- Email: [email protected]
Pilot Study on New Scrub Technique
PILOT STUDY ON NEW SCRUB TECHNIQUE Sister M . Alexine, R.N., O.R.S.
Recently we were afforded the opportunity to test a new product designed to replace the scrubbing brush in the surgical scrub. The product is a sterile, polyurethane sponge impregnated with an antibaoterial soap containing 3 per cent hexachlorophene. Bacteriologic data which were provided by the manufacturer were supported by a paper entitled “The Use of a Polyurethane Sponge in Surgical Scrubbing” by Peter Dineen, M.D. published in Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, Vol. 123, Number 3, September 1966. We were interested in conducting this test since the product offered might yield adequate and equal disinfection without the trauma caused by the abrasive brushes.
Sister Mary Alexine, R.N., has spent twenty years in the Operating Room and is presentl y OR Supervisor for Mercy Hospital in San Diego. She was graduated from St. Marys Hospital SchooE of Nursing in San Francisco and received a B.S. from San Francisco College for Women. Sister Alexine is currently a member of the program planning committee for the 14th Annual Congress in San Diego.
Nov-Dec 1966
A pilot study was done on these new disposable scrub sponges. Over a two-week period we used over 1,OOO sponges in the Department of Surgery at Mercy Hospital, San Diego, California, and we feel that the study has produced conclusive evidence in their favor. Without exception, the surgeons and nursing staff have been both satisfied and enthusiastic about the product. The sponges are comfortable to handle and they produce an excellent lather, sufficient for a 15-minute scrub. To date, no allergic reactions have been observed. The only criticism has been from a few surgeons with large hands who felt it necessary to use two sponges. Of course, the staff member is requested, as in all hand scrub procedure, to rinse his hands first and clean his nails with a file or orangewood stick. We have found the packaging of the sponges both sanitary and practical. They are individually wrapped and stacked in three columns of 12 each in a durable, white cardboard container. The unit, which has been sterilized, is ready to be removed from the carton and placed in the scrub area. The
73
Polymethane sponges impregnated with anti-bacterial soap were reported to be more comfortable, produce excellent lather and provide sterile, individual technique.
general appearance is very neat and attractive. A cost analysis of the experimental sponge versus the scrub brush reveals the sponge to be more economical, as will be seen in the following figures which were based on one year’s experience (1965) at Mercy Hospital. $ 194.95 Brushes (26 dozen) Personnel (Aides) 20 hours per week 1,7a.18 Supplies 2,670.98 Total Cost $4,630.11 Cost per scrub (26,000 scrubs) .1784 For the two-week period upon the start of operation of the new surgery, 1,000 of the new type of sponges were used. For this same two-week period, the cost with the old scrubbing brushes would have been $178.08 or .178&per scrub. Any cost for the new sponge which is less than .178Qper sponge would reflect a savings to the surgical department.
In the operating room, use of the sponges saved four employee hours daily which had been expended in collection of scrub brushes from the various scrub areas, and in washing, drying, stacking and autoclaving the brushes. This job is ordinarily done by a nurse aide. On the weekend, however, it often falls to the graduate nurse on Emergency call. We also found that the sponges did away with the need for unsightly brush hoIders, solutions and their dispensers. The steps eliminated are time-consuming, especially since we subscribe to the technique outlined by Armstrong,’ “that soap dispensers be washed, rinsed and filled with fresh solution daily to discourage growth of bacteria.” The guaranteed sterility of the wrub sponge, and the fact that the packaging is carefully designed to protect the sterility until use, reassures us and represents improved patient care.
REFERENCE 1. Armstrong, Doris M., R.N., B.S. “How 0 . R Nurse’s lnfection Committee Can Guard Againsi Infections,” Hospital Topics, Vol. 3, March, 1965, p. 156.
74
AORN Journal
Recently we were afforded the opportunity to test a new product designed to replace the scrubbing brush in the surgical scrub. The product is a sterile, polyurethane sponge impregnated with an antibaoterial soap containing 3 per cent hexachlorophene. Bacteriologic data which were provided by the manufacturer were supported by a paper entitled “The Use of a Polyurethane Sponge in Surgical Scrubbing” by Peter Dineen, M.D. published in Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, Vol. 123, Number 3, September 1966. We were interested in conducting this test since the product offered might yield adequate and equal disinfection without the trauma caused by the abrasive brushes.
Sister Mary Alexine, R.N., has spent twenty years in the Operating Room and is presentl y OR Supervisor for Mercy Hospital in San Diego. She was graduated from St. Marys Hospital SchooE of Nursing in San Francisco and received a B.S. from San Francisco College for Women. Sister Alexine is currently a member of the program planning committee for the 14th Annual Congress in San Diego.
Nov-Dec 1966
A pilot study was done on these new disposable scrub sponges. Over a two-week period we used over 1,OOO sponges in the Department of Surgery at Mercy Hospital, San Diego, California, and we feel that the study has produced conclusive evidence in their favor. Without exception, the surgeons and nursing staff have been both satisfied and enthusiastic about the product. The sponges are comfortable to handle and they produce an excellent lather, sufficient for a 15-minute scrub. To date, no allergic reactions have been observed. The only criticism has been from a few surgeons with large hands who felt it necessary to use two sponges. Of course, the staff member is requested, as in all hand scrub procedure, to rinse his hands first and clean his nails with a file or orangewood stick. We have found the packaging of the sponges both sanitary and practical. They are individually wrapped and stacked in three columns of 12 each in a durable, white cardboard container. The unit, which has been sterilized, is ready to be removed from the carton and placed in the scrub area. The
73
Polymethane sponges impregnated with anti-bacterial soap were reported to be more comfortable, produce excellent lather and provide sterile, individual technique.
general appearance is very neat and attractive. A cost analysis of the experimental sponge versus the scrub brush reveals the sponge to be more economical, as will be seen in the following figures which were based on one year’s experience (1965) at Mercy Hospital. $ 194.95 Brushes (26 dozen) Personnel (Aides) 20 hours per week 1,7a.18 Supplies 2,670.98 Total Cost $4,630.11 Cost per scrub (26,000 scrubs) .1784 For the two-week period upon the start of operation of the new surgery, 1,000 of the new type of sponges were used. For this same two-week period, the cost with the old scrubbing brushes would have been $178.08 or .178&per scrub. Any cost for the new sponge which is less than .178Qper sponge would reflect a savings to the surgical department.
In the operating room, use of the sponges saved four employee hours daily which had been expended in collection of scrub brushes from the various scrub areas, and in washing, drying, stacking and autoclaving the brushes. This job is ordinarily done by a nurse aide. On the weekend, however, it often falls to the graduate nurse on Emergency call. We also found that the sponges did away with the need for unsightly brush hoIders, solutions and their dispensers. The steps eliminated are time-consuming, especially since we subscribe to the technique outlined by Armstrong,’ “that soap dispensers be washed, rinsed and filled with fresh solution daily to discourage growth of bacteria.” The guaranteed sterility of the wrub sponge, and the fact that the packaging is carefully designed to protect the sterility until use, reassures us and represents improved patient care.
REFERENCE 1. Armstrong, Doris M., R.N., B.S. “How 0 . R Nurse’s lnfection Committee Can Guard Againsi Infections,” Hospital Topics, Vol. 3, March, 1965, p. 156.
74
AORN Journal