The Role of Contaminated Surfaces in the Transmission of Nosocomial Pathogens - Use of Biocidal Surfaces for Reduction of Healthcare Acquired Infections - page 35

Table 3.2 Transfer of pathogens and surrogate markers from surfaces to hands

Setting,
location

Contaminated
(%) Reference Organism Method n Comment

Rusin et al. [ 86 ] Laboratory,
USA

Bacteria and
phage

Fomites experimentally contaminated
with a mixture of bacteria and phage
and touched by volunteers

10-20 - Transfer efficiency higher for non-porous

fomites (28-66 %); Gram-positive bacteria
had the highest transfer efficiency (41 %)

Jiang et al. [ 87 ] Child care cen-
ter, USA

Virus
surrogate

DNA was dried onto toys, which were passed
to researchers to hold

5 5 (100) Subsequent DNA transfer to clean toys

occurred on 3/5 occasions

Rheinbaben
et al. [ 88 ]

Laboratory,
Germany

Phage Volunteers contacted an experimentally

contaminated door handle

14 14 (100) 30-66 % of the inoculated virus was recovered

from the hands of volunteers

Boyce
et al. [ 16 ]

Ward side
rooms, USA

MRSA Hands cultured after routine patient care

without direct patient contact

12 5 (42) All 12 healthcare workers wore gloves

Ray et al. [ 89 ] Wards side
rooms, USA

VRE Hands cultured after 5 s contact with the bed

rail and bedside table in VRE patients'
rooms

13 6 (46) 5/6 hand cultures were indistinguishable from

environmental cultures by pulsed-field gel
electrophoresis

Barker
et al. [ 75 ]

Laboratory, UK Norovirus Clean fingertips touched contaminated

surfaces and then other objects

30 12 (40) 4/10 door handles, 5/10 telephones and 3/10

taps became contaminated

Bhalla
et al. [ 23 ]

8 wards, USA Pathogens Hands cultured after 5 s contact with the

bed rail and bedside table

64 34 (53) Positive hand cultures obtained from 24 %

of 25 rooms that had been cleaned after
patient discharge

Hayden
et al. [ 22 ]

Intensive care
unit, USA

VRE Hands cultures from 44 healthcare workers

who had negative hand cultures at study
entry and touched only environmental
surfaces during routine patient care in the
rooms of patients with VRE

44 23 (52) Each contact with patient or environmental

surface represented a 10 % risk of picking
up VRE

Stiefel
et al. [ 55 ]

Hospital-wide,
USA

MRSA Gloved hand print cultures obtained from

healthcare personnel following contact
with patient sites or environmental surfaces
in the rooms of patients with MRSA

40 18 (45) Risk of contamination of gloved hands was not

significantly different following contact
with environmental surfaces (45 %)
than with the patient (40 %)

C. difficile

Guerrero
et al. [ 54 ]

Hospital-wide,
USA

Gloved hand print cultures obtained from
healthcare personnel following contact
with patient sites or environmental surfaces
in the rooms of patients with C. difficile

30 15 (50) Risk of contamination of gloved hands was not

significantly different following contact
with environmental surfaces (50 %)
than with the patient (50 %)