Recommendation of AAD in HAI-prevention guidelines

Hospital environmental decontamination and HAI guidelines from national and international healthcare organisations rarely reflect the current evidence base

 

Nicola Petrosillo MD

Director, 2nd Infectious Diseases Division

National Institute for Infectious Diseases

Lazzaro Spallanzani, IRCCS

Rome, Italy

Antje Emmermann

Market Access Director EMEA

Advanced Sterilization Products

Division of Cilag GmbH International

Johnson & Johnson

Norderstedt, Germany

 

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are a massive burden on both patients and healthcare facilities.(1) For patients, HAIs lead to increased hospitalisation, discomfort and mortality risk,(2–4) while,  for healthcare facilities, the economic burden is huge – approximately €7billion per year within Europe.(3)

 

The role of the environment as an important source of HAIs is well documented.(5–10) Transfer of pathogens occurs from surfaces to patients (mainly via hand contact)(3,11,12) and pathogens can persist on surfaces for a number of weeks, despite regular cleaning and decontamination.(13–15) A number of studies have revealed that the level of pathogen contamination in the environment is a risk factor for acquisition of HAIs, such that prior exposure of a hospital room to a patient infected or colonised with a pathogenic microorganism increases the risk of a subsequent patient contracting this pathogen.(8,16–19)

 

Manual cleaning followed by manual decontamination is clearly recommended in a number of international and European guidelines,(20–22) and has been reported to reduce microbial contamination and the incidence of HAIs.(23–26) However, the success of manual decontamination is dependent upon the skill and dedication of the user. This raises a number of issues:

 

• It can often be difficult to reach all potentially contaminated surfaces manually(27)
• The margin for human error may introduce inconsistency and lack of completeness into the decontamination process(28)
• The burden of manual decontamination in terms of staff time is extensive. This is not limited to the labour time itself, but also extends to the high level of training, maintenance and supervision required to ensure that staff adhere to strict protocols(26,28) 
• Manual cleaning and decontamination can expose staff to hazardous chemicals(28)  

Overall, these limitations may compromise the effectiveness of manual decontamination. A number of studies have revealed that manual decontamination protocols do not significantly reduce the number of sites of environmental contamination.(13,15) Given this observation, there is a real need for novel technologies that allow automated area decontamination (AAD). These technologies provide a ‘contact-free’ approach to decontamination that is firstly more consistent, due to the removal of human error, but secondly more pervasive.(28) They may also be safer for staff, as exposure to hazardous chemicals is avoided. There are several different types of AAD technology, including systems using hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and ultraviolet radiation (UV). Although both technologies are effective at reducing colonisation of pathogens,(28–32) H2O2 systems have recently been shown to be superior.(33,34) Therefore, for the scope of this article, the focus will be on H2O2 technologies.

 

Hydrogen peroxide technologies

H2O2 is effective at killing pathogens in vitro, inactivating a number of bacteria and spores with >4 log reductions within 90 minutes.(28,35-39) Although it is difficult to attribute a real-world reduction in HAIs to a single intervention, the in vitro evidence of effectiveness of H2O2 systems seems to be supported by real-world evidence of pathogen inactivation and HAI reduction in healthcare facilities achieved following introduction of these systems. A number of before-and-after and controlled interventional studies, in addition to reports from routine clinical practice, elegantly detail the effectiveness of automated H2O2-based systems, at both reducing environmental contamination and reducing the incidence and burden of HAIs (Table 1). 

 

Given the amount of evidence supporting the use of AAD for hospital decontamination, it is surprising that AAD technologies are not more prevalent in the routine and outbreak decontamination protocols of healthcare facilities. We hypothesised that hospital decontamination and HAI prevention guidelines from national and international healthcare organisations, societies and working parties do not reflect the amount of growing evidence supporting the use of AAD, and thus are not currently influencing the utilisation of AAD technologies to reduce the burden of HAIs.

 

We aimed to review these guidelines to determine how frequently AAD technologies were acknowledged by national and international healthcare organisations and whether specific recommendations were issued for their usage.

 

Methods

A literature review was conducted to identify guidelines on environmental decontamination and prevention of HAIs in healthcare facilities. This literature review considered only international guidelines and national guidelines from European countries that were specifically aimed at preventing HAIs generally, or a specific HAI, in healthcare facilities. Identified guidelines from individual countries outside of Europe were excluded. Secondary and tertiary hospitals for inpatient care were considered as relevant healthcare facilities. Outpatient care facilities, such as doctors’ clinics and hospices, were not deemed relevant for inclusion. 

 

Identified guidelines were reviewed for their consideration of the following terms, representing different protocols contributing to HAI prevention:

• AAD
• Environmental decontamination
• Manual cleaning
• Hand hygiene
• Surface cleaning
• Education/training
• Personal protective equipment (PPE)
• Specific disinfectants.

 

Guidelines deemed relevant on the basis of their title, scope and area of influence but that did not refer to any of the above terms were not included in the analysis.

 

Following identification of all relevant guidelines, included guidelines were categorised based on their apparent area of influence as either ‘national’, or ‘international’. Where the target audience was not defined within the guidelines, the official website of the guideline-issuing body was investigated in order to establish the intended reach of the guideline-issuing body.

 

For each of the considered elements noted above, guidelines were categorised based on the level to which they considered the given element. Categories were defined as follows:

• ‘Not acknowledged’ – no acknowledgement of a role for the given element of HAI prevention within the guidelines
• ‘Acknowledged, no recommendation’ – the element of HAI prevention was acknowledged, but no recommendation as to its implementation was provided
• ‘Acknowledged, with recommendation’ – the element of HAI prevention was both acknowledged and a recommendation as to its implementation was provided.

Results

As part of our literature review, we identified 22 guidelines associated with environmental decontamination and HAI-prevention protocols issued by 20 healthcare organisations, societies or working parties. Of these, four organisations were deemed to have influence at an international level and the remaining 16 were influential at a national level.

 

As part of our guideline review, we analysed eight decontamination/hygiene protocols: 1. AAD, 2. environmental decontamination, 3. manual cleaning, 4. hand hygiene, 5. surface cleaning, 6. education and training, 7. PPE and 8. use of specific disinfectants. We investigated whether these protocols were acknowledged in the guidelines of healthcare organisations and, provided that they were, determined whether the organisation makes specific recommendations as to the use of the protocol in question as previously described. The results from this review are summarised in Figure 1, while an illustration of these findings stratified by specific healthcare organisations is presented in Figure 2.

 

In the 22 guidelines that we reviewed, protocols for hand hygiene, PPE and environmental decontamination were all strongly acknowledged [in 91%(20/22), 91% (20/22) and 86% (19/22) of guidelines, respectively]. Where these protocols were acknowledged, specific recommendations for the application of that protocol were also noted to be very common [recommended in 95% (19/20), 80% (16/20) and 84% (16/19) of cases where acknowledged, respectively].

 

While other protocols were also strongly acknowledged in the guidelines we reviewed, specific recommendations for their use were less frequently observed. For example, surface cleaning, manual cleaning, education and training, and the use of specific disinfectants were also commonly acknowledged [in 95% (21/22), 86% (19/22), 86% (19/22) and 82% (18/22) of guidelines, respectively]. However, the frequency with which specific recommendations on these protocols were made was far lower [recommended in 43% (9/21), 42% (8/19), 47% (9/19) and 50% (9/18) of cases where acknowledged, respectively].

 

Therefore, for the eight protocols analysed, seven were acknowledged in more than 80% of the guidelines that we reviewed. The only protocol that was not acknowledged to this extent was AAD. Protocols for AAD were acknowledged in only 45% (10/22) of the guidelines we reviewed. Of those that did acknowledge AAD, less than half [40% (4/10)] made specific recommendations for its implementation. 

 

Our review did identify four examples of guidelines that considered a role for AAD and provided a recommendation on this (Figure 2). In particular, the Italian National Association of Hospital Doctors Management (ANMDO) has recently reviewed the clinical and experimental evidence for AAD and provided a positive recommendation for its use. After deeming that the efficacy of H2O2-based AAD systems is supported by sufficient evidence, the ANMDO updated their hospital decontamination guidelines to include an entire section detailing the use of these automated systems.(62) Ultimately, this new section presents a positive opinion towards the use of AAD, not only in response to outbreaks, but also as part of routine preventative measures. Similarly, the UK National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA),(53) the English Health Protection Agency (HPA)(57) and the Russian Sanitary/Epidemiological Rule and Standard (SanPiN)(66,67) have also made specific recommendations regarding the use of AAD.

 

To determine the amount of influence behind the recommendations for AAD, we stratified our analysis of the AAD protocol by the size and influence of the issuing healthcare organisations (Figure 3). This indicated that only national healthcare organisations are yet to make specific recommendations. Currently, guidelines with wider influence (on an international level) either do not acknowledge AAD or acknowledge it without making specific recommendations.

 

Our analysis revealed that healthcare guidelines primarily focus on aspects concerning hygiene of individual healthcare personnel (hand hygiene and use of personal protective equipment). The importance of the need for decontamination of the environment is frequently acknowledged, but in the guidelines we reviewed there is often very little distinction between manual and automated methods of area decontamination. In most cases, explicit recommendations only apply to the former and a general absence of consideration for the use of AAD remains. Overall, our analysis suggests that AAD is under-represented in these decontamination guidelines.

 

The use of hand hygiene as a method for preventing the spread of HAIs is supported by a wealth of evidence(68,69) and it is pleasing to note that this is reflected in the guidelines, with this practice being heavily recommended. As a result, it is likely that hospitals and healthcare facilities, which often use these guidelines to determine their own local protocols and standards, will heavily promote the use of hand hygiene to help prevent and control HAIs. Given the increasing amount of evidence supporting the importance of use of automated systems for area decontamination, it is surprising that guidelines on this practice remain to be similarly updated to align with the evidence.

 

Discussion

Some of the methods of AAD that are supported by evidence include H2O2 and UV systems. Both of these systems have shown strong efficacy in controlled laboratory studies(28–32,36–38,70) and have demonstrated a real-world impact following observations of reduced incidences of HAIs following their implementation.(45-47,71) H2O2 may be the more favorable technology in the healthcare setting due to its higher efficacy(33,34) (especially on objects that lie outside of its line-of-sight). Furthermore, technologies based around low concentration H2O2 may be particularly suitable, as they minimise concerns regarding safety and corrosiveness that could be associated with systems utilising high concentration H2O2.(72)

 

To date, a number of studies have demonstrated the efficacy of H2O2 against a range of healthcare-associated pathogens, including S. aureus (including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), E. coli, P. aeruginosa, C. difficile and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE).(28,33,36–39,70) Accordingly, efficacy studies, including several randomised controlled trials, have now been performed in situ and have provided compelling evidence supporting the use of AAD technologies as a method for limiting HAIs (MRSA, C. difficile and norovirus) in routine and outbreak circumstances.(28,45–47) 

 

Recently, a panel of expert scientists from Germany reviewed the role of surface decontamination in HAI prevention.(9) They reported that contaminated surfaces pose a significant infection hazard. In particular, the panel highlighted that environmental and surface cleaning is a holistic process, needing manual cleaning and surface decontamination, and acknowledged the efficacy and safety values of automated H2O2-based decontamination systems.(9)

 

The lack of alignment between the evidence base for AAD and the representation of AAD in the guidelines highlights a clear concern for those responsible for setting standards at the hospital level; without updated guidance that accurately reflects the level of evidence for AAD technology, hospitals need to conduct independent reviews of the evidence in order to determine the suitability of AAD for decontamination of their facilities. These reviews are costly, and considerable time and expense could be saved if clear guidelines that align with the evidence existed.

 

Given the large evidence base supporting AAD, it remains unclear as to why current guidelines remain unrevised, especially as the burden of HAIs is so great to both patients and healthcare facilities, and continues to remain unresolved. One explanation for this discrepancy may be a delay between obtaining sufficient evidence and the guidelines being updated accordingly. In the UK, a phenomenon observed primarily with pharmaceutical products and clinical guidelines, commonly known as ‘NICE Blight’, refers to the delay in hospitals adopting new treatments or implementing protocols until the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) produces the requisite guidance. This idea provides a clear example of why hospitals might wait for new technologies, despite the availability of scientifically proven success. Of the 22 guidelines we reviewed, only four make recommendations to the use of AAD. It was interesting that those that have already made recommendations for AAD all only have influence at the national level. 

 

Based on the guidelines we have reviewed, the median year of publication or most recent update is 2009 (range 2000–2012). The majority of these guidelines have never been updated; however, in cases where guidelines were updated, the time between publication and revision was approximately seven years. The WHO guidelines on infection control have not been updated in 11 years, since the last revision in 2002.(49)

 

Overall, more than one-half of the guidelines we reviewed had been either updated or published within the previous four years. These observations may explain why so few guidelines currently recommend the use of AAD in environmental decontamination. Worryingly, these data suggest that updates to many infection control guidelines may be several years away from completion.

 

Given the lack of a comprehensive solution to the detrimental effects HAIs have on patient health and hospital budgets, there remains both a moral and financial urgency to identify and implement novel approaches and technologies to combat pathogenic bioburden in hospitals. Overall, the research presented here has highlighted a clear misalignment between the available evidence supporting the use of AAD technologies in preventing transmission of HAIs, and the guidance issued by the advisors and regulators of clinical standard organisations.

 

Particularly in an area of such unmatched burden, there is a clear need for an update of guidelines to facilitate adoption of the latest beneficial, safe and effective technologies to help combat HAIs and avoid delays that are directly detrimental to patient health. Our analysis should encourage those responsible for creating future guidelines to align the recommendations given to AAD with the available evidence supporting its utilisation. The provision of accurate, evidence-based guidance may influence hospitals and healthcare facilities to utilise AAD technologies as part of their decontamination protocols and help reduce the burden and mortality caused by HAIs.

 

References

1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Point prevalence survey of healthcareassociated infections and antimicrobial use in European acute care hospitals. Stockholm, 2013.
2. Chen Y-Y, Chou Y-C, Chou P. Impact of nosocomial infection on cost of illness and length of stay in intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26(3):281–7.
3. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Annual Epidemiological Report on Communicable Diseases in Europe, 2008.
4. Oncul O et al. Prospective analysis of nosocomial infections in a burn care unit, Turkey. Indian J Med Res 2009;130(6):758–64.
5. Roberts M. Reservoir bugs: sources of hospital-acquired infection. Nursing Times 2001;94(46):54.
6. Martinez JA et al. Role of environmental contamination as a risk factor for acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in patients treated in a medical intensive care unit. Arch Intern Med 2003;163(16):1905–12.
7. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. SHEA Practical Healthcare Epidemiology;2010.
8. Weber DJ, Anderson D, Rutala WA. The role of the surface environment in healthcare-associated infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2013;26(4):338–44.
9. Gebel J et al. The role of surface disinfection in infection prevention. GMS Hyg Infect Control 2013;8(1):Doc10.
10. Hota B. Contamination, disinfection, and cross-colonization: are hospital surfaces reservoirs for nosocomial infection? Clin Infect Dis 2004;39(8):1182–9.
11. Boyce JM et al. Environmental contamination due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: possible infection control implications. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18(9):622–7.
12. Otter JA, Yezli S, French GL. The role played by contaminated surfaces in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(7):687–99.
13. French GL et al. Tackling contamination of the hospital environment by methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): a comparison between conventional terminal cleaning and hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination. J Hosp Infect 2004;57(1):31–7.
14. Kramer A, Schwebke I, Kampf G. How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 2006;6130.
15. Falagas M et al. Airborne hydrogen peroxide for disinfection of the hospital environment and infection control: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2011;78(3):171–7.
16. Fawley WN et al. Molecular epidemiology of endemic Clostridium difficile infection and the significance of subtypes of the United Kingdom epidemic strain (PCR ribotype 1). J Clin Microbiol 2005;43(6):2685–96.
17. Huang SS, Datta R, Platt R. Risk of acquiring antibiotic-resistant bacteria from prior room occupants. Arch Int ernal Med 2006;166(18):1945.
18. Drees M et al. Prior environmental contamination increases the risk of acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46(5):678–85.
19. Nseir S Risk of acquiring multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli from prior room occupants in the intensive care unit. Clin Microbiol Infect 2011;17(8):1201–8.
20. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Infection: Prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections in primary and community care. CG139. London, UK: NICE, 2012.
21. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. Guide to the elimination of Clostridium difficile in healthcare Settings. Washington, DC, USA: APIC Headquarters, 2008.
22. National Board of Health (Denmark). Prevention of MRSA spreading: Guidelines. Copenhagen, Denmark: National Board of Health, 2008.
23. World Health Organization. Practical Guidelines for Infection Control in Health Care Facilities. India: WHO, 2004.
24. Wilcox MH et al. Comparison of the effect of detergent versus hypochlorite cleaning on environmental contamination and incidence of Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect 2003;54(2):109–114.
25. Eckstein BC et al. Reduction of Clostridium Difficile and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus contamination of environmental surfaces after an intervention to improve cleaning methods. BMC Infect Dis 2007;761.
26. Dancer SJ et al. Measuring the effect of enhanced cleaning in a UK hospital: a prospective cross-over study. BMC Med 2009;7(1):28.
27. Carling PC, Parry MF, Von Beheren S. Identifying opportunities to enhance environmental cleaning in 23 acute care hospitals. Infect Cont Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(1):1–7.
28. Finzi G, Emmermann A. Impact of automated area decontamination on HAIs. Hosp Healthcare Eur 2013:139–141.
29. Anderson DJ et al. Decontamination of targeted pathogens from patient rooms using an automated ultraviolet-C-emitting device. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34(5):466–71.
30. Nerandzic MM et al. Evaluation of an automated ultraviolet radiation device for decontamination of Clostridium difficile and other healthcare-associated pathogens in hospital rooms. BMC Infect Dis 2010;10197.
31. Boyce JM, Havill NL, Moore BA. Terminal decontamination of patient rooms using an automated mobile UV light unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(8):737–42.
32. Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Weber DJ. Room decontamination with UV radiation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(10):1025–9.
33. Chan-Myers H, Chang G. A comparison of the surface disinfection capabilities of two different methods using automated devices: Ultraviolet light versus hydrogen peroxide fogging machine. APIC 39th Annual Educational Conference & International Meeting, San Antonio, Texas. 2012.
34. Havill NL, Moore BA, Boyce JM. Comparison of the microbiological efficacy of hydrogen peroxide vapor and ultraviolet light processes for room decontamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(5):507-12.
35. Otter JA, French GL. Survival of nosocomial bacteria and spores on surfaces and inactivation by hydrogen peroxide vapor. J Clin Microbiol 2009;47(1):205–7.
36. Barbut F. Comparison of the efficacy of a hydrogen peroxide dry–mist disinfection system and sodium hypochlorite solution for eradication of Clostridium difficile spores. Infect Cont Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30(6):507–14.
37. Bartels MD et al. Environmental meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) disinfection using dry-mist-generated hydrogen peroxide. J Hosp Infect 2008;70(1):35–41.
38. Marty N, Cavalié L, Conil JCR. Dry fog disinfection: an assessment of microbiological efficacy and practical advantages. Revue Hygienes 2007;15(4)317–20.
39. Roques C. Improvement of vancomycin-resistant enterococci eradication in hospitals by combined barrier precautions and disinfection using an automatic dry mist system. Eur Infect Dis2010;4(1):63–5.
40. Boyce BJ et al. Impact of hydrogen peroxide vapor room decontamination on Clostridium difficile environmental contamination and transmission in a healthcare setting. Infect Cont Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(8):723–9.
41. Dryden M et al. Hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination in the control of a polyclonal meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus outbreak on a surgical ward. J Hosp Infect 2008;68(2):190–2.
42. Shapey S et al. Activity of a dry mist hydrogen peroxide system. J Hosp Infect 2008;70136e141.
43. Finzi G et al. Efficacia del perossido d’idrogeno (al 5–6%) e dei cationi d’argento attraverso il processo di nebulizzazione: i risultati dei trials sperimentali condotti presso l’Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico- Vittorio Emanuele di Catania e presso l’Istituto Salus di Alessandria. ANMDO 2012;3.
44. Passaretti CL et al. An evaluation of environmental decontamination with hydrogen peroxide vapor for reducing the risk of patient acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2013;56(1):27–35.
45. Kelly G. Integration of cleaning and decontamination: Hydrogen peroxide delivery systems have assisted a hospital trust to create a successful new approach to bio-decontamination. Hosp Healthcare Eur 2012:135–7.
46. Vaughn N. Clostridium difficile and Sterinis hydrogen peroxide decontamination: Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust.
47. Boswell T et al. Complete eradication of endemic and epidemic multi-resistant acinetobacter in a burns unit following implementation of hydrogen peroxide dry-mist decontamination of the burns theatre. ISBI 2012:481. 
48. Sehulster LM et al. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities. Recommendations from CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC): American Society for Healthcare Engineering/American Hospital Association, 2004.
49. World Health Organization. Prevention of Hospital-Acquired Infections: A Practical Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002.
50. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. Guide to the Elimination of Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Transmission in Healthcare Settings. Washington, DC, USA: APIC Headquarters, 2010.
51. Tacconelli E et al. ESCMID guidelines for the management of the infection control measures to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitalized patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;201:55–65.
52. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections. Quality Imprvement Guide. PH36.  London, UK: NICE, 2011.
53. National Patient Safety Agency. The Revised Healthcare Cleaning Manual: NPSA, 2009.
54. Coia JE et al. Guidelines for the control and prevention of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in healthcare facilities. J Hosp Infect 2006;63 Suppl 1S1–44.
55. Khan AS, Dancer SJ, Humphreys H. Priorities in the prevention and control of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2012;82(2):85–93.
56. Bissett L. Developing decontamination strategies and monitoring tools. Br J Nurs 2010;19(16):S12–7.
57. Health Protection Agency. Clostridium difficile infection: How to deal with the problem. London, UK: Health Protection Agency and Department of Health, 2008.
58. Pratt RJ et al. epic2: National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect 2007;65 Suppl 1S1–64.
59. Burd M et al. Control and the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospitals in Ireland: North/South Study of MRSA in Ireland 1999. J Hosp Infect 2003;53(4):297–303.
60. French Society for Hospital Hygeine. French National Guidelines: Surveillance and Prevention of healthcare-associated infections: Sf2h, 2010.
61. Robert Koch Institute. Recommendations of the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO): RKI/KRINKO, 2013.
62. Finzi G. Guidelines for the decontamination of hospital and community health center environments: Associazione Nazionale dei Medici delle Direzioni Ospedaliere (National Association of Hospital Medical Directors), 2012.
63. Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Guidelines for infection control in community health (Infection Book Review). Part 09: Basic infection control practices in health care: NIPH, 2010.
64. Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions). Nationell satsning för ökad patientsäkerhet: delrapport med resultat och erfarenheter (National initiative to improve patient safety: progress report with results and experience): SKL, 2010.
65. Socialstyrelsen. Att förebygga vårdrelaterade infektioner. Ett kunskapsunderlag. (The Prevention of Nosocomial Infections. A knowledge base. Lindesberg, Sweden: Socialstyrelsen, 2006.
66. Sanitary and epidemiologic rules and regulations. 3.1.2485-09. Prevention of nosocomial infections in surgical in-patient clinics (departments) of healthcare institutions. Russia: SanPin, 2009.
67. Sanitary and epidemiologic rules and regulations. 2.1.3.2630-10. Sanitary and epidemiological requirements to healthcare institutions. Russia: SanPin, 2010.
68. Allegranzi B, Pittet D. Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection prevention. J Hosp Infect 2009;73(4):305–15.
69. Salama MF et al. The effect of hand hygiene compliance on hospital-acquired infections in an ICU setting in a Kuwaiti teaching hospital. J Infect Public Health 2013;6(1):27–34.
70. Smith D. GLOSAIRTM 400 Area Decontamination System Technical Information. Ethicon Inc., 2010.
71. Pettis AM Elimination of Clostridium difficile Infections (CDI) by Illumination? Surface Disinfection by Ultraviolet Light Treatment. Am J Infect Cont 2010;38(5):e16–e17.
72. Watt BE, Proudfoot AT, Vale JA. Hydrogen peroxide poisoning. Toxicol Rev 2004;23(1):51–7.