The Journal of hospital infection · 2026
Evaluation of commercially available hand wipes for hand hygiene in water-safe care: removal of bacterial spores from hands.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barry Ailbhe, Moore Ginny
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is essential for preventing healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs), but traditional handwashing relies on a water source. Hand wipes may offer a practical water-free alternative that supports water-safe care and reduces reliance on hospital-based hand hygiene protocols.
AIM: To determine whether using hand wipes could reduce bacterial hand contamination to a level comparable to that achieved using hand soap.
METHODS: The removal of Escherichia coli K12 and Geobacillus stearothermophilus (GS) spores (used as a surrogate for Clostridioides difficile) from the hands of 12 study participants was assessed over two study phases. The efficacy of a reference hand soap and four hand wipes was evaluated by measuring bacterial reduction (Log10 cfu/mL) following a standardised handwashing or hand wiping procedure.
FINDINGS: All four wipes were as effective, or significantly more effective, than hand washing with the reference soap in removing E. coli K12 from hands. In contrast, when used to remove GS spores, the four wipes were either as effective, or significantly less effective, than washing with soap and water, despite two being marketed as 'sporicidal.' Variability in efficacy was observed demonstrating that even when following visual and verbal instructions, an individual's execution of hand hygiene procedures can significantly differ between handwashing or hand wiping events and may be influenced by the method/product used.
CONCLUSION: Hand wipes may be a viable 'water-free' alternative to handwashing in certain clinical contexts. However, consistent performance cannot be relied upon, and additional considerations are needed if the presence of more resilient organisms is likely.
AIM: To determine whether using hand wipes could reduce bacterial hand contamination to a level comparable to that achieved using hand soap.
METHODS: The removal of Escherichia coli K12 and Geobacillus stearothermophilus (GS) spores (used as a surrogate for Clostridioides difficile) from the hands of 12 study participants was assessed over two study phases. The efficacy of a reference hand soap and four hand wipes was evaluated by measuring bacterial reduction (Log10 cfu/mL) following a standardised handwashing or hand wiping procedure.
FINDINGS: All four wipes were as effective, or significantly more effective, than hand washing with the reference soap in removing E. coli K12 from hands. In contrast, when used to remove GS spores, the four wipes were either as effective, or significantly less effective, than washing with soap and water, despite two being marketed as 'sporicidal.' Variability in efficacy was observed demonstrating that even when following visual and verbal instructions, an individual's execution of hand hygiene procedures can significantly differ between handwashing or hand wiping events and may be influenced by the method/product used.
CONCLUSION: Hand wipes may be a viable 'water-free' alternative to handwashing in certain clinical contexts. However, consistent performance cannot be relied upon, and additional considerations are needed if the presence of more resilient organisms is likely.