Evidence based hand hygiene. Liquid or gel handrub, does it matter

Abstract

Recent studies put under scrutiny the prevailing hand hygiene guidelines, which incorporate quantitative parameters regarding handrub volume and hand size. Understanding the criticality of complete (i.e., efficient) hand hygiene in healthcare, objectivization of hand hygiene related parameters are paramount, including the formulation of the ABHR. Senior medical students were invited, and randomly assigned to receive predetermined ABHR volumes (1.5 or 3ml). 340 participants were given equal amounts of gel and liquid on two separate hand hygiene occasions, which occurred two weeks apart. During the hand hygiene events, by employing a digital, fully automated system paired with fluorescent-traced ABHRs, disinfectant hand coverage was objectively investigated. The 1.5 ml ABHR volume (commonly applied in healthcare settings) is insufficient in either formulation, as the non-covered areas exceeded significant (5%+) of the total hand surface area. 3 ml, on the contrary, resulted in almost complete coverage (uncovered areas remained below 1.5%). Participants typically underestimated the volume which they needed to apply. While the liquid ABHR spreads better in the lower, 1.5ml volume compared to the gel, the latter was easier handled at larger volume. Drying times were 30/32s (gel and liquid formats, respectively) when 1.5ml handrub was applied, and 40/42s when 3ml was used. As the evaporation rates of the ABHR used in the study are similar to those available on the market, one can presume that the results presented in the study apply for most WHO conform ABHRs. The results show that applying 1.5ml volume was insufficient, as large part of the hand surface remained uncovered (7.0+-0.7% and 5.8+-1.0% of the hand surface in the case of gel and liquid, respectively). When 3ml handrub was applied drying times were 40/42s (gel and liquid, respectively).