[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.120.181. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure 1.
Timeline of interventions introduced in the medical intensive care units (MICU), cardiac surgery ICU (CSICU), and the general medical ward. An easily accessible alcohol-based waterless hand disinfecting agent (Purell; Gojo Industries, Akron, Ohio) was used to test the compliance of handwashing for health care workers.

Timeline of interventions introduced in the medical intensive care units (MICU), cardiac surgery ICU (CSICU), and the general medical ward. An easily accessible alcohol-based waterless hand disinfecting agent (Purell; Gojo Industries, Akron, Ohio) was used to test the compliance of handwashing for health care workers.

Figure 2.
The effect of an easily accessible alcohol-based waterless hand disinfectant (Purell; Gojo Industries, Akron, Ohio) on handwashing compliance in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) (number of washes/number of potential opportunities). Compliance did not change after 6 in-service education/feedback intervention sessions, but increased with the introduction of an accessible, alcohol-based waterless hand disinfection system.

The effect of an easily accessible alcohol-based waterless hand disinfectant (Purell; Gojo Industries, Akron, Ohio) on handwashing compliance in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) (number of washes/number of potential opportunities). Compliance did not change after 6 in-service education/feedback intervention sessions, but increased with the introduction of an accessible, alcohol-based waterless hand disinfection system.

Table 1. 
Effect of Education/Feedback Intervention Program on Handwashing Compliance
Effect of Education/Feedback Intervention Program on Handwashing Compliance
Table 2. 
Effect of an Education/Feedback Intervention Program and Patient Awareness Program on the Rates of Dispenser Uses per Patient-Day
Effect of an Education/Feedback Intervention Program and Patient Awareness Program on the Rates of Dispenser Uses per Patient-Day
1.
Semmelweis  I The etiology, the concept, and the prophylaxis of childbed fever. Pest  CAedMurphy  FPtrans.Hartleben's Verlag-Expeditious Birmingham, England Classics of Medicine Library1861;(republished 1981)
2.
Holmes  OW The contagiousness of puerperal fever. Darby,  PAed.Medical Essays 1842-1882 Boston, Mass Houghton, Mifflin1892; Arden Library Hampton, England
3.
Garner  JSHospital Infection Control Pratices Advisory Committee, Guideline for isolation precautions in hopsitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;1753- 80Article
4.
Centers for Disease Control, Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in health-care settings. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1987;363- 18
5.
Centers for Disease Control, Update: universal precautions for prevention of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and other bloodborne pathogens in health-care settings. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1988;37377- 382387- 388
6.
Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology Guidelines for Infection Control Pratice, APIC guidelines for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control. 1995;23251- 269Article
7.
Association of Operating Room Nurses, Recommended practices: surgical handscrubs. AORN J. 1990;52830- 836Article
8.
Food and Drug Administration, Over-the-counter drugs generally recognized as safe, effective and not misbranded, 43 Federal Register. 12101978;
9.
Food and Drug Administration, Topical antimicrobial drug products for over-the-counter human use: tentative final monograph for health care antiseptic drug products—proposed rule, 59 Federal Register. 314411994;
10.
Preceval  A Wash hands, disinfect hands or don't touch? which, when, and why? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1993;14273- 275Article
11.
Steere  ACMallison  GF Handwashing practices for the prevention of nosocomial infections. Ann Intern Med. 1975;83683- 690Article
12.
Nyström  B Impact of handwashing on mortality in intensive care: examination of the evidence. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15435- 436Article
13.
Wenzel  RPPfaller  MA Handwashing: efficacy versus acceptance: a brief essay. J Hosp Infect. 1991;18 ((suppl B)) 65- 68Article
14.
Kretzer  EKLarson  E Behavioral interventions to improve infection control practices. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26245- 253Article
15.
Larson  EKretzer  EK Compliance with handwashing and barrier precautions. J Hosp Infect. 1995;30 ((suppl)) 88- 106Article
16.
Doebbeling  BNStanley  GLSheertz  CT  et al.  Comparative efficacy of aternative hand-washing agents in reducing nosocomial infections in intensive care units. N Engl J Med. 1992;32788- 93Article
17.
Lund  SJackson  JLeggett  JHales  LDworkin  RGilbert  D Reality of glove use and handwashing in a community hospital. Am J Infect Control. 1994;22352- 357Article
18.
Albert  RKCondie  F Hand-washing patterns in medical intensive-care units. N Engl J Med. 1981;3041465- 1466Article
19.
Graham  M Frequency and duration of handwashing in an intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control. 1990;1877- 80Article
20.
Quraishi  ZAMcGuckin  MBlais  FX Duration of handwashing in intensive care units: a descriptive study. Am J Infect Control. 1984;1283- 87Article
21.
Simmons  BBryant  JNeiman  KSpencer  LArheart  K The role of handwashing in prevention of endemic intensive care unit infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11589- 594Article
22.
Zimakoff  JStormark  MOlesen Larsen  S Use of gloves and handwashing behaviour among health care workers in intensive care units: a multicentre investigation in four hospitals in Denmark and Norway. J Hosp Infect. 1993;2463- 67Article
23.
LeClair  JMFreeman  JSullivan  BFCrowley  CMGoldman  DA Prevention of nosocomial respiratory syncytial virus infections through compliance with glove and gown isolation precautions. N Engl J Med. 1987;317329- 334Article
24.
Conly  JMHill  SRoss  JLertzman  JLouis  TJ Handwashing practices in an intensive care unit: the effects of an educational program and its relationship to infection rates. Am J Infect Control. 1989;17330- 339Article
25.
Emori  TGGaynes  RP An overview of nosocomial infections, including the role of the microbiology laboratory. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1993;6428- 442
26.
Goldmann  DAFreeman  JDurbin  WA  Jr Nosocomial infection and death in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Infect Dis. 1983;147635- 641Article
27.
Nettleman  MD Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefits analysis in infection control. Wenzel  RPed.Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections 3rd ed. Baltimore, Md Williams & Wilkins1997;19- 32
28.
Leu  HSKaiser  DLMori  MWoolson  RFWenzel  RP Hospital acquired pneumonia: attributable mortality and morbidity. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;1291258- 1267
29.
Bauer  TMOfner  EJust  HMJust  HDaschner  FD An epidemiological study assessing the relative importance of airborne and direct contact transmission of microorganisms in a medical intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 1990;15301- 309Article
30.
Courington  KRPatterson  SLHoward  RJ Universal precautions are not universally followed. Arch Surg. 1991;12693- 97Article
31.
Dubbert  PMDolce  JRichter  WMiller  MChapman  SW Increasing ICU staff handwashing: effects of education and group feedback. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11191- 193Article
32.
McGuckin  MBello  SKhan  FPorten  LMazer  S Did you wash your hands? a handwashing education model for patients.  Paper presented at: 7th Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America April 28,1997 St Louis, MoAbstract M63
33.
McGuckin  MWaterman  RCaruso  MKrug  EJuzaitis  BOstrawski  S Handwashing compliance: the effect of a patient eductaion program.  Paper presented at: 7th Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America April 28,1997 St Louis, MoAbstract M64
34.
Voss  AWidmer  AF No time for handwashing!? handwashing versus alcoholic rub: can we afford 100% compliance? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18205- 208Article
35.
Kaplan  LMMcGuckin  M Increasing handwashing compliance with more accessible sinks. Infect Control. 1986;7408- 410
36.
Pittet  DMourouga  PPerneger  TV Compliance with handwashing in a teaching hospital. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130126- 130Article
37.
Donowitz  LG Handwashing technique in a pediatric intensive care unit. Am J Dis Child. 1987;141683- 685
38.
Larson  ELBryan  JLAdler  LMBlane  C A multifaceted approach to changing handwashing behavior. Am J Infect Control. 1997;253- 10Article
Original Investigation
April 10, 2000

Handwashing Compliance by Health Care WorkersThe Impact of Introducing an Accessible, Alcohol-Based Hand Antiseptic

Author Affiliations

From the Division of Quality Health Care, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Virginia Campus of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. Dr Bischoff is now with the Institute for Medical Microbiology, Medical School Hanover, Hanover, Germany.

Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(7):1017-1021. doi:10.1001/archinte.160.7.1017
Abstract

Context  Under routine hospital conditions handwashing compliance of health care workers including nurses, physicians, and others (eg, physical therapists and radiologic technicians) is unacceptably low.

Objectives  To investigate the efficacy of an education/feedback intervention and patient awareness program (cognitive approach) on handwashing compliance of health care workers; and to compare the acceptance of a new and increasingly accessible alcohol-based waterless hand disinfectant (technical approach) with the standard sink/soap combination.

Design  A 6-month, prospective, observational study.

Setting  One medical intensive care unit (ICU), 1 cardiac surgery ICU, and 1 general medical ward located in a 728-bed, tertiary care, teaching facility.

Participants  Medical caregivers in each of the above settings.

Interventions  Implementation of an education/feedback intervention program (6 in-service sessions per each ICU) and patient awareness program, followed by a new, increasingly accessible, alcohol-based, waterless hand antiseptic agent, initially available at a ratio of 1 dispenser for every 4 patients and subsequently 1 for each patient.

Main Outcome Measure  Direct observation of handwashing for 1575 potential opportunities monitored over 120 hours randomized for both time of day and bed locations.

Results  Baseline handwashing compliance before and after defined events was 9% and 22% for health care workers in the medical ICU and 3% and 13% for health care workers in the cardiac surgery ICU, respectively. After the education/feedback intervention program, handwashing compliance changed little (medical ICU, 14% [before] and 25% [after]; cardiac surgery ICU, 6% [before] and 13% [after]). Observations after introduction of the new, increasingly accessible, alcohol-based, waterless hand antiseptic revealed significantly higher handwashing rates (P<.05), and handwashing compliance improved as accessibility was enhanced—before 19% and after 41% with 1 dispenser per 4 beds; and before 23% and after 48% with 1 dispenser for each bed.

Conclusions  Education/feedback intervention and patient awareness programs failed to improve handwashing compliance. However, introduction of easily accessible dispensers with an alcohol-based waterless handwashing antiseptic led to significantly higher handwashing rates among health care workers.

BEGINNING WITH the observations of Ignaz Semmelweis1 and Oliver Wendell Holmes,2 the efficacy of handwashing for the prevention of hospital-acquired infections has been clearly demonstrated. To make handwashing easier and safer, new detergents and methods have been developed, tested, and where successful, integrated into many infection control guidelines.311 However, under routine hospital conditions the compliance with handwashing by health care workers including nurses, physicians, and others (eg, physical therapists and radiologic technicians) is still unacceptably low.12,13

Many theories have been developed to effect behavioral change. Unfortunately, none has been successfully demonstrated to improve handwashing compliance in daily work routines.14,15 To overcome the gulf between knowledge of professional behavior with proven benefits and poor compliance in routine practice, one might concentrate on changing the behavior of personnel and/or providing user-friendly handwashing devices. This investigation compared the efficacy of different approaches to changes in handwashing compliance among health care workers, including education/feedback intervention and social pressure models, and technical improvements that increased accessibility and ease of use of handwashing products.

PARTICIPANTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS
SETTING

The Medical College of Virginia Hospitals system is a 728-bed tertiary care, teaching facility located in Richmond. From July 1, 1997, to December 31, 1997, handwashing compliance was measured in 2 intensive care units (ICUs) (a medical ICU [MICU] with 12 beds and a cardiac surgery ICU [CSICU] with 10 beds), and a general medical ward (with 27 beds). The sink-bed ratio was 9:12 in the MICU and 7:10 in the CSICU, providing 3 sinks in the open care area for 6 beds and 1 sink per single bed room. The nurse-patient ratio was 1:2 in both ICUs and did not change over the study period.

STUDY DESIGN

The study was prospective and observational, beginning with a control period without any interventions to obtain baseline data (Figure 1). This was followed by an education/feedback intervention program in both ICUs and a social pressure program on the general ward—the distribution of patient awareness flyers inviting patients to request handwashing of all health care personnel. After completion and a first analysis of the data, the MICU was chosen for the introduction of the alcohol-based waterless hand disinfectant because of the higher number of beds, the prolonged stay of patients in this ICU, and therefore the extended risk for nosocomial infections compared with the CSICU. Dispensers were installed initially in the open care area with a dispenser-bed ratio of 1:4 next to the sinks, and subsequently increased to 1:1 in close vicinity to the beds. The alcohol-based waterless hand disinfectant was provided in manual soap dispensers in addition to the existing soap dispensers.

DEFINITION OF HANDWASHING TECHNIQUE AND PRODUCTS

The guidelines for handwashing practice of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology recommend use of 3 to 5 mL of soap, chlorhexidine gluconate, or the waterless alcohol-based solution for at least 10 to 15 seconds.6 During the first phase of the study, 2 handwashing products were used on all wards. One product was a soap solution (EpiCare; Airkem Professional Products, Mississauga, Ontario) and the other a 4% solution of chlorhexidine (Hibiclens; ZeneCA Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, Del). The newly introduced hand disinfectant was a gel-like, 60% alcohol handrub solution (Purell; Gojo Industries, Akron, Ohio), active against vegetative bacteria. Use of the product did not require water or towels.

DEFINITION OF HANDWASHING OPPORTUNITIES

Handwashing opportunities were defined as all events with a high risk of microbial transmission, and they required handwashing before and immediately after contact regardless of whether gloves were used or changed. They included all contacts with mucous membranes, nonintact skin, or any secretions or excretions, and manipulations (opening or disconnecting) of patients' vascular lines and other tubes. Observed events were stratified and recorded as respiratory tract care, vascular line care, urinary tract care, wound care, feeding tubes, bathing, and others (eg, enterostomal care or dialysis).

An event was completed with either handwashing or touching a different site on the same patient, a different patient, or another environmental surface. A handwash after an event was also counted for an immediately following activity. Complex activities such as measurement of parameters from pulmonary artery catheters were counted as 1 event, if not interrupted by a separate procedure.

COMPLIANCE MEASUREMENTS

One observer (W.E.B.) monitored the handwashing practice of health care workers in both ICUs on weekdays. During the control period, health care workers were not informed about the purpose of the observing physician, who was a fellow in the department of internal medicine. An evaluation of observed events were performed by simultaneous recording of events by a second person (T.M.R.) on 3 occassions during the trial and results were compared. The total number of potential handwashing opportunities and the actual number of episodes of handwashing were documented during 1-hour observation periods at random intervals throughout the day (6 AM-10 PM) for 2 randomized ICU beds (30 minutes per bed). The direct observation time was set to 20 hours for each study component. In addition to the direct observation, the number of soap, chlorhexidine, and alcohol-based dispenser uses was counted by small electronic counting devices, not visible to health care workers. Counting was performed in both ICUs and the general medical ward. To adjust for the number of patients in all 3 units during the study periods, the number of dispenser uses was divided by the number of patient-days.

EDUCATION/FEEDBACK INTERVENTION PROGRAM

After the first study phase, 6 educational in-service sessions were conducted in each ICU. All nurses working in the ICUs during the study were included at least once. The efficacy of handwashing was reviewed, rates of the unit-specific baseline handwashing compliance were presented, and health care workers were strongly encouraged to wash their hands before and after patient contact.

PATIENT AWARENESS

To improve handwashing compliance among health care workers, pamphlets describing the importance of handwashing were distributed initially to all patients on the general medical ward and then to every new admission for a 6-week period. There was no feedback of the patient attitudes to the patient awareness flyers.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary measure of the efficacy of education/feedback intervention, social pressures, and the alcohol-based waterless hand disinfectant was handwashing compliance, calculated by dividing the number of handwashing episodes by the number of potential handwashing opportunities. Comparisons between study periods were performed using Fisher's exact test, χ2 statistic, and t test for equal variances (Epi Info Version 6.04a; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga; JMP Version 3.1.5, SAS Institute, Carey, NC). All tests of statistical significance were 2 sided, and α level was set at .05.

RESULTS
OBSERVATION DATA

The handwashing compliance of health care workers was monitored for over 120 hours with a total of 1575 potential handwashing opportunities. Most patients in the MICU were intubated, and therefore respiratory care was the preponderantly observed event (37% of activities) followed by vascular line care (35%), urinary tract care (11%), and others (17%). In contrast, in the CSICU most of the observed events were related to vascular line care (51% of activities), whereas respiratory care (19%), urinary tract care (14%), and others (16%) were less frequent.

Prior to any intervention, health care workers washed their hands before and after patient care events at rates of 10% (before patient care) and 22% (after patient care) in the MICU, and 4% (before patient care) and 13% (after patient care) in the CSICU (Table 1). After the in-service education/feedback intervention sessions, the handwashing compliance in the MICU was 16% (before patient care) and 25% (after patient care), and in the CSICU 7% (before patient care) and 14% (after patient care).

The introduction of an alcohol-based waterless hand disinfectant in the MICU resulted in a significant improvement in handwashing compliance among health care workers (P<.05, χ2 for linear trend, Figure 2). With 1 alcohol dispenser available for every 4 beds, the handwashing rate was 19% prior to patient contact and 41% afterward. Still higher rates were noted with a dispenser-bed ratio of 1:1—23% before patient contact and 48% afterward.

The handwashing compliance rates were stratified by health care providers, ie, nurses, physicians, and others (eg, physical therapists and radiologic technicians). Prior to patient contact there was no difference among the professions (nurses and others 9%, physicians 13%). After patient contact, physicians washed their hands more often than nurses and others (nurses and others 16%, physicians 46%), but opportunities for physicians accounted only for approximately 5% of the total.

SOAP, CHLORHEXIDINE, AND AN ALCOHOL-BASED ANTISEPTIC AGENT UTILIZATION DATA

During the study period, 298 884 dispenser utilizations were registered in MICU, CSICU, and the general medical ward (Table 2). Within the first study phase prior to interventions, health care workers' use (number of uses per patient-day) in the MICU was 126 with soap and 17 with chlorhexidine. In the CSICU, where chlorhexidine was not used, the handwashing rates were 109 for soap. On the general medical ward the baseline utilization was 34 for soap and 4 for chlorhexidine. After the in-service education/feedback intervention program sessions, an insignificant increase of dispenser counts was noted in the MICU: soap 135 and chlorhexidine 23. A decrease was detected in the CSICU with 91 soap utilizations per patient-day. On the general medical ward after patient awareness flyers were distributed, utilizations were slightly reduced to 30 for soap and increased to 5 for chlorhexidine.

With the introduction of the alcohol-based waterless antiseptic solution, the total counts of soap, chlorhexidine, and alcohol-based waterless antiseptic solution did not increase despite a directly observed increase in handwashing compliance: 149 uses per patient-day for a dispenser-bed ratio of 1:4 and 147 uses per patient-day for a ratio of 1:1. The relative distribution of the use of the 3 handwashing products changed from 75% soap, 11% chlorhexidine, and 14% alcohol-based waterless antiseptic solution with a 1:4 ratio to a higher proportion of alcohol-based waterless antiseptic solution use (26%, P<.05), with soap at 68%, and chlorhexidine at 6% with a 1:1 ratio.

COMMENT

Several studies, including our own, have revealed an unacceptably low baseline rate of handwashing compliance by health care workers,16,17 particularly in ICUs.1822 The benefit of improved infection control practices, including handwashing, in reducing nosocomial infection rates has been demonstrated,16,23,24 and the immense costs attributed to hospital-acquired infections2528 mandate handwashing compliance by health care workers.16,29

Even after several decades of investigation, efforts to improve handwashing practice remain ineffective.14,15 Most studies have focused on educational programs, feedback interventions, and modifications of handwashing equipment. To compare the efficacy of these measures, our study included all 3 approaches, including a new method of generating social pressure by patients and their visitors.

Implementation of an education/feedback intervention program failed to enhance handwashing rates in our study as has been reported previously.21,30,31 Generating social pressure by a patient awareness program also failed to improve handwashing compliance rates. The high acuity of illness in ICUs precludes widespread use of these pamphlets, because many patients' level of consciousness is impaired. On general medical wards we did not measure the possibility that some patients did not understand the pamphlet. Future studies could examine the value and cost benefits of combining the distribution of pamphlets with a brief verbal introduction to patients. This approach was used by McGuckin et al32,33 and resulted in significantly higher soap use rates, but handwashing compliance was not observed. An even stronger concern regarding patient awareness programs is the possiblitiy of negatively affecting the patient-health care worker relationship. Patients seeking help are confronted with the potential estrangement by health care givers.

In our study health care workers reported a shortage of time related to staffing issues under a nurse-patient ratio of 1:2 as the most important factor influencing their handwashing practices. Concerned about this issue, Voss and Widmer34 more recently calculated that the time consumption for water-soap was 5.3-fold higher than that with an alcohol-based waterless antiseptic solution. Given a 100% handwashing compliance in a model ICU with 12 health care workers, handwashing consumes 16 hours of nursing time per day shift compared with only 3 hours using an alcohol-based waterless antiseptic solution. Therefore, offering easy access to a safe and fast hand disinfectant promised an increase in handwashing rates and prompted our testing of an alcohol-based waterless antiseptic solution.

Only during use of an easily accessible, alcohol-based waterless hand antiseptic agent did handwashing compliance significantly improve. Our data confirm the observations of Graham,19 who used a waterless, handrub lotion and observed a 13% increase in hand decontamination frequency in an ICU. Previously, Kaplan and McGuckin35 demonstrated improved handwashing by providing easier access to sinks. Accessibility may eventually be shown to be the most reliable variable predicting handwashing rates.

Previous studies have shown total handwashing compliances ranging from 14% to 48% or even higher.16,36 However, these studies have measured handwashing only after a health care worker touches a patient. We measured handwashing compliance both before and after patient contact to investigate handwashing behavior more fully. At baseline extremely low rates of 6% to 10% were observed before patient contact and 13% to 22% after patient contact. It is possible that unobserved handwashing occurred before patient contact, however. Nevertheless, even with our best efforts in our most compliant group, the handwashing rates improved only to 23% before and 48% after patient contact. Although the latter rates are higher than many previously reported rates, opportunities exist for developing better strategies for handwashing.

We thought that an unobservable counting device might be a crude surrogate for handwashing compliance. However, perhaps because it cannot correct for the number of dispenser uses per handwash, it did not predict the increased compliance we noted with the introduction of an alcohol-based waterless antiseptic agent. This might also be the reason for the low amount of alcohol-based waterless antiseptic dispenser uses compared with soap or chlorhexidine uses.

This investigation has some limitations including the lack of a long-term observational follow-up period after the last study phase. Previous studies have shown that interventions have a limited influence on the behavior of health care workers.16,19,21,31,37,38 A second limitation relates to the short-term feedback intervention program to health care workers. As part of long-term interventions, repeated feedback, including supervision, use of role models, and administrative regulations could be helpful in the continued improvement of handwashing compliance.

In summary, education/feedback intervention and patient awareness programs failed to influence handwashing compliance favorably. However, the introduction of a new, easily accessible, alcohol-based waterless antiseptic handwashing product significantly improved handwashing rates.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for publication August 3, 1999.

This project was funded by a grant from the Procter & Gamble Co, Mason, Ohio.

Presented in part at the 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Diego, Calif, September 27, 1998.

Reprints: Richard P. Wenzel, MD, MSc, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Virginia, Campus of Virginia Commonwealth University, PO Box 980663, Richmond, VA 23298-0663 (e-mail: rwenzel@hsc.vcu.edu).

References
1.
Semmelweis  I The etiology, the concept, and the prophylaxis of childbed fever. Pest  CAedMurphy  FPtrans.Hartleben's Verlag-Expeditious Birmingham, England Classics of Medicine Library1861;(republished 1981)
2.
Holmes  OW The contagiousness of puerperal fever. Darby,  PAed.Medical Essays 1842-1882 Boston, Mass Houghton, Mifflin1892; Arden Library Hampton, England
3.
Garner  JSHospital Infection Control Pratices Advisory Committee, Guideline for isolation precautions in hopsitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;1753- 80Article
4.
Centers for Disease Control, Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in health-care settings. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1987;363- 18
5.
Centers for Disease Control, Update: universal precautions for prevention of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and other bloodborne pathogens in health-care settings. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1988;37377- 382387- 388
6.
Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology Guidelines for Infection Control Pratice, APIC guidelines for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control. 1995;23251- 269Article
7.
Association of Operating Room Nurses, Recommended practices: surgical handscrubs. AORN J. 1990;52830- 836Article
8.
Food and Drug Administration, Over-the-counter drugs generally recognized as safe, effective and not misbranded, 43 Federal Register. 12101978;
9.
Food and Drug Administration, Topical antimicrobial drug products for over-the-counter human use: tentative final monograph for health care antiseptic drug products—proposed rule, 59 Federal Register. 314411994;
10.
Preceval  A Wash hands, disinfect hands or don't touch? which, when, and why? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1993;14273- 275Article
11.
Steere  ACMallison  GF Handwashing practices for the prevention of nosocomial infections. Ann Intern Med. 1975;83683- 690Article
12.
Nyström  B Impact of handwashing on mortality in intensive care: examination of the evidence. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15435- 436Article
13.
Wenzel  RPPfaller  MA Handwashing: efficacy versus acceptance: a brief essay. J Hosp Infect. 1991;18 ((suppl B)) 65- 68Article
14.
Kretzer  EKLarson  E Behavioral interventions to improve infection control practices. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26245- 253Article
15.
Larson  EKretzer  EK Compliance with handwashing and barrier precautions. J Hosp Infect. 1995;30 ((suppl)) 88- 106Article
16.
Doebbeling  BNStanley  GLSheertz  CT  et al.  Comparative efficacy of aternative hand-washing agents in reducing nosocomial infections in intensive care units. N Engl J Med. 1992;32788- 93Article
17.
Lund  SJackson  JLeggett  JHales  LDworkin  RGilbert  D Reality of glove use and handwashing in a community hospital. Am J Infect Control. 1994;22352- 357Article
18.
Albert  RKCondie  F Hand-washing patterns in medical intensive-care units. N Engl J Med. 1981;3041465- 1466Article
19.
Graham  M Frequency and duration of handwashing in an intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control. 1990;1877- 80Article
20.
Quraishi  ZAMcGuckin  MBlais  FX Duration of handwashing in intensive care units: a descriptive study. Am J Infect Control. 1984;1283- 87Article
21.
Simmons  BBryant  JNeiman  KSpencer  LArheart  K The role of handwashing in prevention of endemic intensive care unit infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11589- 594Article
22.
Zimakoff  JStormark  MOlesen Larsen  S Use of gloves and handwashing behaviour among health care workers in intensive care units: a multicentre investigation in four hospitals in Denmark and Norway. J Hosp Infect. 1993;2463- 67Article
23.
LeClair  JMFreeman  JSullivan  BFCrowley  CMGoldman  DA Prevention of nosocomial respiratory syncytial virus infections through compliance with glove and gown isolation precautions. N Engl J Med. 1987;317329- 334Article
24.
Conly  JMHill  SRoss  JLertzman  JLouis  TJ Handwashing practices in an intensive care unit: the effects of an educational program and its relationship to infection rates. Am J Infect Control. 1989;17330- 339Article
25.
Emori  TGGaynes  RP An overview of nosocomial infections, including the role of the microbiology laboratory. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1993;6428- 442
26.
Goldmann  DAFreeman  JDurbin  WA  Jr Nosocomial infection and death in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Infect Dis. 1983;147635- 641Article
27.
Nettleman  MD Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefits analysis in infection control. Wenzel  RPed.Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections 3rd ed. Baltimore, Md Williams & Wilkins1997;19- 32
28.
Leu  HSKaiser  DLMori  MWoolson  RFWenzel  RP Hospital acquired pneumonia: attributable mortality and morbidity. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;1291258- 1267
29.
Bauer  TMOfner  EJust  HMJust  HDaschner  FD An epidemiological study assessing the relative importance of airborne and direct contact transmission of microorganisms in a medical intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 1990;15301- 309Article
30.
Courington  KRPatterson  SLHoward  RJ Universal precautions are not universally followed. Arch Surg. 1991;12693- 97Article
31.
Dubbert  PMDolce  JRichter  WMiller  MChapman  SW Increasing ICU staff handwashing: effects of education and group feedback. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11191- 193Article
32.
McGuckin  MBello  SKhan  FPorten  LMazer  S Did you wash your hands? a handwashing education model for patients.  Paper presented at: 7th Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America April 28,1997 St Louis, MoAbstract M63
33.
McGuckin  MWaterman  RCaruso  MKrug  EJuzaitis  BOstrawski  S Handwashing compliance: the effect of a patient eductaion program.  Paper presented at: 7th Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America April 28,1997 St Louis, MoAbstract M64
34.
Voss  AWidmer  AF No time for handwashing!? handwashing versus alcoholic rub: can we afford 100% compliance? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18205- 208Article
35.
Kaplan  LMMcGuckin  M Increasing handwashing compliance with more accessible sinks. Infect Control. 1986;7408- 410
36.
Pittet  DMourouga  PPerneger  TV Compliance with handwashing in a teaching hospital. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130126- 130Article
37.
Donowitz  LG Handwashing technique in a pediatric intensive care unit. Am J Dis Child. 1987;141683- 685
38.
Larson  ELBryan  JLAdler  LMBlane  C A multifaceted approach to changing handwashing behavior. Am J Infect Control. 1997;253- 10Article
×