- Email: [email protected]
Perceptions of Healthcare Workers and Environmental Services-Staff Regarding Ultraviolet Room Decontamination Devices
S36
Poster Abstracts / American Journal of Infection Control 44 (2016) S28-S82
2-121 Validation on Xenon Ultraviolet Disinfection for High Risk Pathogens: Ebola Virus and Bacillus Anthracis Sarah Simmons, BS, MPH, DrPH, CIC, Science Director, Xenex Disinfection Services; Charles Dale Jr., BA, Research Associate, Xenex Disinfection Services; James Holt, BS, MS, Research Associate, Xenex Disinfection Services; Mark Stibich, PhD, Chief Scientific Officer, Xenex Disinfection Services BACKGROUND: Organisms such as Ebola Virus and Bacillus anthracis can persist in the environment if effective containment measures are not followed in a timely manner. Current containment and remediation protocols take time to implement and first responders on the scene will have potential exposure to these bacterial agents. As a risk mitigation strategy for these teams, a no-touch pulsed xenon UV (PX-UV) disinfection system can be placed within an exposed environment prior to implementing containment protocols. In this study, PX-UV disinfection efficacy against Ebola virus and Bacillus anthracis was explored. METHODS: To test the effectiveness of PX-UV exposure on Ebola virus, 20 ÂμL of virus was dried on a glass coupon. After drying, samples were positioned vertically and exposed to PX-UV for 1 minute at a distance of 1 meter. Virus was re-suspended and harvested from the slide and infectious virus remaining was quantified by plaque assay. To test the effectiveness of PX-UV exposure on Bacillus anthracis, 10 ÂμL of Anthrax spores were dried on a glass coupon. Once dried, the samples were placed vertically and exposed to PX-UV for 15 minutes at a distance of 1 meter. Spores were eluted in 10 ÂμL PBS and serially diluted. Plates were incubated for 48 hours and then enumerated. RESULTS: See Table 1. No growth was observed for either organism after exposure to PX-UV. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing PX-UV as an initial containment step after a natural and/or intentional biological event has the potential to reduce the risk of secondary infection for first responders as well as to reduce the likelihood of a breach in the containment of the agent. In this study, PX-UV has demonstrated disinfection efficacy against two important bioterrorism agents specifically. Future research into detailed, fast-action implementation strategies could help maximize the potential of mobile PX-UV technology.
2-251 Perceptions of Healthcare Workers and Environmental Services-Staff Regarding Ultraviolet Room Decontamination Devices Abhishek Deshpande, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic; Justin Hartley, Research Assistant, Cleveland Clinic; Colette Einloth, BA, Project Manager, Cleveland Clinic, Quality & Safety Patient Institute; Curtis J. Donskey, MD, Professor of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University Louis Stokes Veterans Affairs Medical Center; Thomas G. Fraser, MD, Medical Director, Infection Prevention, Cleveland Clinic BACKGROUND: Mobile ultraviolet (UV) room decontamination devices are widely used in healthcare facilities. However, there is limited information on the perceptions of healthcare workers (HCWs) and environmental services (EVS) staff regarding the use of UV devices for environmental decontamination. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perceptions of HCWs and EVS-staff regarding UV room
decontamination devices for improving environmental disinfection in a tertiary-care hospital. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was administered to HCWs and EVS-staff on 2 units of a tertiary-care hospital where the Clorox Healthcare Optimum-UV System was deployed during a 6-month period. The survey included questions on a 5-point Likert scale that assessed perceptions regarding the importance of environmental disinfection, effectiveness of UV for room decontamination, willingness to delay new admissions in order to use UV, and safety of UV devices. RESULTS: We collected 51 questionnaires from HCWs and 25 from EVS-staff. All HCWs and EVS staff strongly agreed that environmental disinfection is important to reduce the risk that patients will acquire infection from contaminated surfaces. All EVS-staff and 90% of HCWs felt that use of a UV device as an adjunct to routine cleaning increased confidence that rooms are safe for patients. More than 90% of HCWs and EVS-staff expressed willingness to delay room availability by one-half hour in order to have UV decontamination completed. Seventy-four percent of HCWs and 64% of EVS-staff had no concerns about the safety of UV devices; 8% of HCWs and 24% of EVS-staff disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that they had no concerns about safety of the device. CONCLUSIONS: HCWs and EVS-staff agreed that environmental disinfection is important and felt that use of UV decontamination devices can increase patient safety. Education on the safety features of the devices is required to allay safety concerns expressed by a minority of HCWs and EVS-staff.
2-252 Survey Evaluates Clincians’ Knowledge and Facilities’ Protocols Regarding Infection Risk in Peripheral IV Catheters Michelle DeVries, BS, MPH, CIC, Senior Infection Control Officer, Methodist Hospitals BACKGROUND: A public-private campaign to minimize bloodstream infections (BSIs) focuses on central lines, but neglects peripheral IV catheters (PIVs). While per-line BSI risk is much lower for PIVs than central lines, the 150 million PIVs placed annually in the U.S. so overwhelm the number of central lines inserted that aggregate PIV BSI risk may approach that of central lines. METHODS: A 12-question survey was conducted to help assess whether facilities’ protocols encompass BSI risk in PIVs. The survey was distributed online to nearly 3,000 U.S. infection control and vascular access specialists. 419 responded. RESULTS: *35% said their facility had a higher-than-acceptable rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). *62% said their facility disinfected IV needleless connectors using the “scrub-thehub” protocol, a manual technique prone to variance/noncompliance and therefore a possible contributor to CRBSIs. Only 17% said their nurses “almost always” completely follow the scrub-the-hub protocol. *29% said their facility supplements scrub-the-hub with a disinfection cap, a technology designed to compensate for lapses in manual scrubbing. 8% use a cap alone. * 44% of cap users reported their facility caps central lines only. *Only 34% said their facility kept BSI statistics on infections in both PIVs and central lines. *Asked if a PIV could be associated with a BSI, 42% answered “very likely,” 49% “somewhat likely,” and 9% “not likely.” CONCLUSIONS: *Despite studies showing CRBSIs are largely preventable, many respondents said their facility had a CRBSI problem, suggesting that their prevention approach is inadequate. *Recognition of PIV infection risk is relatively low. *Complete adherence to scrub-
APIC 43rd Annual Educational Conference & International Meeting | Charlotte, NC | June 11-13, 2016
Poster Abstracts / American Journal of Infection Control 44 (2016) S28-S82
2-121 Validation on Xenon Ultraviolet Disinfection for High Risk Pathogens: Ebola Virus and Bacillus Anthracis Sarah Simmons, BS, MPH, DrPH, CIC, Science Director, Xenex Disinfection Services; Charles Dale Jr., BA, Research Associate, Xenex Disinfection Services; James Holt, BS, MS, Research Associate, Xenex Disinfection Services; Mark Stibich, PhD, Chief Scientific Officer, Xenex Disinfection Services BACKGROUND: Organisms such as Ebola Virus and Bacillus anthracis can persist in the environment if effective containment measures are not followed in a timely manner. Current containment and remediation protocols take time to implement and first responders on the scene will have potential exposure to these bacterial agents. As a risk mitigation strategy for these teams, a no-touch pulsed xenon UV (PX-UV) disinfection system can be placed within an exposed environment prior to implementing containment protocols. In this study, PX-UV disinfection efficacy against Ebola virus and Bacillus anthracis was explored. METHODS: To test the effectiveness of PX-UV exposure on Ebola virus, 20 ÂμL of virus was dried on a glass coupon. After drying, samples were positioned vertically and exposed to PX-UV for 1 minute at a distance of 1 meter. Virus was re-suspended and harvested from the slide and infectious virus remaining was quantified by plaque assay. To test the effectiveness of PX-UV exposure on Bacillus anthracis, 10 ÂμL of Anthrax spores were dried on a glass coupon. Once dried, the samples were placed vertically and exposed to PX-UV for 15 minutes at a distance of 1 meter. Spores were eluted in 10 ÂμL PBS and serially diluted. Plates were incubated for 48 hours and then enumerated. RESULTS: See Table 1. No growth was observed for either organism after exposure to PX-UV. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing PX-UV as an initial containment step after a natural and/or intentional biological event has the potential to reduce the risk of secondary infection for first responders as well as to reduce the likelihood of a breach in the containment of the agent. In this study, PX-UV has demonstrated disinfection efficacy against two important bioterrorism agents specifically. Future research into detailed, fast-action implementation strategies could help maximize the potential of mobile PX-UV technology.
2-251 Perceptions of Healthcare Workers and Environmental Services-Staff Regarding Ultraviolet Room Decontamination Devices Abhishek Deshpande, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic; Justin Hartley, Research Assistant, Cleveland Clinic; Colette Einloth, BA, Project Manager, Cleveland Clinic, Quality & Safety Patient Institute; Curtis J. Donskey, MD, Professor of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University Louis Stokes Veterans Affairs Medical Center; Thomas G. Fraser, MD, Medical Director, Infection Prevention, Cleveland Clinic BACKGROUND: Mobile ultraviolet (UV) room decontamination devices are widely used in healthcare facilities. However, there is limited information on the perceptions of healthcare workers (HCWs) and environmental services (EVS) staff regarding the use of UV devices for environmental decontamination. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perceptions of HCWs and EVS-staff regarding UV room
decontamination devices for improving environmental disinfection in a tertiary-care hospital. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was administered to HCWs and EVS-staff on 2 units of a tertiary-care hospital where the Clorox Healthcare Optimum-UV System was deployed during a 6-month period. The survey included questions on a 5-point Likert scale that assessed perceptions regarding the importance of environmental disinfection, effectiveness of UV for room decontamination, willingness to delay new admissions in order to use UV, and safety of UV devices. RESULTS: We collected 51 questionnaires from HCWs and 25 from EVS-staff. All HCWs and EVS staff strongly agreed that environmental disinfection is important to reduce the risk that patients will acquire infection from contaminated surfaces. All EVS-staff and 90% of HCWs felt that use of a UV device as an adjunct to routine cleaning increased confidence that rooms are safe for patients. More than 90% of HCWs and EVS-staff expressed willingness to delay room availability by one-half hour in order to have UV decontamination completed. Seventy-four percent of HCWs and 64% of EVS-staff had no concerns about the safety of UV devices; 8% of HCWs and 24% of EVS-staff disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that they had no concerns about safety of the device. CONCLUSIONS: HCWs and EVS-staff agreed that environmental disinfection is important and felt that use of UV decontamination devices can increase patient safety. Education on the safety features of the devices is required to allay safety concerns expressed by a minority of HCWs and EVS-staff.
2-252 Survey Evaluates Clincians’ Knowledge and Facilities’ Protocols Regarding Infection Risk in Peripheral IV Catheters Michelle DeVries, BS, MPH, CIC, Senior Infection Control Officer, Methodist Hospitals BACKGROUND: A public-private campaign to minimize bloodstream infections (BSIs) focuses on central lines, but neglects peripheral IV catheters (PIVs). While per-line BSI risk is much lower for PIVs than central lines, the 150 million PIVs placed annually in the U.S. so overwhelm the number of central lines inserted that aggregate PIV BSI risk may approach that of central lines. METHODS: A 12-question survey was conducted to help assess whether facilities’ protocols encompass BSI risk in PIVs. The survey was distributed online to nearly 3,000 U.S. infection control and vascular access specialists. 419 responded. RESULTS: *35% said their facility had a higher-than-acceptable rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). *62% said their facility disinfected IV needleless connectors using the “scrub-thehub” protocol, a manual technique prone to variance/noncompliance and therefore a possible contributor to CRBSIs. Only 17% said their nurses “almost always” completely follow the scrub-the-hub protocol. *29% said their facility supplements scrub-the-hub with a disinfection cap, a technology designed to compensate for lapses in manual scrubbing. 8% use a cap alone. * 44% of cap users reported their facility caps central lines only. *Only 34% said their facility kept BSI statistics on infections in both PIVs and central lines. *Asked if a PIV could be associated with a BSI, 42% answered “very likely,” 49% “somewhat likely,” and 9% “not likely.” CONCLUSIONS: *Despite studies showing CRBSIs are largely preventable, many respondents said their facility had a CRBSI problem, suggesting that their prevention approach is inadequate. *Recognition of PIV infection risk is relatively low. *Complete adherence to scrub-
APIC 43rd Annual Educational Conference & International Meeting | Charlotte, NC | June 11-13, 2016