↓ Skip to main content

Exploring bacterial growth and recolonization after preoperative hand disinfection and surgery between operating room nurses and non-health care workers: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring bacterial growth and recolonization after preoperative hand disinfection and surgery between operating room nurses and non-health care workers: a pilot study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-018-3375-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camilla Wistrand, Bo Söderquist, Karin Falk-Brynhildsen, Ulrica Nilsson

Abstract

To prevent cross infection the surgical team perform preoperative hand disinfection before dressed in surgical gowns and gloves. Preoperative hand disinfection does not make hands sterile and the surgical glove cuff end has been regarded as a weak link, since it is not a liquid-proof interface. The aims were to investigate if there were differences in bacterial growth and recolonization of hands between operating room nurses and non-health care workers as well as to investigate if bacterial growth existed at the surgical glove cuff end during surgery. This pilot project was conducted as an exploratory comparative clinical trial. Bacterial cultures were taken from the glove and gown interface and at three sites of the hands of 12 operating room nurses and 13 non-health care workers controls directly after preoperative hand disinfection and again after wearing surgical gloves and gowns. Colony forming units were analysed with Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon Sign Ranks test comparing repeated measurements. Categorical variables were evaluated with chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Operating room nurses compared to non-health care workers had significant higher bacterial growth at two of three culture sites after surgical hand disinfection. Both groups had higher recolonization at one of the three culture sites after wearing surgical gloves. There were no differences between the groups in total colony forming units, that is, all sampling sites. Five out of 12 of the operating room nurses had bacterial growth at the glove cuff end and of those, four had the same bacteria at the glove cuff end as found in the cultures from the hands. Bacteria isolated from the glove cuff were P. acnes, S. warneri, S. epidermidis and Micrococcus species, the CFU/mL ranged from 10 to 40. There were differences in bacterial growth and re-colonization between the groups but this was inconclusive. However, bacterial growth exists at the glove cuff and gown interface, further investigation in larger study is needed, to build on these promising, but preliminary, findings. Trial registration was performed prospectively at Research web (FOU in Sweden, 117,971) 14/01/2013, and retrospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02359708 ). 01/27/2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Unspecified 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 48 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Unspecified 7 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 50 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,533,782
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#6,545
of 7,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,102
of 341,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#109
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 341,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.