), and 0.5% (C). The highest median acetaldehyde concentration after 20 hygienic hand disinfections was 0.57 mg/L (hand-rub C, after 30 min), after 10 surgical hand disinfections 3.99 mg/L (hand-rub A, after 20 minutes). Conclusion: The overall dermal and pulmonary absorption of ethanol was below toxic levels in humans and allows the conclusion that the use of the evaluated ethanol-based hand-rubs is safe.