Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use
Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two wid...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Winnefeld, M. [verfasserIn] Richard, M.A. [verfasserIn] Drancourt, M. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erschienen: |
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd ; 2000 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
Online-Ressource |
|---|
| Reproduktion: |
2003 ; Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: British journal of dermatology - Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 1892, 143(2000), 3, Seite 0 |
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:143 ; year:2000 ; number:3 ; pages:0 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
NLEJ242134807 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLEJ242134807 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230505191012.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 120427s2000 xx |||||o 00| ||und c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLEJ242134807 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Winnefeld, M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use |
| 264 | 1 | |a Oxford, UK |b Blackwell Publishing Ltd |c 2000 | |
| 300 | |a Online-Ressource | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two widely accepted hand hygiene measures under in-use conditions. Methods Fifty-two nurses were randomly assigned for an 8-day period to either an alcohol-based disinfectant or a hand wash with a non-antiseptic soap. At baseline and at the end of the test period, microbiological hand samples were obtained both before and after a hand hygiene procedure, and skin tolerance was assessed using clinical scores and measurement of transepidermal water loss. Results Self-assessment of skin condition and grade of skin damage worsened significantly more in the group using soap than in the group using alcoholic disinfectant (P = 0·004 and P = 0·01, respectively). The alcohol-based rinse was significantly more effective than liquid soap in removing transient contaminant micro-organisms (P = 0·016). Twenty of 50 hand washes with non-antiseptic soap apparently resulted in bacterial contamination of the hands. At the end of the study, the total bacterial count increased with the increasing number of hand washes in the soap group (P = 0·003), and with the degree of skin damage (P = 0·005) in the antiseptic group. Conclusions In everyday hospital practice, alcohol-based disinfectant is more effective and better tolerated than non-antiseptic soap; soap is at risk of spreading contamination; and skin comfort strongly influences the number and the quality of hand hygiene procedures. | ||
| 533 | |d 2003 |f Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |7 |2003|||||||||| | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a anti-infective agents | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Richard, M.A. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Drancourt, M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Grob, J.J. |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t British journal of dermatology |d Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 1892 |g 143(2000), 3, Seite 0 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)NLEJ24392786X |w (DE-600)2004086-6 |x 1365-2133 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:143 |g year:2000 |g number:3 |g pages:0 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x |q text/html |x Verlag |z Deutschlandweit zugänglich |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-DJB | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NL_ARTICLE | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 143 |j 2000 |e 3 |h 0 | ||
| author_variant |
m w mw m r mr m d md |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:13652133:2000----::knoeacadfetvnsotoadeotmntopoeue |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2000 |
| publishDate |
2000 |
| allfields |
10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242134807 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Winnefeld, M. verfasserin aut Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2000 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two widely accepted hand hygiene measures under in-use conditions. Methods Fifty-two nurses were randomly assigned for an 8-day period to either an alcohol-based disinfectant or a hand wash with a non-antiseptic soap. At baseline and at the end of the test period, microbiological hand samples were obtained both before and after a hand hygiene procedure, and skin tolerance was assessed using clinical scores and measurement of transepidermal water loss. Results Self-assessment of skin condition and grade of skin damage worsened significantly more in the group using soap than in the group using alcoholic disinfectant (P = 0·004 and P = 0·01, respectively). The alcohol-based rinse was significantly more effective than liquid soap in removing transient contaminant micro-organisms (P = 0·016). Twenty of 50 hand washes with non-antiseptic soap apparently resulted in bacterial contamination of the hands. At the end of the study, the total bacterial count increased with the increasing number of hand washes in the soap group (P = 0·003), and with the degree of skin damage (P = 0·005) in the antiseptic group. Conclusions In everyday hospital practice, alcohol-based disinfectant is more effective and better tolerated than non-antiseptic soap; soap is at risk of spreading contamination; and skin comfort strongly influences the number and the quality of hand hygiene procedures. 2003 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2003|||||||||| anti-infective agents Richard, M.A. verfasserin aut Drancourt, M. verfasserin aut Grob, J.J. oth In British journal of dermatology Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 1892 143(2000), 3, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ24392786X (DE-600)2004086-6 1365-2133 nnns volume:143 year:2000 number:3 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 143 2000 3 0 |
| spelling |
10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242134807 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Winnefeld, M. verfasserin aut Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2000 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two widely accepted hand hygiene measures under in-use conditions. Methods Fifty-two nurses were randomly assigned for an 8-day period to either an alcohol-based disinfectant or a hand wash with a non-antiseptic soap. At baseline and at the end of the test period, microbiological hand samples were obtained both before and after a hand hygiene procedure, and skin tolerance was assessed using clinical scores and measurement of transepidermal water loss. Results Self-assessment of skin condition and grade of skin damage worsened significantly more in the group using soap than in the group using alcoholic disinfectant (P = 0·004 and P = 0·01, respectively). The alcohol-based rinse was significantly more effective than liquid soap in removing transient contaminant micro-organisms (P = 0·016). Twenty of 50 hand washes with non-antiseptic soap apparently resulted in bacterial contamination of the hands. At the end of the study, the total bacterial count increased with the increasing number of hand washes in the soap group (P = 0·003), and with the degree of skin damage (P = 0·005) in the antiseptic group. Conclusions In everyday hospital practice, alcohol-based disinfectant is more effective and better tolerated than non-antiseptic soap; soap is at risk of spreading contamination; and skin comfort strongly influences the number and the quality of hand hygiene procedures. 2003 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2003|||||||||| anti-infective agents Richard, M.A. verfasserin aut Drancourt, M. verfasserin aut Grob, J.J. oth In British journal of dermatology Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 1892 143(2000), 3, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ24392786X (DE-600)2004086-6 1365-2133 nnns volume:143 year:2000 number:3 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 143 2000 3 0 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242134807 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Winnefeld, M. verfasserin aut Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2000 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two widely accepted hand hygiene measures under in-use conditions. Methods Fifty-two nurses were randomly assigned for an 8-day period to either an alcohol-based disinfectant or a hand wash with a non-antiseptic soap. At baseline and at the end of the test period, microbiological hand samples were obtained both before and after a hand hygiene procedure, and skin tolerance was assessed using clinical scores and measurement of transepidermal water loss. Results Self-assessment of skin condition and grade of skin damage worsened significantly more in the group using soap than in the group using alcoholic disinfectant (P = 0·004 and P = 0·01, respectively). The alcohol-based rinse was significantly more effective than liquid soap in removing transient contaminant micro-organisms (P = 0·016). Twenty of 50 hand washes with non-antiseptic soap apparently resulted in bacterial contamination of the hands. At the end of the study, the total bacterial count increased with the increasing number of hand washes in the soap group (P = 0·003), and with the degree of skin damage (P = 0·005) in the antiseptic group. Conclusions In everyday hospital practice, alcohol-based disinfectant is more effective and better tolerated than non-antiseptic soap; soap is at risk of spreading contamination; and skin comfort strongly influences the number and the quality of hand hygiene procedures. 2003 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2003|||||||||| anti-infective agents Richard, M.A. verfasserin aut Drancourt, M. verfasserin aut Grob, J.J. oth In British journal of dermatology Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 1892 143(2000), 3, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ24392786X (DE-600)2004086-6 1365-2133 nnns volume:143 year:2000 number:3 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 143 2000 3 0 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242134807 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Winnefeld, M. verfasserin aut Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2000 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two widely accepted hand hygiene measures under in-use conditions. Methods Fifty-two nurses were randomly assigned for an 8-day period to either an alcohol-based disinfectant or a hand wash with a non-antiseptic soap. At baseline and at the end of the test period, microbiological hand samples were obtained both before and after a hand hygiene procedure, and skin tolerance was assessed using clinical scores and measurement of transepidermal water loss. Results Self-assessment of skin condition and grade of skin damage worsened significantly more in the group using soap than in the group using alcoholic disinfectant (P = 0·004 and P = 0·01, respectively). The alcohol-based rinse was significantly more effective than liquid soap in removing transient contaminant micro-organisms (P = 0·016). Twenty of 50 hand washes with non-antiseptic soap apparently resulted in bacterial contamination of the hands. At the end of the study, the total bacterial count increased with the increasing number of hand washes in the soap group (P = 0·003), and with the degree of skin damage (P = 0·005) in the antiseptic group. Conclusions In everyday hospital practice, alcohol-based disinfectant is more effective and better tolerated than non-antiseptic soap; soap is at risk of spreading contamination; and skin comfort strongly influences the number and the quality of hand hygiene procedures. 2003 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2003|||||||||| anti-infective agents Richard, M.A. verfasserin aut Drancourt, M. verfasserin aut Grob, J.J. oth In British journal of dermatology Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 1892 143(2000), 3, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ24392786X (DE-600)2004086-6 1365-2133 nnns volume:143 year:2000 number:3 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 143 2000 3 0 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242134807 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Winnefeld, M. verfasserin aut Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2000 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two widely accepted hand hygiene measures under in-use conditions. Methods Fifty-two nurses were randomly assigned for an 8-day period to either an alcohol-based disinfectant or a hand wash with a non-antiseptic soap. At baseline and at the end of the test period, microbiological hand samples were obtained both before and after a hand hygiene procedure, and skin tolerance was assessed using clinical scores and measurement of transepidermal water loss. Results Self-assessment of skin condition and grade of skin damage worsened significantly more in the group using soap than in the group using alcoholic disinfectant (P = 0·004 and P = 0·01, respectively). The alcohol-based rinse was significantly more effective than liquid soap in removing transient contaminant micro-organisms (P = 0·016). Twenty of 50 hand washes with non-antiseptic soap apparently resulted in bacterial contamination of the hands. At the end of the study, the total bacterial count increased with the increasing number of hand washes in the soap group (P = 0·003), and with the degree of skin damage (P = 0·005) in the antiseptic group. Conclusions In everyday hospital practice, alcohol-based disinfectant is more effective and better tolerated than non-antiseptic soap; soap is at risk of spreading contamination; and skin comfort strongly influences the number and the quality of hand hygiene procedures. 2003 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2003|||||||||| anti-infective agents Richard, M.A. verfasserin aut Drancourt, M. verfasserin aut Grob, J.J. oth In British journal of dermatology Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 1892 143(2000), 3, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ24392786X (DE-600)2004086-6 1365-2133 nnns volume:143 year:2000 number:3 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 143 2000 3 0 |
| source |
In British journal of dermatology 143(2000), 3, Seite 0 volume:143 year:2000 number:3 pages:0 |
| sourceStr |
In British journal of dermatology 143(2000), 3, Seite 0 volume:143 year:2000 number:3 pages:0 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
anti-infective agents |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
British journal of dermatology |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Winnefeld, M. @@aut@@ Richard, M.A. @@aut@@ Drancourt, M. @@aut@@ Grob, J.J. @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2000-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
NLEJ24392786X |
| id |
NLEJ242134807 |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ242134807</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230505191012.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">120427s2000 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ242134807</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Winnefeld, M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Oxford, UK</subfield><subfield code="b">Blackwell Publishing Ltd</subfield><subfield code="c">2000</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two widely accepted hand hygiene measures under in-use conditions. Methods Fifty-two nurses were randomly assigned for an 8-day period to either an alcohol-based disinfectant or a hand wash with a non-antiseptic soap. At baseline and at the end of the test period, microbiological hand samples were obtained both before and after a hand hygiene procedure, and skin tolerance was assessed using clinical scores and measurement of transepidermal water loss. Results Self-assessment of skin condition and grade of skin damage worsened significantly more in the group using soap than in the group using alcoholic disinfectant (P = 0·004 and P = 0·01, respectively). The alcohol-based rinse was significantly more effective than liquid soap in removing transient contaminant micro-organisms (P = 0·016). Twenty of 50 hand washes with non-antiseptic soap apparently resulted in bacterial contamination of the hands. At the end of the study, the total bacterial count increased with the increasing number of hand washes in the soap group (P = 0·003), and with the degree of skin damage (P = 0·005) in the antiseptic group. Conclusions In everyday hospital practice, alcohol-based disinfectant is more effective and better tolerated than non-antiseptic soap; soap is at risk of spreading contamination; and skin comfort strongly influences the number and the quality of hand hygiene procedures.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">2003</subfield><subfield code="f">Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005</subfield><subfield code="7">|2003||||||||||</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">anti-infective agents</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Richard, M.A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Drancourt, M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Grob, J.J.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">British journal of dermatology</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 1892</subfield><subfield code="g">143(2000), 3, Seite 0</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ24392786X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2004086-6</subfield><subfield code="x">1365-2133</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:143</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2000</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x</subfield><subfield code="q">text/html</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DJB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">143</subfield><subfield code="j">2000</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| series2 |
Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |
| author |
Winnefeld, M. |
| spellingShingle |
Winnefeld, M. misc anti-infective agents Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use |
| authorStr |
Winnefeld, M. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)NLEJ24392786X |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
NL |
| publishPlace |
Oxford, UK |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1365-2133 |
| topic_title |
Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use anti-infective agents |
| publisher |
Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| publisherStr |
Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| topic |
misc anti-infective agents |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc anti-infective agents |
| topic_browse |
misc anti-infective agents |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
j g jg |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
British journal of dermatology |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
NLEJ24392786X |
| hierarchy_top_title |
British journal of dermatology |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)NLEJ24392786X (DE-600)2004086-6 |
| title |
Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)NLEJ242134807 |
| title_full |
Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use |
| author_sort |
Winnefeld, M. |
| journal |
British journal of dermatology |
| journalStr |
British journal of dermatology |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2000 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
0 |
| author_browse |
Winnefeld, M. Richard, M.A. Drancourt, M. |
| container_volume |
143 |
| physical |
Online-Ressource |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Winnefeld, M. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use |
| title_auth |
Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use |
| abstract |
Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two widely accepted hand hygiene measures under in-use conditions. Methods Fifty-two nurses were randomly assigned for an 8-day period to either an alcohol-based disinfectant or a hand wash with a non-antiseptic soap. At baseline and at the end of the test period, microbiological hand samples were obtained both before and after a hand hygiene procedure, and skin tolerance was assessed using clinical scores and measurement of transepidermal water loss. Results Self-assessment of skin condition and grade of skin damage worsened significantly more in the group using soap than in the group using alcoholic disinfectant (P = 0·004 and P = 0·01, respectively). The alcohol-based rinse was significantly more effective than liquid soap in removing transient contaminant micro-organisms (P = 0·016). Twenty of 50 hand washes with non-antiseptic soap apparently resulted in bacterial contamination of the hands. At the end of the study, the total bacterial count increased with the increasing number of hand washes in the soap group (P = 0·003), and with the degree of skin damage (P = 0·005) in the antiseptic group. Conclusions In everyday hospital practice, alcohol-based disinfectant is more effective and better tolerated than non-antiseptic soap; soap is at risk of spreading contamination; and skin comfort strongly influences the number and the quality of hand hygiene procedures. |
| abstractGer |
Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two widely accepted hand hygiene measures under in-use conditions. Methods Fifty-two nurses were randomly assigned for an 8-day period to either an alcohol-based disinfectant or a hand wash with a non-antiseptic soap. At baseline and at the end of the test period, microbiological hand samples were obtained both before and after a hand hygiene procedure, and skin tolerance was assessed using clinical scores and measurement of transepidermal water loss. Results Self-assessment of skin condition and grade of skin damage worsened significantly more in the group using soap than in the group using alcoholic disinfectant (P = 0·004 and P = 0·01, respectively). The alcohol-based rinse was significantly more effective than liquid soap in removing transient contaminant micro-organisms (P = 0·016). Twenty of 50 hand washes with non-antiseptic soap apparently resulted in bacterial contamination of the hands. At the end of the study, the total bacterial count increased with the increasing number of hand washes in the soap group (P = 0·003), and with the degree of skin damage (P = 0·005) in the antiseptic group. Conclusions In everyday hospital practice, alcohol-based disinfectant is more effective and better tolerated than non-antiseptic soap; soap is at risk of spreading contamination; and skin comfort strongly influences the number and the quality of hand hygiene procedures. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two widely accepted hand hygiene measures under in-use conditions. Methods Fifty-two nurses were randomly assigned for an 8-day period to either an alcohol-based disinfectant or a hand wash with a non-antiseptic soap. At baseline and at the end of the test period, microbiological hand samples were obtained both before and after a hand hygiene procedure, and skin tolerance was assessed using clinical scores and measurement of transepidermal water loss. Results Self-assessment of skin condition and grade of skin damage worsened significantly more in the group using soap than in the group using alcoholic disinfectant (P = 0·004 and P = 0·01, respectively). The alcohol-based rinse was significantly more effective than liquid soap in removing transient contaminant micro-organisms (P = 0·016). Twenty of 50 hand washes with non-antiseptic soap apparently resulted in bacterial contamination of the hands. At the end of the study, the total bacterial count increased with the increasing number of hand washes in the soap group (P = 0·003), and with the degree of skin damage (P = 0·005) in the antiseptic group. Conclusions In everyday hospital practice, alcohol-based disinfectant is more effective and better tolerated than non-antiseptic soap; soap is at risk of spreading contamination; and skin comfort strongly influences the number and the quality of hand hygiene procedures. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE |
| container_issue |
3 |
| title_short |
Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Richard, M.A. Drancourt, M. Grob, J.J. |
| author2Str |
Richard, M.A. Drancourt, M. Grob, J.J. |
| ppnlink |
NLEJ24392786X |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth |
| doi_str |
10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T00:57:42.977Z |
| _version_ |
1803789232219619328 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ242134807</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230505191012.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">120427s2000 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ242134807</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Winnefeld, M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Oxford, UK</subfield><subfield code="b">Blackwell Publishing Ltd</subfield><subfield code="c">2000</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Hand decontamination is crucial to control nosocomial infections. The utility of hand decontamination is related not only to its antimicrobial effectiveness, but also to its acceptability by hospital staff. Objectives We aimed to assess skin tolerance and antimicrobial effects of two widely accepted hand hygiene measures under in-use conditions. Methods Fifty-two nurses were randomly assigned for an 8-day period to either an alcohol-based disinfectant or a hand wash with a non-antiseptic soap. At baseline and at the end of the test period, microbiological hand samples were obtained both before and after a hand hygiene procedure, and skin tolerance was assessed using clinical scores and measurement of transepidermal water loss. Results Self-assessment of skin condition and grade of skin damage worsened significantly more in the group using soap than in the group using alcoholic disinfectant (P = 0·004 and P = 0·01, respectively). The alcohol-based rinse was significantly more effective than liquid soap in removing transient contaminant micro-organisms (P = 0·016). Twenty of 50 hand washes with non-antiseptic soap apparently resulted in bacterial contamination of the hands. At the end of the study, the total bacterial count increased with the increasing number of hand washes in the soap group (P = 0·003), and with the degree of skin damage (P = 0·005) in the antiseptic group. Conclusions In everyday hospital practice, alcohol-based disinfectant is more effective and better tolerated than non-antiseptic soap; soap is at risk of spreading contamination; and skin comfort strongly influences the number and the quality of hand hygiene procedures.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">2003</subfield><subfield code="f">Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005</subfield><subfield code="7">|2003||||||||||</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">anti-infective agents</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Richard, M.A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Drancourt, M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Grob, J.J.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">British journal of dermatology</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 1892</subfield><subfield code="g">143(2000), 3, Seite 0</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ24392786X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2004086-6</subfield><subfield code="x">1365-2133</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:143</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2000</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2000.03708.x</subfield><subfield code="q">text/html</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DJB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">143</subfield><subfield code="j">2000</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400278 |