Environmental Hygiene: What We Know from Scientific Studies

Editor's note: ICT offers related resources. A special digital issue, "Pathogen Persistence, Transmission and Cross-Contamination Prevention" is available for download. For the accompanying slide show, CLICK HERE.  

By Kelly M. Pyrek

A renewed interest in the healthcare environment and to what degree surface contamination contributes to the spread of infectious pathogens is driving a growing body of research in this area. Let's take a look at what we know about various aspects of environmental hygiene from the scientific literature:

- Hand hygiene alone isn't enough
Dancer (2010) makes a compelling case for not allowing a dependence on hand hygiene to eclipse the need for rigorous environmental cleaning coupled with other key infection prevention-related interventions: "With the predominant focus on clean hands, there is less interest in the surfaces that they touch. Even exceptional hand hygiene is rendered invalid if the first object handled transfers pathogens to the patient via fingertips ... Infection control requires a multimodal focus encompassing a wide range of strategies. Each of these interventions plays an integral role in an overall hygiene program, which implies that all deserve consideration and resourcing. To single out hand hygiene while the wards remain grubby, antibiotic prescribing continues unabated, or hospitals overflow with patients will confound any possible benefits from clean hand programs. In addition, penalizing staff over perceived hand hygiene practices will foster resentment and disenchantment. People either will or will not clean their hands, whatever policies are imposed upon them, whereas cleaning, antimicrobial prescribing, laboratory protocol, screening, isolation, and bed management are not subject to human whim and theoretically could be strengthened by clinicians and managers." Dancer adds, "We should balance the current focus on hand hygiene by prioritizing additional strategies. All deserve more support and investment, because none has received the attention that so far has been given to hand hygiene. Because people will notor cannotalways clean their hands, let us engage managerial support for space, time, isolation capacity, staffing, and sufficient cleaning of all handtouch surfaces."

- Microorganisms collect on hospital environment surfaces and are spread
In the past, experts believed that the most significant source of hospital-acquired pathogens was the patient's own endogenous flora; however, Weber, et al. (2010) point out that an estimated 20 percent to 40 percent of nosocomial infections have been attributed to cross-infection via the hands of healthcare workers. They add that this hand contamination could in turn result from either direct patient contact or indirectly from touching contaminated environmental surfaces. They also acknowledge that less commonly, a patient could become colonized with a nosocomial pathogen by direct contact with a contaminated environmental surface -- they say that in some cases, the extent of patient-to-patient transmission has been found to be directly proportional to the level of environmental contamination.

- Pathogens persist on environmental surfaces
Kramer, et al. (2006) summarize data on the persistence of different nosocomial pathogens on inanimate surfaces. The researchers found that most Gram-positive bacteria, such as Enterococcus spp. (including VRE), Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA), or Streptococcus pyogenes, survive for months on dry surfaces, while many Gram-negative species, such as Acinetobacter spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens, or Shigella spp., can also survive for months. Most viruses from the respiratory tract, such as corona, coxsackie, influenza, SARS or rhinovirus, can persist on surfaces for a few days; viruses from the gastrointestinal tract, such as astrovirus, HAV, poliovirus or rotavirus, persist for approximately two months; and bloodborne viruses, such as HBV or HIV, can persist for more than one week. Their review emphasizes that the most common nosocomial pathogens may be a continuous source of transmission if no regular preventive surface disinfection is performed.

- Acquisition of specific organisms is impacted by environmental cleaning
Wilson, et al. (2006) found that enhanced cleaning reduced environmental contamination and hand carriage, but no significant effect was observed on patient acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Hayden, et al. (2006) found that decreasing environmental contamination may help to control the spread of some antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospitals, specifically vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE).

Mamoon, et al. (2009) demonstrated that higher-level cleaning can be effective in removing MRSA from a range of environmental sites that are high risk of patient and/or healthcare worker hand contact in critical areas, such as ICUs. However, in the absence of any residual cleaning and/or disinfectant effects, the clear beneficial effects of such decontamination interventions are transient and rapidly negated by subsequent failures in infection control practice. These findings highlight the need for further work on detergent and disinfectant materials that have longlasting biocidal effects.

- Environmental contamination might lead to infection
Weber, et al. (2010) say that in order for environmental contamination to play an important role in the acquisition of a nosocomial pathogen, the pathogen must demonstrate certain microbiologic characteristics: pathogen able to survive for prolonged periods of time on environmental surfaces; ability to remain virulent after environmental exposure; contamination of the hospital environment frequent; ability to colonize patients (Acinetobacter, C difficile, MRSA, VRE); ability to transiently colonize the hands of healthcare workers; transmission via the contaminated hands of healthcare workers; small inoculating dose (C difficile, norovirus); and relative resistance to disinfectants used on environmental surfaces (C difficile, norovirus).
 
- Prior-room occupants can impact acquisition of pathogens
Otter, et al. (2011) point out that, "A number of studies have identified the previous presence of a colonized or infected patient in a side room as a risk factor for the acquisition of the same pathogen by a new occupant, presumably because of residual room contamination that is not removed through terminal cleaning and disinfection. This effect has been shown for VRE, MRSA, C. difficile, multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii."

Datta, et al. (2011) say that enhanced intensive care unit cleaning using the intervention methods (cleaning cloths saturated with disinfectant via bucket immersion, targeted feedback using a black-light marker, and increased education) may reduce MRSA and VRE transmission. It may also eliminate the risk of MRSA acquisition due to an MRSA-positive prior room occupant.

Shaughnessy, et al. (2011) determined that  prior room occupant with CDI is a significant risk factor for CDI acquisition, independent of established CDI risk factors.

Nseir, et al. (2011) concluded that admission to an ICU room previously occupied by a patient with MDR P. aeruginosa or A. baumannii is an independent risk factor for acquisition of these bacteria by subsequent room occupants; this relationship was not identified for ESBL-producing GNB.

Carling and Bartley (2010) demonstrated that admission of a patient into a bed previously occupied by an infected patient significantly increases the chance of acquiring the same pathogen, regardless of compliance with hand hygiene. And as Dancer (2010) notes, "Newly cleaned hands touching contaminated environmental sites consistently undermine hand hygiene success."

Drees, et al. (2008) found that patients colonized with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) frequently contaminate their environment, and that prior room contamination, whether measured via environmental cultures or prior room occupancy by VRE-colonized patients, was highly predictive of VRE acquisition.

Huang, et al. (2006) asserted that admission to a room previously occupied by an MRSA-positive patient or a VRE-positive patient significantly increased the odds of acquisition for MRSA and VRE. However, this route of transmission was a minor contributor to overall transmission. They noted that the effect of current cleaning practices in reducing the risk to the observed levels and the potential for further reduction were unknown.

- Cleaning is essential
Dancer (2009) issued a clarion call when she observed that until cleaning becomes an evidence-based science, with established methods for assessment, the importance of a clean environment is likely to remain speculative. In her review, she examined the links between the hospital environment and persistent pathogens, noted their vulnerability to the cleaning and disinfection process, and established the potential for impact on patient infection rates when high-touch surfaces were addressed. She also suggested that using proposed standards for hospital hygiene could provide further evidence that cleaning is a cost-effective intervention for controlling healthcare-associated infection.

Weber, et al. (2010) emphasize that the role of surface contamination in transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens is an important issue because transmission can be interrupted by appropriate hand hygiene and cleaning/disinfection of environmental surfaces.

Otter, et al. (2011) remind us that "cleaning is the removal of soil and contaminants from surfaces, whereas disinfection relates to the inactivation of pathogens by use of a disinfectant" and that "Microorganisms vary in their resistance to disinfectants, so agents must be chosen carefully for their effectiveness, particularly for C. difficile spores. Furthermore, the hospital environment is complex and often difficult to clean, and use of a cleaning agent that is not effective against the target organism can spread pathogens to other surfaces." The researchers also note, "Cleaning and disinfection does not always eradicate pathogens from surfaces" and that "it is difficult to determine whether it is the products, the procedures, or a combination of the two that is responsible for the failure to eradicate pathogens from surfaces."

- Cleaning practices vary and can be subpar
Dancer (2011) suggests that "cleaning practices should be tailored to clinical risk, given the wide-ranging surfaces, equipment and building design. There is confusion between nursing and domestic personnel over the allocation of cleaning responsibilities and neither may receive sufficient training and/or time to complete their duties. Since less laborious practices for dirt removal are always attractive, there is a danger that traditional cleaning methods are forgotten or ignored."

Boyce, et al. (2010) acknowledge that substantial variations can be found in the amount of time spent cleaning hightouch surfaces, in the number of disinfectant wipes used in each room, and in the level of cleanliness achieved by housekeepers. They concluded that a number of variables need to be considered when assessing hospital cleaning practices and that providing housekeepers with continuing education and feedback is necessary to achieve compliance with recommended daily cleaning practices. Further studies using ATP bioluminescence assays for monitoring hospital cleanliness are warranted.

Carling, et al. (2010) report that nine studies of thoroughness of cleaning and disinfection which included more than 62,500 high-touch surfaces in 103 different institutions and 142 study sites identified opportunities for improved cleaning in all venues, documenting that cleaning and disinfection must be improved across a broad range of U.S. healthcare settings as part of efforts to prevent transmission of pathogens. 

Hota, et al. (2009) conducted a trial in which a multifaceted environmental cleaning improvement intervention was introduced (the intervention included educational lectures for housekeepers and an observational program of their activities without changes in cleaning products or written procedures). They suggested that surface contamination with VRE is due to a failure to clean rather than to a faulty cleaning procedure or product.

Carling, et al. (2008) identified significant opportunities in all participating hospitals to improve the cleaning of frequently touched objects in the patient's immediate environment. The overall thoroughness of terminal cleaning, expressed as a percentage of surfaces evaluated, was 49 percent (the range for all 23 hospitals in the study was 35 percent to 81 percent). There was significant variation in cleaning efficacy with respect to the cleaning of toilet handholds, bedpan cleaners, light switches, and door knobs (mean cleaning rates less than 30 percent);  sinks, toilet seats, and tray tables were consistently relatively well cleaned (mean cleaning rates over 75 percent). Patient telephones, nurse call devices, and bedside rails were inconsistently cleaned.

- Cleaning efficacy must be monitored and improved
Otter, et al. (2011) say that while there is some evidence that focused efforts can improve the efficacy of cleaning, including improved monitoring of cleaning, routine quantitative microbiological culture, and educational interventions, the long-term effect of educational cleaning improvements has not yet been evaluated fully.

Guh and Carling (2010) encourage hospitals to develop programs to optimize the thoroughness of high-touch surface cleaning as part of terminal room cleaning at the time of discharge or transfer of patients. The program should be based on the institution's level of dedicated resources to implement objective monitoring programs. The program will be an infection preventionist/hospital epidemiologist infection prevention and control (IPC)-based program internally coordinated and maintained through environmental services (EVS) management level participation. The program should be based on a joint (IC/EVS) definition of institutional expectations consistent with CDC standards and a terminal room cleaning checklist. The responsibilities of ES staff and other hospital personnel for cleaning high-touch surfaces (e.g., equipment in ICU rooms) should be clearly defined. Structured education of the EVS staff should be undertaken to define, carry out and monitor programmatic and institutional expectations. Monitoring measures will be undertaken by the IPC/ES team and may include competency evaluation of EVS staff by EVS management, IPC staff or both. Regular ongoing structured monitoring of the program will be performed and documented.  Interventions to optimize the thoroughness of terminal room cleaning and disinfection will be a standing agenda item for the Infection Control Committee (ICC) or Quality Committee as appropriate for the facility. In a more advanced program, Guh and Carling (2010) advocate for an objective assessment of terminal room thoroughness of surface disinfection cleaning done using one or more of the methods recommended by the CDC to document the pre-intervention thoroughness of disinfection cleaning. They also advise scheduled ongoing monitoring of the  cleaning at least three times a year. The results should be used in ongoing educational activity and feedback to EVS staff following each cycle of evaluation. Results of the objective monitoring program and interventions to optimize the thoroughness of terminal room cleaning and disinfection should be a standing agenda item for the ICC.

Guh and Carling (2010) also review the various methods that can be employed to evaluate environmental cleaning: direct practice observation; swab cultures; agar slide cultures; fluorescent markers; and ATP bioluminesence.

Dolan, et al. (2011) caution that recovery of bacteria from environmental samples varies with the swabs and methodology used and negative culture results do not exclude a pathogen-free environment. Both Dolan, et al. (2011) and Hedin, et al. (2010) call for greater standardization to facilitate the assessment of cleanliness of healthcare environments.

Munoz-Price, et al. (2012) compared cleaning rates associated with use of a white ultraviolet (UV) powder versus a transparent UV gel among units with various degrees of previous experience with UV powder. They found discordant cleaning (removal of powder without the removal of gel, or vice versa) and higher frequency of discordance in high-experience units (31 percent) than in no-experience units (8 percent).  In 92 percent of discordant findings, the powder was removed but not the gel, suggesting preferential cleaning of visible UV targets among units with high levels of previous experience with powder.

Sitzlar, et al. (2011) report that removal of DAZO (part of a fluorescent targeting method) correlated well with removal of bacteria or C. difficile spores from the site of marker placement, but did not ensure that other high-touch sites on the same surfaces were cleaned. 

 
Moore, et al. (2010) urge caution when assessing cleaning programs while using adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence, and to consider if surfaces sampled could also be considered adequately clean prior to them being cleaned by EVS staff. Use of benchmark values can help continually monitor the efficacy of existing cleaning programs; however, when evaluating novel or new cleaning practices, baseline cleanliness (the level of cleanliness routinely achieved using normal cleaning procedures) must also be taken into consideration, or the efficacy of modified cleaning will be overestimated.

Boyce, et al. (2011) note that fluorescent markers are useful in determining how frequently high-touch surfaces are wiped during terminal cleaning. However, contaminated surfaces classified as clean according to fluorescent marker criteria after terminal cleaning were significantly less likely to be classified as clean according to ACC and ATP assays.

- Disinfectant contact/dwell times are problematic
Rutala and Weber (2008) note, "An important issue concerning use of disinfectants for noncritical surfaces in health-care settings is that the contact time specified on the label of the product is often too long to be practically followed. The labels of most products registered by EPA for use against HBV, HIV, or M. tuberculosis specify a contact time of 10 minutes. Such a long contact time is not practical for disinfection of environmental surfaces in a healthcare setting because most healthcare facilities apply a disinfectant and allow it to dry (~1 minute). Multiple scientific papers have demonstrated significant microbial reduction with contact times of 30 to 60 seconds.  In addition, EPA will approve a shortened contact time for any product for which the manufacturers will submit confirmatory efficacy data. Currently, some EPA-registered disinfectants have contact times of one to three minutes. By law, users must follow all applicable label instructions for EPA-registered products. Ideally, product users should consider and use products that have the shortened contact time. However, disinfectant manufacturers also need to obtain EPA approval for shortened contact times so these products will be used correctly and effectively in the healthcare environment."

Rutala (undated) addresses how healthcare workers should interpret the recommendation about contact time for disinfectants used on noncritical items in terms of a disconnect between the label instructions and what the studies show: "In order to get EPA clearance of the CDC Guideline it was necessary to insert the sentences, 'By law, all applicable label instructions on EPA-registered products must be followed. If the user selects exposure conditions that differ from those on the EPA-registered product label, the user assumes liability from any injuries resulting from off-label use and is potentially subject to enforcement action under FIFRA.' There are several points that should be made about this apparent disconnect between label instructions and what studies show to include:
- multiple scientific studies have demonstrated the efficacy of hospital disinfectants against pathogens causing healthcare-associated infections with a contact time of at least 1 minute
- the only way an institution can achieve a contact time of 10 minutes is to reapply the surface disinfectant 5-6 times to the surface as the typical dry time for a water-based disinfectant is 1.5-2 minutes and currently, healthcare facilities like UNC Health Care are achieving surface disinfection of non-critical patient care items and environmental surfaces by one application of a disinfectant and requiring a >1 minute dry time
- equally important as disinfectant contact time is the application of the disinfectant to the surface or equipment to ensure that all contaminated surfaces and non-critical patient care equipment are wiped as current studies demonstrate that only approximately 50 percent of high-risk objects are cleaned at terminal cleaning
- there are no data that demonstrate improved infection prevention by a 10 minute contact time versus a 1-minute contact time; we are not aware of an enforcement action against healthcare facilities for "off label" use of a surface disinfectant

 
Thus, Rutala (undated) says, "We believe the guideline allows us to continue our use of low-level disinfectants for noncritical environmental surfaces and patient care equipment with a 1 minute contact time. Additionally, all healthcare facilities should reemphasize the thoroughness of cleaning to ensure that all contaminated surfaces are wiped."

- Wipes are efficient, but must be used according to manufacturer instructions
Orenstein, et al. (2011) evaluated daily cleaning with germicidal bleach wipes on wards with a high incidence of hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). The intervention reduced hospital-acquired CDI incidence by 85 percent, from 24.2 to 3.6 cases per 10,000 patient-days, and prolonged the median time between hospital-acquired CDI cases from 8 to 80 days.

Carter, et al. (2011) found that the introduction of sporicidal wipes resulted in a significant reduction in C difficile rates, thus supporting the need to review and enhance traditional environmental cleaning regimens for preventing and controlling C difficile in acute settings.

Cheng, et al. (2011) assessed the effectiveness of disinfection in clinical areas by assessment of the wipe-rinse method to MRSA in the immediate patient environment, on both the bed rails and the cleaning wipes. The presence of MRSA in the proximity of the patient, i.e., the bed rails as well as the cleaning tool (the wipe), was demonstrated. If thorough rinsing was not conducted between wiping, bacteria accumulated on the wipes, which can result in cross transmission.

Siani, et al. (2011) tested wipes for sporicidal efficacy using a three-stage protocol that measures the ability of the wipe to remove microbial bioburden from a surface, the potential for microbial transfer from the wipe to other surfaces, and the sporicidal activity of the wipe. The ability of the sporicidal wipes to remove C difficile spores from an inanimate surface ranged from 0.22 to 4.09 log(10) spores removed within 10 seconds. None of the wipes demonstrated high sporicidal activity (>4 log(10) reduction) within 5 minutes of contact time, except for a control wipe soaked in 5,000-ppm sodium hypochlorite. All but one wipe demonstrated that spores could be repeatedly transferred to other surfaces. They say that although the use of sporicidal wipes might offer additional control of microbial burden on surfaces, current efficacy tests might be inadequate to reflect the activity of these wipes in practice, lleading to the use of wipes that might not be appropriate for applications in the healthcare environment.

Williams, et al. (2009) examined the efficacy of two commercially available wipes to effectively remove, kill and prevent the transfer of both methicillinresistant and methicillinsusceptible Staphylococcus aureus from contaminated surfaces, noting that although wipes play a role in decreasing the number of pathogenic bacteria from contaminated surfaces, they can potentially transfer bacteria to other surfaces if they are reused. They recommended that a wipe not be used on more than one surface, that it be used only on a small area, and that it be discarded immediately after use, to reduce the risk of microbial spread.

- Comprehensive interventions and educational programs are helpful
Fitzgerald, et al. (2011) suggest that education of EVS personnel, introduction of a cleaning checklist, and viewing of an educational video by EVS staff only slightly increased cleaning performance.  Face-to-face reporting of cleaning results was well received by EVS staff, further developed a collaborative relationship between Epidemiology and EVS, and contributed to increased cleaning performance. 

McCracken, et al. (2010) suggest that use of a programmatic approach incorporating products, tools and processes, enhanced staff training and engagement, staff surveys and objective environmental hygiene monitoring tools can improve environmental hygiene practices, efficiency, sustainability and staff satisfaction. 

Jean, et al. (2010) investigated if a protocolized double terminal clean performed by especially trained environmental services personnel was effective in reducing the number of MDRA-culture positive rooms and if this intervention would facilitate control of the outbreak. They found that a multidisciplinary intervention involving administration, environmental services, nursing, and infection control resulted in a reduction in MDRA contaminated surfaces and cases. 

Carling, et al. (2008) said that because of significant opportunities in hospitals to improve the cleaning of frequently touched objects in the patient's immediate environment, the information obtained from such assessments can be used to develop focused administrative and educational interventions that incorporate ongoing feedback to the environmental services staff, to improve cleaning and disinfection practices in healthcare institutions. They emphasized that improvements in disinfection cleaning can be achieved in most hospitals without a substantial added fiscal commitment, by the use of a structured approach that incorporates a simple, highly objective surface targeting method, repeated performance feedback to environmental services personnel, and administrative interventions. However, administrative leadership and institutional flexibility are necessary to achieve success, and sustainability requires an ongoing programmatic commitment from each institution.

Goodman, et al. (2008) evaluated the adequacy of discharge room cleaning and the impact of a cleaning intervention on the presence of MRSA and VRE on environmental surfaces in intensive care unit (ICU) rooms. The intervention consisted of a change from the use of pour bottles to bucket immersion for applying disinfectant to cleaning cloths; an educational campaign; and feedback regarding adequacy of discharge cleaning. The black-light mark was removed from 44 percent of surfaces at baseline, compared with 71 percent during the intervention. The intervention increased the likelihood of removal of black-light marks after discharge cleaning, controlling for ICU type (medical vs. surgical) and type of surface. The intervention reduced the likelihood of an environmental culture positive for MRSA or VRE (proportion of cultures positive, 45 percent at baseline vs. 27 percent during the intervention. Broad, flat surfaces were more likely to be cleaned than were doorknobs and sink or toilet handles. They said Increasing the volume of disinfectant applied to environmental surfaces, providing education for environmental services staff, and instituting feedback with a black-light marker improved cleaning and reduced the frequency of MRSA and VRE contamination.

Eckstein, et al. (2007) concluded that simple educational interventions directed at housekeeping staff can result in improved decontamination of environmental surfaces. Such interventions should include efforts to monitor cleaning and disinfection practices and provide feedback to the housekeeping staff.

- Technology could aid manual cleaning efforts
Otter, et al. (2011) suggest that technology-driven advancements in commercially available products may aid cleaning; these products include microfiber cleaning materials, the use of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) analysis for the assessment of surface hygiene, new chemical disinfectants, and area decontamination methods such as vaporized hydrogen peroxide systems and ultraviolet radiation to supplement conventional terminal disinfection.

UV Light
Umezawa, et al. (2012) evaluated a newly developed portable pulsed ultraviolet (UV) radiation device for its bactericidal activity in comparison with continuous UV-C, and investigated its effect on the labor burden when implemented in a hospital ward. The use of pulsed UV in daily disinfection of housekeeping surfaces reduced the working hours by half in comparison to manual disinfection using ethanol wipes. The new portable pulsed UV radiation device was proven to have a bactericidal activity against critical nosocomial bacteria, including antimicrobial-resistant bacteria after short irradiation, and was thus found to be practical as a method for disinfecting housekeeping surfaces and decreasing the labor burden.

Nerandzic, et al. (2012) investigated a hand-held room decontamination technology that utilizes far-ultraviolet radiation (185-230 nm) to kill pathogens, examining the efficacy of disinfection using the device in the laboratory, in rooms of hospitalized patients, and on surfaces outside of patient rooms (i.e. keyboards and portable medical equipment). They found that In hospital rooms that were not pre-cleaned, disinfection with the device significantly reduced the frequency of positive C. difficile and MRSA cultures. While the technology rapidly kills C. difficile spores and other healthcare-associated pathogens on surfaces, the presence of organic matter reduces the efficacy of far-UV radiation, possibly explaining the more modest results observed on surfaces in hospital rooms that were not pre-cleaned.

Rutala, et al. (2010) evaluated the effectiveness of a UVCemitting device to eliminate clinically important nosocomial pathogens in a contaminated hospital room. The device was effective in eliminating vegetative bacteria on contaminated surfaces both in the line of sight and behind objects within approximately 15 minutes and in eliminating C. difficile spores within 50 minutes.

Boyce, et al. (2011) investigated the ability of a mobile UV-C light unit to reduce bacterial contamination of high-touch environmental surfaces in patient rooms and reported significant reduction in  aerobic colony counts and C. difficile spores on contaminated surfaces.

Memarzadeh, et al. (2010) note that although UVGI is microbiocidal, it is "not ready for prime time" as a primary intervention to kill or inactivate infectious microorganisms; rather, it should be considered an adjunct. Other factors, such as careful design of the built environment, installation and effective operation of the HVAC system, and a high level of attention to traditional cleaning and disinfection, must be assessed before a healthcare facility can decide to rely solely on UVGI to meet indoor air quality requirements for healthcare facilities. More targeted and multiparameter studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and incremental benefit of UVGI for mitigating reservoirs of microorganisms and ultimately preventing cross-transmission of pathogens that lead to healthcare-associated infections.

Nerandzic, et al. (2010) describe a mobile, fully-automated room decontamination technology that utilizes UV-C irradiation to kill pathogens, examining the efficacy of environmental disinfection using this device in the laboratory and in rooms of hospitalized patients. They concluded that the UV-C device significantly reduces C. difficile, VRE and MRSA contamination on commonly touched hospital surfaces.

VHP
Chmielarczyk, et al. (2012) confirmed the importance of rigorous infection prevention and control measures, combined with VHP decontamination in controlling an outbreak of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (MRAB).

Pottage, et al. (2012) assessed the resistance of meticillin-resistant S. aureus to VHP in comparison with commercially available biological indicators loaded with spores. During the exposure period the recovery of MRSA from the coupons was between 1.5 and 3.5 log(10) higher than the recovery of G. stearothermophilus spores (P<0.05). This greater resistance may be due to the production of catalase which could break down the hydrogen peroxide, resulting in a reduction of the effectiveness of VHP. These findings highlight that the reduction achieved with a commercially available biological indicator cannot always be extrapolated to other micro-organisms. It must be recognized that although gaseous decontamination is the final step of the decontamination process, pre-cleaning of surfaces must be carried out to reduce the microbial loading being exposed.

Havill, et al. (2012) concluded that both HPV and UV-C reduce bacterial contamination, including spores, in patient rooms, but HPV is significantly more effective; UV-C is significantly less effective for sites that are out of direct line of sight.

Falagas, et al. (2011) conducted a literature review on the effectiveness of airborne hydrogen peroxide as an environmental disinfectant and infection control measure in clinical settings. Before the application of any cleaning intervention, 187/480 of all sampled environmental sites were found to be contaminated by the studied pathogens in nine studies that reported specific relevant data. After application of terminal cleaning and airborne hydrogen peroxide, 178/630 of the sampled sites in six studies and 15/682 of the sampled sites in 10 studies, respectively, remained contaminated. Four studies evaluated the use of hydrogen peroxide vapor for infection control. This was associated with control of a nosocomial outbreak in two studies, eradication of persistent environmental contamination with MRSA and decrease in C. difficile infection in each of the remaining two studies.
Davies, et al. (2011) examined three gaseous decontamination technologies for their suitability in reducing environmental contamination with C. difficile: gaseous hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide and ozone; air decontamination and UV-based technologies were also briefly described. The researchers concluded that while there is a role to play for these new technologies in the decontamination of ward surfaces contaminated with C. difficile, the requirement for both a pre-clean before use and the limited 'in vivo' evidence means that extensive field trials are necessary to determine their cost-effectiveness in a healthcare setting.

Chan, et al. (2011) assessed the efficacy of a hydrogen peroxide vapor decontamination, examining the baseline bacterial counts in high-touch zones within wards and evaluated the efficacy of cleaning with a neutral detergent followed by either hydrogen peroxide vapor decontamination, or a manual terminal clean with bleach. They found that dry hydrogen peroxide vapor room decontamination is highly effective on a range of surfaces, although the cleanliness data obtained by these methods cannot be easily compared among the different surfaces as recovery of organisms is affected by the nature of the surface.

Manian, et al. (2011) found that routine terminal cleaning and disinfection of hospital rooms vacated by Acinetobacter baumannii complex -positive patients may be associated with a significant number of ABC- or MRSA-positive room surfaces even when up to 4 rounds of C/D are performed. The addition of HPV treatment to one round of cleaning and disinfection appears effective in reducing the number of persistently contaminated room sites in this setting.

Holmdahl, et al.  (2011) conducted a head-to-head in vitro comparison of a hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV) system and an aerosolized hydrogen peroxide (aHP) system and concluded that one HPV generator was more effective than two aHP machines for the inactivation of G. stearothermophilus BIs, and cycle times were faster for the HPV system.

Otter, et al. (2010) used hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV) to decontaminate an entire ICU in an attempt to eradicate undetected environmental contamination during outbreaks of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative rods (MDR-GNR). Surface sampling identified GNR, including MDR strains, on 10 (48 percent) of 21 areas cultured after intensive cleaning but before decontamination with HPV, and on no areas after HPV. No new cases of Acinetobacter were identified for approximately three months after HPV.

Ray, et al. (2010) found that environmental decontamination using VHP combined with comprehensive infection control measures interrupted nosocomial transmission of MDR A. baumannii in an LTACH.

Po and Carling (2010) note, "Although innovative technologies may play a role in the environmental hygiene armamentarium, their logistical complexity as well as the equipment and personnel costs of these interventions make it imperative that independent or consortiumsponsored, objectively controlled studies be undertaken to clarify the true role of these technologies. Such studies would be particularly important, given the evidence that improving routine hygienic practice can significantly decrease environmental contamination of patient zone surfaces and reduce the transfer of healthcareassociated pathogens to susceptible patients. Given the considerations above, we also believe that the conclusion by Otter et al. that HPV technology should be considered for routine use to decontaminate patient rooms is premature, and we concur with Boyce et al. that additional investigation of room decontamination processes through welldesigned studies is warranted."

Boyce (2009) notes, "Further investigations of the hydrogen peroxide drymist system, hydrogen peroxide vapor systems, and other room decontamination processes, such as the use of gaseous ozone, are warranted to establish the role of such technologies in terminal disinfection of patient rooms and the impact of such technologies on pathogen transmission."

Barbut, et al. (2009) concluded that in-situ experiments indicate that the hydrogen peroxide dry-mist disinfection system is significantly more effective than 0.5 percent sodium hypochlorite solution at eradicating C. difficile spores and might represent a new alternative for disinfecting the rooms of patients with C. difficile infection.

Otter (2009) reports that during a 22-month period at a 500-bed teaching hospital, 1,565 rooms that had housed patients infected with multidrug-resistant pathogens were decontaminated using hydrogen peroxide vapor. Hydrogen peroxide vapor decontamination required a mean time of 2 hours and 20 minutes, compared with 32 minutes for conventional cleaning. Despite the greater time required for decontamination, hydrogen peroxide vapor decontamination of selected patient rooms is feasible in a busy hospital with a mean occupancy rate of 94 percent.

Boyce, et al. (2008) concluded that HPV decontamination was efficacious in eradicating C. difficile from contaminated surfaces, and that further studies of the impact of HPV decontamination on nosocomial transmission of C. difficile are warranted.

As Rutala and Weber (2011) summarize, "There is now ample evidence that no-touch systems such as UV-C light or HP can reduce environmental contamination with healthcare-associated pathogens. However, each specific system should be studied and its efficacy demonstrated  before being introduced into healthcare facilities. Importantly, only a single study using a before/after design has been published that demonstrated that such a system can reduce healthcare-associated infections. Additional studies assessing the effectiveness of no-touch room decontamination systems are needed to further assess the benefits of these technologies. In addition, cost-effectiveness studies would be useful in aiding selection among the different room decontamination technologies and specific systems. Last, if additional studies continue to demonstrate a benefit, then widespread adoption of these technologies (e.g., as a supplemental intervention during outbreaks, after discharge of patients under contact precautions, and on a regular basis in special rooms [e.g., operating rooms]) should be considered for terminal room disinfection in healthcare facilities."

- Self-sanitizing surfaces could supplement manual cleaning
Proper and thorough environmental cleaning is a necessity for pathogen removal. But there are some interesting high-tech solutions on the horizon, such as so-called "self-sanitizing" surfaces. As Kingston and Noble (1964) observe, "It might help to reduce the spread of some infectious diseases is surfaces which are liable to bacterial contamination could be treated so as to make them able to kill organisms subsequently deposited on them." Metals such as copper and silver have long been investigated for their antimicrobial properties, and even newer technologies such as titanium dioxide-containing surfaces are gaining interest among researchers. 

As Weber and Rutala (2012) note, "In the past several years, another method of reducing contamination of room surfaces has emerged: self-disinfecting surfaces. Such surfaces have also been called 'self-sanitizing' and because microbial killing requires direct contact with the surface, the term 'contact killing' has also been used." Weber and Rutala (2012) review these technologies, including copper, silver, triclosan, quaternary ammonium salt, engineered microtopography to inhibit bacterial biofilm formation, and light-activated antimicrobial coatings. They note, "The potential development of self-disinfecting surfaces has tremendous possibilities. Most importantly, the use of such surfaces could minimize the impact of poor cleaning and disinfecting practices during routine and terminal room cleaning and disinfection. However, several cautionary considerations should be noted. First, many of these surfaces have demonstrated only modest killing (<2 log10 reductions in pathogens). Second, the ability of these new surfaces to kill intrinsically more-resistant pathogens, such as C. difficile spores and norovirus, has often not been fully evaluated. Third, the cost of installing such surfaces has not been described. Fourth, only incomplete information is available on the durability of such surfaces and whether their antimicrobial activity is affected by temperature, humidity, the frequency of cleaning, and the presence of organic load. Finally, no studies have been published that demonstrate whether installing such surfaces reduces the incidence of healthcare-associated infections. Although high-touch surfaces have been defined, the relative contribution of individual surfaces to the contamination of the hands of healthcare personnel and to the risk of cross-transmission is incompletely defined. Thus, it is unclear which environmental surfaces and medical devices in patient rooms should or could be coated with a self-disinfecting surface. Nevertheless, continued research in this area to discover means of reducing the impact of environmental contamination in the transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens is clearly warranted."

References:

Barbut F, Menuet D, Verachten M. Comparison of the efficacy of a hydrogen peroxide dry-mist disinfection system and sodium hypochlorite solution for eradication of clostridium difficile spores. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 30:507-514. 2009.

Boyce JM, et al. Comparison of Fluorescent Marker Systems with 2 Quantitative Methods of Assessing Terminal Cleaning Practices. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology Vol. 32, No. 12 (December 2011) (pp. 1187-1193)

Boyce JM, et al. Terminal Decontamination of Patient Rooms Using an Automated Mobile UV Light Unit Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 737-742. August 2011.

Boyce JM, et al. Variations in Hospital Daily Cleaning Practices. Infect Control Hospital Epidem.  Vol. 31, No. 1. January 2010.

Boyce JM. New Approaches to Decontamination of Rooms After Patients Are Discharged. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009 Jun;30(6):515-7.

Carling PC, Bartley JM. Evaluating hygienic cleaning in healthcare settings: what you do not know can harm your patients. Am J Infect Control 2010; 38: S41-S50.

Carling PC, Po JL, Bartley J, Herwaldt L; Healthcare Environmental Hygiene Group 
Identifying opportunities to improve environmental hygiene in multiple healthcare settings. Abstract, SHEA 5th Decennial Meeting; Atlanta, 2010

Carling PC, Parry MF, Von Beheren SM. Identifying opportunities to enhance environmental cleaning in 23 acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008 Jan;29(1):1-7.

Carling PC, Parry MM, Rupp ME, Po JL, Dick B, Von Beheren S. Improving cleaning of the environment surrounding patients in 36 acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008(b) Nov;29(11):1035-41.

Carter Y, Barry D. Tackling C difficile with environmental cleaning. Nurs Times. 2011 Sep 13-19;107(36):22-5.

Chan HT, White P, Sheorey H, Cocks J, Waters MJ. Evaluation of the biological efficacy of hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination in wards of an Australian hospital. J Hosp Infect. Oct;79(2):125-8. 2011.

Cheng KL, Boost MV, Chung JW. Study on the effectiveness of disinfection with wipes against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and implications for hospital hygiene. Am J Infect Control. Sep;39(7):577-80. 2011.

Chmielarczyk A, Higgins PG, Wojkowska-Mach J, Synowiec E, Zander E, Romaniszyn D, Gosiewski T, Seifert H, Heczko P, Bulanda M. Control of an outbreak of Acinetobacter baumannii infections using vaporized hydrogen peroxide. J Hosp Infect. 2012 Jun 22.

Dancer SJ. Hospital cleaning in the 21st century. European J Clin Micro Infect Dis. Vol. 30, No. 12, pp. 1473-1481. 2011.

Dancer SJ. Control of Transmission of Infection in Hospitals Requires More than Clean Hands. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology.  Vol. 31, No. 9, September 2010.  

Dancer SJ. The role of environmental cleaning in the control of hospital-acquired infection. J Hosp Infect 2009;73:378385.

Datta R, Platt R, Yokoe DS, Huang SS. Environmental Cleaning Intervention and Risk of Acquiring Multidrug-Resistant Organisms from Prior Room Occupants. Arch Intern Med. Mar 28;171(6):491-4. 2011.

Dolan A, Bartlett M, McEntee B, Creamer E, Humphreys H. Evaluation of different methods to recover meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from hospital environmental surfaces. J Hosp Infect. Nov;79(3):227-30. 2011.

Drees M, et al. Prior Environmental Contamination Increases the Risk of Acquisition of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci. Clin Infect Dis. Mar 1;46(5):678-85. 2008.

Eckstein BC, Adams DA, Eckstein EC, Rao A, Sethi AK, Yadavalli GK, Donskey CJ. Reduction of Clostridium Difficile and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus contamination of environmental surfaces after an intervention to improve cleaning methods. BMC Infect Dis. 2007 Jun 21;7:61.

Fitzgerald T, Sholtz L, Marion N, Adler A, Turner P, Thomas C, Carling PC. Environmental Services performance improvement in the ICU using a cleaning checklist, educational video, and fluorescent marking solution with rapid-cycle feedback
Poster presented at the Society for Healthcare Epidemiologists of America Annual Scientific Meeting, 2011.

Goodman ER, Platt R, Bass R, Onderdonk AB, Yokoe DS, Huang SS. Impact of an environmental cleaning intervention on the presence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci on surfaces in intensive care unit rooms. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008 Jul;29(7):593-9.

Guh A and Carling P. Options for Evaluating Environmental Cleaning. December 2010. Accessed at: http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/toolkits/Evaluating-Environmental-Cleaning.html

Havill NL, et al. Comparison of the Microbiological Efficacy of Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor and Ultraviolet Light Processes for Room Decontamination. Vol. 33, No. 5 (May 2012) (pp. 507-512)

Hayden MK, Bonten MJ, Blom DW, Lyle EA, van de Vijver DA, Weinstein RA. Reduction in acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus after enforcement of routine environmental cleaning measures. Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Jun 1;42(11):1552-60.

Hedin G, Rynbäck J, Loré B. New technique to take samples from environmental surfaces using flocked nylon swabs. J Hosp Infect. Aug;75(4):314-7. 2010.

Holmdahl T, et al.  A Head-to-Head Comparison of Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor and Aerosol Room Decontamination Systems
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. Vol. 32, No. 9 (September 2011) (pp. 831-836).

Hota B, Blom DW, Lyle EA, Weinstein RA, Hayden MK. Interventional evaluation of environmental contamination by vancomycin-resistant enterococci: failure of personnel, product, or procedure? J Hosp Infect. 2009 Feb;71(2):123-31.

Huang SS, Datta R, Platt R. Risk of acquiring antibiotic-resistant bacteria from prior room occupants. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Oct 9;166(18):1945-51.

Jean W, Blum N, Fisher V, Douglas G, Flanagan T, Ostrosky L The A team: An environmental services intervention to control multi-drug resistant Acinetobacter. Abstract, SHEA Fifth Decennial Meeting, 2010

Kramer A, Schwebke I and Kampf G.How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2006; 6: 130.

Mamoon A. Aldeyab MA, et al. Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Conventional Cleaning Regimen in Removing MethicillinResistant Staphylococcus aureus From Contaminated Surfaces in an Intensive Care Unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009 Mar;30(3):304-6.

Manian FA, Griesenauer S, Senkel D, Setzer JM, Doll SA, Perry AM, Wiechens M. Isolation of Acinetobacter baumannii complex and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from hospital rooms following terminal cleaning and disinfection: can we do better? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Jul;32(7):667-72. 2011.

McCracken E, Martin K, Homan L Evaluation of a programmatic approach to improving patient room cleaning outcomes Poster presented at Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology Educational Conference and International Meeting, 2010.

Memarzadeh F, Olmsted RN, Bartley JM. Applications of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation disinfection in health care facilities: effective adjunct, but not stand-alone technology. Am J Infect Control. 2010 Jun;38(5 Suppl 1):S13-24.

Moore G, Smyth D, Singleton J, Wilson P. The use of adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence to assess the efficacy of a modified cleaning program implemented within an intensive care setting. Am J Infect Control. 2010 Oct;38(8):617-22.

Munoz-Price LS, et al. Ultraviolet Powder versus Ultraviolet Gel for Assessing Environmental Cleaning
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. Vol. 33, No. 2 (February 2012) (pp. 192-195)

Nerandzic MM, Cadnum JL, Eckart KE, Donskey CJ. Evaluation of a hand-held far-ultraviolet radiation device for decontamination of Clostridium difficile and other healthcare-associated pathogens. BMC Infect Dis. 2012 May 16;12(1):120.

Nseir S, Blazejewski C, Lubret R, Wallet F, Courcol R, Durocher A. Risk of acquiring multi-drug resistant Gram-negative bacilli from prior room occupants in the intensive care unit. Clin Microbiol Infect. Aug;17(8):1201-8. 2011.

Orenstein R, Aronhalt KC, McManus JE Jr, Fedraw LA. A targeted strategy to wipe out Clostridium difficile. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Nov;32(11):1137-9. 2011.

Otter JA, Yezli S and French GL. The Role Played by Contaminated Surfaces in the Transmission of Nosocomial Pathogens.
Infect Control Hosp Epidem. Vol. 32, No. 7. July 2011.

Po JL and Carling PC. The Need for Additional Investigation of Room Decontamination Processes. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp. 776-777. July 2010.

Pottage T, Macken S, Walker JT, Bennett AM. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is more resistant to vaporized hydrogen peroxide than commercial Geobacillus stearothermophilus biological indicators. J Hosp Infect. 2012 Jan;80(1):41-5.

Pyrek KM. The Environmental Hygiene Imperative: Shiny Floors No Longer the Hallmark of Hospital Cleanliness. Infection Control Today. Sept. 2011.

Ray A, et al. Use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide decontamination during an outbreak of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection at a long-term acute care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 Dec;31(12):1236-41.

Rutala WA and Weber DJ. Are Room Decontamination Units Needed to Prevent Transmission of Environmental Pathogens?
Infect Control Hospital Epidem. Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 743-747. August 2011.

Rutala WA, et al. Room Decontamination with UV Radiation. Infect Control Hospital Epidem. Vol. 31, No. 10, pp. 1025-1029. October 2010.

Rutala WA and Weber DJ. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. CDC.

Rutala WA and Weber DJ. Contact Times for Surface Disinfectants. From: Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. CDC.

Rutala WA, FAQs. Accessed at www.disinfectionandsterilization.org.

Sehulster L and Chin RYW . Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR. June 6, 2003 / 52(RR10);1-42.

Shaughnessy MK, Micielli RL, Depestel DD, Arndt J, Strachan CL, Welch KB, Chenoweth CE. Evaluation of hospital room assignment and acquisition of Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea (CDAD). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Mar;32(3):201-6. 2011.

Siani H, Cooper C, Maillard JY. Efficacy of "sporicidal" wipes against Clostridium difficile. Am J Infect Control. 2011 Apr;39(3):212-8.

Sitzlar BM, Sethi AK, Jury LA, Guerrero D, Cadnum JL, Donskey CJ. Is it really clean? Evaluation of the DAZO Fluorescent Marker Method for Monitoring Environmental Cleaning. Poster presented at the Society for Healthcare Epidemiologists of America Annual Scientific Meeting, 2011.

Umezawa K, Asai S, Inokuchi S, Miyachi H. A comparative study of the bactericidal activity and daily disinfection housekeeping surfaces by a new portable pulsed UV radiation device. Curr Microbiol. Jun;64(6):581-7. 2012.

Weber DJ and Rutala WA. Commentary: Self-Disinfecting Surfaces. Infect Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 10-13. January 2012.

Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Miller MB, Huslage K, Sickbert-Bennett E. Role of hospital surfaces in the transmission of emerging health careassociated pathogens: norovirus, Clostridium difficile, and Acinetobacter species. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(suppl):S25S33.

Williams GJ, et al. Limitations of the Efficacy of Surface Disinfection in the Healthcare Setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Jun;30(6):570-3. 2009.

Wilson AP, Smyth D, Moore G, Singleton J, Jackson R, Gant V, Jeanes A, Shaw S, James E, Cooper B, Kafatos G, Cookson B, Singer M, Bellingan G. The impact of enhanced cleaning within the intensive care unit on contamination of the near-patient environment with hospital pathogens: a randomized crossover study in critical care units in two hospitals. Crit Care Med. 2011 Apr;39(4):651-8.