Cleaner Hands, Fewer Infections? Maybe Not
Corrected on 1/24/08: An earlier version of this blog misspelled Mark Rupp's name.
If only those doctors and nurses would wash their hands...
Hand washing is one of those perpetual skeletons in medicine's closet. Infections acquired in U.S. hospitals kill an estimated 100,000 patients annually—yet only about 40 percent of doctors, nurses, and other hospital caregivers clean their hands before touching patients. It's not as if hospitals aren't trying. Posters are displayed. Briefings are conducted. Dispensers of germicidal hand gels have sprouted on walls outside (often inside) patient rooms so caregivers don't have to scrub at a sink (to be rewarded at the end of the day with chapped hands). Don't they get it? That clean hands would lower the rate of infection and lead to fewer deaths?
Or so it would seem—but not according to a two-year investigation at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. A study in the January issue of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology found that even after doctors, nurses, and other caregivers in two of the hospital's intensive-care units almost doubled their use of hand sanitizers, from about 38 percent to nearly 70 percent, infection rates didn't budge.
"There's a cautionary tale here," Mark Rupp, lead researcher and professor of infectious diseases at the medical center, told me. "Everybody takes a very simplistic view of the infection-control problem in our hospitals. It's like, gosh, all you have to do is wash your hands, and the infection problem will go away. But there's more to infection control than hand washing." Rupp was among those surprised. "I thought we would find some sort of signal in the direction of improvement," he said.
Among the possible reasons for the study's findings, said Rupp, is that the hospital's infection incidence was low at the start of the study, so no one factor could move the number dramatically. Another is that 80 or 90 percent compliance might be necessary to keep bacteria from being transmitted. Hand washing, he concludes, is only part of the equation—one element in a package that wraps in other elements, such as meticulous care of IVs and urinary catheters and thorough room cleaning.
Tags: hospitals | infections | bacteria
Tools:
Share
|
| Comments (3)
Reader Comments
Infections
I'm wondering if a study has ever been conducted focusing on how often an infection has been introduced by 'visitors' of the patients. It seems to me that this could be just as important as cleanliness of doctors and caregivers.
Great story
Yes I am not an epidemiologist but it makes sense to me that a small core of "bad-habit carriers" who resist efforts to increase compliance could be responsible. Good luck designing a study for that which does not run afoul of the hospital workers' unions.
Not discounting visitors, but there have always been visitors and there has been some progress in infection rates.
Is it also possible that modern personnel practices have increased the number of different people who handle a given patient, which gives those core bad-habit carriers exposure to more patients?
Add your thoughts
All comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.advertisement


U.S. News's Avery Comarow has been editor of the America's Best Hospitals annual rankings since their debut in 1990. In his reporting on all aspects of clinical medicine from the latest cholesterol guidelines to robotic surgery, he has kept one question in the front of his mind: What does this mean to patients? That perspective uniquely qualifies him to observe and comment on the efforts by hospitals and other healthcare providers to improve care and patient safety.