Health-care-associated infections (HAIs), infections that patients contract during the course of their hospitalization, are receiving a growing amount of attention. Heavy skin bacterial colonization aids in the transmission and development of HAIs. Nurses frequently use bathing with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) to reduce patients' cutaneous microbial burden. This intervention has been shown to have promising but mixed results in the prevention of HAIs.
This article reviews the literature for evidence on the impact of CHG bathing on HAIs.
A literature search was conducted to identify peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses that examined the impact of CHG bathing on HAIs using PubMed and CINAHL with the following search terms: CHG bathing AND healthcare associated infections, surgical site infections (SSIs), central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), ventilator-associated pneumonias (VAP), catheter-associated urinary-tract infections (CAUTIs), and Clostridium difficile-associated disease. The initial search identified 23 articles for review. Additional studies were identified by searching references used in original studies or review articles on this topic.
There is good evidence to support incorporating a CHG bathing regimen to reduce the incidence of CLABSIs, SSIs, vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) HAIs.
As CHG becomes a standard practice to prevent HAIs, it is important to monitor for adverse reactions and evidence of resistance/susceptibility.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
6
4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
4
3%
Business, Management and Accounting
2
1%
Other
10
7%
Unknown
45
30%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2023.
All research outputs
#19,906,402
of 32,233,056 outputs
Outputs from Biological Research For Nursing
#259
of 545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,039
of 326,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Research For Nursing
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,233,056 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 545 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
