Association Between Eliminating Water From Surgical Hand Antisepsis at a Large Ophthalmic Surgical Hospital and Cost | Ophthalmology | JAMA Ophthalmology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Semmelweis IF, Carter KC. The etiology, concept, and prophylaxis of childbed fever. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press; 1983.
2.
Howard  JD, Jowett  C, Faoagali  J, McKenzie  B.  New method for assessing hand disinfection shows that pre-operative alcohol/chlorhexidine rub is as effective as a traditional surgical scrub.   J Hosp Infect. 2014;88(2):78-83. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2014.06.013 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Nthumba  PM, Stepita-Poenaru  E, Poenaru  D,  et al.  Cluster-randomized, crossover trial of the efficacy of plain soap and water versus alcohol-based rub for surgical hand preparation in a rural hospital in Kenya.   Br J Surg. 2010;97(11):1621-1628. doi:10.1002/bjs.7213 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Shen  N-J, Pan  S-C, Sheng  W-H,  et al.  Comparative antimicrobial efficacy of alcohol-based hand rub and conventional surgical scrub in a medical center.   J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2015;48(3):322-328. doi:10.1016/j.jmii.2013.08.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Gaspar  GG, Menegueti  MG, Lopes  AER,  et al.  Alcohol-based surgical hand preparation: translating scientific evidence into clinical practice.   Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2018;7:80. doi:10.1186/s13756-018-0372-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Liu  LQ, Mehigan  S.  The effects of surgical hand scrubbing protocols on skin integrity and surgical site infection rates: a systematic review.   AORN J. 2016;103(5):468-482. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2016.03.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Tanner  J, Dumville  JC, Norman  G, Fortnam  M.  Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection.   Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(1):CD004288. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004288.pub3PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Al-Naami  MY, Anjum  MN, Afzal  MF.  Alcohol-based hand-rub versus traditional surgical scrub and the risk of surgical site infection: a randomized controlled equivalent trial.   J Eur Wound Manage Assoc. 2009;9(3):5-10.Google Scholar
9.
Vergara-Fernández  O, Morales-Olivera  JM, Ponce-de-León-Rosales  S,  et al.  Surgical team satisfaction levels between two preoperative hand-washing methods [published in Spanish].   Rev Invest Clin. 2010;62(6):532-537.PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Pietsch  H.  Hand antiseptics: rubs versus scrubs, alcoholic solutions versus alcoholic gels.   J Hosp Infect. 2001;48(suppl A):S33-S36. doi:10.1016/S0195-6701(01)90010-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Herruzo-Cabrera  R, Vizcaino-Alcaide  MJ, Fdez-Aciñero  MJ.  Usefulness of an alcohol solution of N-duopropenide for the surgical antisepsis of the hands compared with handwashing with iodine-povidone and chlorhexidine: clinical essay.   J Surg Res. 2000;94(1):6-12. doi:10.1006/jsre.2000.5931 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Gupta  C, Czubatyj  AM, Briski  LE, Malani  AK.  Comparison of two alcohol-based surgical scrub solutions with an iodine-based scrub brush for presurgical antiseptic effectiveness in a community hospital.   J Hosp Infect. 2007;65(1):65-71. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2006.06.026 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Nerandzic  MM, Donskey  CJ.  Induced sporicidal activity of chlorhexidine against Clostridium difficile spores under altered physical and chemical conditions.   PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0123809. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123809PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Anderson  DJ, Podgorny  K, Berríos-Torres  SI,  et al.  Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update.   Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(S2)(suppl 2):S66-S88. doi:10.1017/S0899823X00193869 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
World Health Organization.  WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient Safety Challenge: Clean Care Is Safer Care. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, Patient Safety; 2009:58-60.
16.
Wormer  BA, Augenstein  VA, Carpenter  CL,  et al.  The green operating room: simple changes to reduce cost and our carbon footprint.   Am Surg. 2013;79(7):666-671.PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Petterwood  J, Shridhar  V.  Water conservation in surgery: a comparison of two surgical scrub techniques demonstrating the amount of water saved using a ‘taps on/taps off’ technique.   Aust J Rural Health. 2009;17(4):214-217. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1584.2009.01074.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Prabhu  AS, Pepper  S, Lincourt  A,  et al.  Water and dollars down the drain: the real cost of water wasted during surgical hand scrubbing.   J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(3)(suppl):S101. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.06.251 Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Number, rate, and standard error of all-listed surgical and nonsurgical procedures for discharges from short-stay hospitals, by selected procedure categories: United States, 2010. Hyattsville, Maryland: United States Dept of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhds/4procedures/2010pro4_numberrate.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed February 28, 2019.
20.
Shippert  RD.  A study of time-dependent operating room fees and how to save $100 000 by using time-saving products.   Am J Cosmet Surg. 2005;22(1):25-34. doi:10.1177/074880680502200104 Google ScholarCrossref
21.
Childers  CP, Maggard-Gibbons  M.  Understanding costs of care in the operating room.   JAMA Surg. 2018;153(4):e176233. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6233 PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
West  S, Muñoz  B, Lynch  M,  et al.  Impact of face-washing on trachoma in Kongwa, Tanzania.   Lancet. 1995;345(8943):155-158. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(95)90167-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Progress on Drinking Water. Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2017.
24.
Buth  JM, Steen  PO, Sueper  C,  et al.  Dioxin photoproducts of triclosan and its chlorinated derivatives in sediment cores.   Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44(12):4545-4551. doi:10.1021/es1001105 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Report  A. Umbipro. London, UK: European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/medicine-outside-eu/umbipro-assessment-report_en.pdf. Published April 28, 2016. Accessed November 6, 2019.
27.
Shetty  BV. Process for the preparation of iodophor compounds and methods for stabilizing iodophor pharmaceutical compositions containing the same. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4113857A/en. Published September 1978. Accessed November 6, 2019.
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 2,710
    Citations 0
    Original Investigation
    February 27, 2020

    Association Between Eliminating Water From Surgical Hand Antisepsis at a Large Ophthalmic Surgical Hospital and Cost

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
    • 2Medical Student, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
    • 3Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Ophthalmological Institute, Baltimore, Maryland
    JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020;138(4):382-386. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.0048
    Key Points

    Question  Are potential financial savings achievable by exclusive use of alcohol-based hand scrub for surgical preparation at a large ophthalmic surgical hospital?

    Findings  In this economic evaluation conducted at a surgical eye hospital, water savings amounted to 61 631 L per operating room per year after sole use of alcohol-based hand scrub was initiated. The savings from adopting waterless scrub technique could be between $280 000 and $348 000 per operating room per year.

    Meaning  These data suggest that eliminating water from presurgical hand preparation could save modern health care facilities millions of dollars per year and potentially conserve valuable water resources, although potential savings regarding the water used to prepare and distribute alcohol-based hand scrubs for surgical preparation were not calculated.

    Abstract

    Importance  Alcohol-based surgical scrub is recommended for presurgical antisepsis by leading health organizations. Despite this recommendation, water-based scrub techniques remain common practice at many institutions.

    Objective  To calculate the potential financial savings that a large, subspecialty ophthalmic surgical center can achieve with a conversion to waterless surgical hand preparation.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  A review of accounting records associated with the purchase of scrubbing materials and water company invoices was conducted to assess direct costs attributable to water consumption and scrub materials for brushless, alcohol-based surgical scrub and water-based presurgical scrub. The flow rate of scrub sinks to estimate water consumption per year was tested. Savings associated with operating room (OR) and personnel time were calculated based on the prescribed scrub times for waterless techniques vs traditional running-water techniques. The study was conducted from January 5 to March 1, 2019.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcomes for this study were the quantity of water consumed by aqueous scrubbing procedures as well as the cost differences between alcohol-based surgical scrub and water-based scrub procedures per OR per year.

    Results  Scrub sinks consumed 15.9 L of water in a 2-minute period, projecting a savings of 61 631 L and $277 in water and sewer cost per operating room per year. Alcohol-based surgical scrub cost $1083 less than aqueous soap applied from wall-mounted soap dispensers and $271 less than preimpregnated scrub brushes per OR per year in supply costs. The decrease in scrub time from adopting waterless scrub technique could save between approximately $280 000 and $348 000 per OR per year.

    Conclusions and Relevance  Adopting waterless scrub techniques has the potential for economic savings attributable to water. Savings may be larger for surgical facilities performing more personnel-intensive procedures.

    ×