GUIDE TO INFECTION

CONTROL IN THE HOSPITAL

CHAPTER 56:

New Technologies in
Infection Prevention

Author
Michelle Doll, MD, MPH

Chapter Editor
Gonzalo Bearman, MD, MPH, FACP, FSHEA, FIDSA

Topic Outline
Key Issues
Known Facts
Technologies to Improve Cleaning Monitoring
“Touchless” Technologies: Room Cleaning Robots
Antimicrobial Surfaces
Antimicrobial Textiles
Hand Hygiene Monitoring Technologies
Limitations to Current Knowledge
Suggested Practice
Suggested Practice in Under-Resourced Settings
Summary
References

Chapter last updated: January, 2018

KEY ISSUE
New technologies for the prevention of healthcare associated infections
are increasingly developed and marketed to healthcare centers worldwide.
This explosion of products has somewhat outpaced the outcome data to
support efficacy. While there is substantial promise in simulated test
environments, decreasing infections in the clinical setting has not been well
established. Nevertheless, these technologies are appealing adjuncts to
infection prevention programs because they are not dependent on human
behaviors.

KNOWN FACTS
• Cross transmission in the hospital environment has been linked to
contamination of hospital surfaces, contaminated medical devices and
other fomites, and contamination of healthcare worker hands and
clothing. There is considerable debate as to which of these mechanisms
are most important in cross-transmission events. However, there is clear
evidence that both cleaning and handwashing are suboptimal.
• A patient admitted to a hospital room in which the previous occupant
had methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Clostridium
difficile, or certain multidrug resistant gram negative rods, has a
significantly increased risk of acquiring each of these pathogens.
• Furthermore, it has been estimated that 30-40% of hospital acquired
infections are related to contamination of healthcare worker hands.
• Improvement in environmental cleaning practices as well as hand
washing have traditionally relied on direct observation and feedback
interventions. Feedback of observations includes an education
component that ideally results in a change in human behavior. These
programs are effective, though time consuming. An ongoing

1
 commitment to the monitoring and feedback program is essential;
decreasing benefits are well documented when these activities end.
• The following sections are a brief discussion of the alternative or
adjunctive technologies designed to decrease the bioburden in the
hospital environment.

Technologies to Improve Cleaning Monitoring

• Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels and fluorescent markers have been

used as surrogates of contamination to assist in monitoring of cleaning.
Fluorescent markers have also been used to teach and test adequacy of
hand hygiene. ATP levels represent the organic load, or general
cleanliness of a surface. Fluorescent markers are placed on surfaces
prior to cleaning, then reassessed with black light for their persistence
after cleaning efforts; manual cleaning should remove these markers.
• There is controversy regarding which objective monitoring method, ATP
versus fluorescent markers, is superior or better representative of
microbial contamination.
• Visual inspection offers a more comprehensive assessment of surfaces,
as it is not limited to specific spots like ATP and fluorescent marker
monitoring. However, the perceived subjectivity of visual observation
may diminish the impact of data feedback using this method.

“Touchless” Technologies: Room Cleaning Robots

• Bypassing the variability in human practices, disinfection devices are

now increasingly deployed after manual cleaning to further reduce
bioburden in patient rooms.
• Devices include hydrogen peroxide (HP) or UV-light emitting machines.
Manual cleaning remains an important precursor step, as gross organic
soil must be removed from surfaces to allow penetration of germicidal
vapor/aerosol or radiation.

2
• The HP or UV light is toxic to humans. Thus, these devices are used only
in empty patient rooms – for example, after a patient discharge.
• Both devices are able to decrease microbial bioburden on surfaces.
• Data to support reductions in healthcare associated infections comes
mostly from before-and-after studies at single institutions. Modest
reductions in HAI rates over time have been reported, but in the context
of inability to control for concurrent interventions and expected
improvements over time.
• There has been a single large, multi-center, controlled study to assess
HAI reduction using a UV device. This study found a significant
reduction in HAI acquisition when the UV device was added to
quaternary ammonium cleaning. Clostridium difficile acquisitions were
not significantly impacted.
• UV and HP devices are costly, and cost-effectiveness has not been well
established. They also require human resources to deploy.

Antimicrobial Surfaces

• Several antimicrobial coatings are under pre-clinical study for their

potential application to surfaces in healthcare centers.
• Of these coatings, copper has been studied most extensively. It has
been shown to decrease bioburden on surfaces, primarily in short term
studies.
• Copper has also been used in clinical environments, though with
conflicting results in terms of ability to prevent hospital acquired
infections.
• Copper coating of hospital surfaces carries a substantial financial
investment.
• Long term development of bacterial resistance to copper is a theoretical
concern. A 24 week study of bacteria exposed to copper did not find
evidence of resistance.

3
Antimicrobial Textiles

• Textiles with antimicrobial properties show promise in the laboratory

setting. Some materials have a documented ability to kill bacteria after a
few hours of contact time.
• In the clinical environment, antimicrobial scrub garments and patient
room curtains have been evaluated with mixed results. Some studies
have shown reduction in the burden of important hospital microbes from
silver curtains (Vancomycin resistant Enterococcus) and quaternary
ammonium impregnated provider scrubs (MRSA). However, other
studies have reported no difference in contamination rates, particularly
from scrubs near the end of a healthcare worker’s shift, or after several
weeks of antimicrobial curtain use in an ICU.

Hand Hygiene Monitoring Technologies

• Hand hygiene is a core infection prevention strategy that is simple to

perform, yet healthcare worker compliance is often low. Studies have
estimated a wide range of compliance, with an average of roughly 40%
according to World Health Organization (WHO) analysis.
• Monitoring and feedback is essential to improve compliance. Traditional
monitoring has been direct observation, but this strategy is limited by
high resource requirements, low number of observations, and the
Hawthorne Effect.
• Technologies have been developed with a broad range of capabilities,
from monitoring product usage as an estimate of hand hygiene events,
to fully automated systems that track healthcare worker movements
and product dispensation events.
• Fully automated monitoring systems are capable of detecting hand
hygiene events as healthcare workers enter and exit patient areas, and in
some cases, may monitor all 5 of the WHO’s Moments of Hand Hygiene.

4
 Data can be collected for individuals and systems may have the
capability to transmit feedback data in real time. Real time feedback can
function as a reminder to perform hand hygiene when indicated.
• A systematic review of efficacy of fully automated systems in improving
hand hygiene compliance concluded that most studies were of low
quality and at risk of bias. Improving quality of the study was associated
with more modest increases in compliance.
• Most fully automated systems have been implemented in single units as
pilot programs. Results from sustained, large scale implementations are
lacking.

Limitations to Current Knowledge

• Much of the published data is of low quality with potential for industry
bias.
• It is not known to what extent surfaces must be clean to prevent cross-
transmission; acceptable residual bioburden levels have not been
established. This makes evaluation of cleaning technologies difficult to
standardize.

SUGGESTED PRACTICE
• New technologies may have a place in infection prevention programs as
part of a multimodal approach, assuming that sufficient resources exist
to ensure the basic components of the improvement strategy are in
place.
• The available data and experience with these new technologies supports
their use as an adjunct to existing, evidence based, infection prevention
practices. They should not be used to replace traditional cleaning
processes or hand hygiene monitoring strategies.

5
• Any healthcare center embarking on the acquisition and implementation
of new technologies must consider the cost, human resource
requirements for deployment and tracking, safety of use in the context
of potential chemical or toxin exposures to patients and staff, and
effects on through-put and other existing center functions.
• Caution should be exercised in extrapolating HAI reduction benefits
from in vitro or pre-clinical data; antimicrobial effects may not translate
into clinically relevant outcomes.

SUGGESTED PRACTICE IN UNDER-RESOURCED SETTINGS

• Virtually all studies on new technologies for infection prevention have
been reported from high resource countries. The feasibility, safety, and
impact of these products in other settings is unknown.

SUMMARY
New technologies to prevent cross-transmission of pathogens in
healthcare centers are increasingly available to healthcare centers, though
often at significant financial cost and with unique implementation
considerations. There may be an adjunctive role for such technologies in
existing infection prevention programs, as part of a multifaceted approach.

REFERENCES
1. Anderson DJ, Chen LF, Weber DJ, Moehring RW, Lewis SS, Triplett PF,
et al. Enhanced terminal room disinfection and acquisition and
infection caused by multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium
difficile (the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room Disinfection study):

6
 a cluster-randomised, multicentre, crossover study. Lancet.
2017;389:805-814.

2. Bearman GM, Rosato A, Elam K, et al. A crossover trial of

antimicrobial scrubs to reduce methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus burden on healthcare worker apparel. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2012;33:268-275.

3. Boutin MA, Thom KA, Zhan M, Johnson JK. A randomized crossover

trial to decrease bacterial contamination on hospital scrubs. Infect
Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:1411-1413.

4. Boyce JM, Pittet D, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory

Committee. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
Association for Professionals in Infection Control. Infectious
Diseases Society of America. Hand Hygiene Task Force. Guideline for
Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: recommendations of the
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the
HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Infect Control
Hosp Epidemiol. 2002;23:S3-40.

5. Boyce JM. The inanimate environment. In: Jarvis WR ed. Bennett and
Brachman’s Hospital Infection. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Williams and
Wilkins; 2014;277-292.

6. Burden M, Keniston A, Frank MG, et al. Bacterial contamination of

healthcare workers' uniforms: a randomized controlled trial of
antimicrobial scrubs. J Hosp Med. 2013;8:380-385.

7. Cheng VC, Tai JW, Ho SK, et al. Introduction of an electronic

monitoring system for monitoring compliance with Moments 1 and 4

7
 of the WHO "My 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene" methodology. BMC
Infect Dis. 2011;11:151-2334-11-151.

8. Conway LJ. Challenges in implementing electronic hand hygiene

monitoring systems. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44:e7-e12.

9. Dancer SJ. Controlling hospital-acquired infection: focus on the role

of the environment and new technologies for decontamination. Clin
Microbiol Rev. 2014;27:665-690.

10. Doll M, Stevens M, Bearman G. Environmental Cleaning and

Disinfection of Patient Areas. Int J Infect Dis.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2017.10.014.

11. Freeman AI, Halladay LJ, Cripps P. The effect of silver impregnation
of surgical scrub suits on surface bacterial contamination. Vet J.
2012;192:489-493.

12. Huang SS, Datta R, Platt R. Risk of acquiring antibiotic-resistant

bacteria from prior room occupants. Archives of Internal Medicine.
2006;166(18):1945-1951.

13. Irene G, Georgios P, Ioannis C, et al. Copper-coated textiles: armor

against MDR nosocomial pathogens. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis.
2016;85:205-209.

14. Karpanen TJ, Casey AL, Lambert PA, et al. The antimicrobial efficacy
of copper alloy furnishing in the clinical environment: a crossover
study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33:3-9.

8
15. Knape L, Hambraeus A, Lytsy B. The adenosine triphosphate method
as a quality control tool to assess 'cleanliness' of frequently touched
hospital surfaces. J Hosp Infect. 2015;91:166-170.

16. Knelson LP, Williams DA, Gergen MF, Rutala WA, Weber DJ, Sexton
DJ, et al. A comparison of environmental contamination by patients
infected or colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a multicenter
study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:872-875.

17. Kotsanas D, Wijesooriya WR, Sloane T, Stuart RL, Gillespie EE. The
silver lining of disposable sporicidal privacy curtains in an intensive
care unit. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42:366-370.

18. Lerner A, Adler A, Abu-Hanna J, Meitus I, Navon-Venezia S, Carmeli Y.

Environmental contamination by carbapenem-resistant
Enterobacteriaceae. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51:177-181.

19. Lin D, Ou Q, Lin J, Peng Y, Yao Z. A meta-analysis of the rates of

Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S aureus
contamination on the surfaces of environmental objects that health
care workers frequently touch. Am J Infect Control. 2016.

20. Malik RE, Cooper RA, Griffith CJ. Use of audit tools to evaluate the
efficacy of cleaning systems in hospitals. Am J Infect Control.
2003;31:181-187.

21. Marais F, Mehtar S, Chalkley L. Antimicrobial efficacy of copper touch

surfaces in reducing environmental bioburden in a South African
community healthcare facility. J Hosp Infect. 2010;74:80-95.

9
22. Marra AR, Edmond MB. New technologies to monitor healthcare
worker hand hygiene. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:29-33.

23. Masroor N, Doll M, Stevens M, Bearman G. Approaches to hand

hygiene monitoring: From low to high technology approaches. Int J
Infect Dis. 2017;65:101-104.

24. Mikolay A, Huggett S, Tikana L, Grass G, Braun J, Nies DH. Survival of

bacteria on metallic copper surfaces in a hospital trial. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol. 2010;87:1875-1879.

25. Mulvey D, Redding P, Robertson C, Woodall C, Kingsmore P, Bedwell

D, Dancer SJ. Finding a benchmark for monitoring hospital
cleanliness. J Hosp Infect. 2011;77:25-30.

26. Nseir S, Blazejewski C, Lubret R, Wallet F, Courcol R, Durocher A. Risk

of acquiring multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli from prior room
occupants in the intensive care unit. Clin Microbiol Infect.
2011;17:1201-1208.

27. Passaretti CL, Otter JA, Reich NG, Myers J, Shepard J, Ross T, 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;56:27-35.

28. Pittet D. Improving adherence to hand hygiene practice: a

multidisciplinary approach. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7:234-240.

29. Rivero P, Brenner P, Nercelles P. Impact of copper in the reduction of

hospital-acquired infections, mortality and antimicrobial costs in the
Adult Intensive Care Unit. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2014;31:274-279.

10
30. Rozanska A, Chmielarczyk A, Romaniszyn D, Bulanda M, Walkowicz
M, Osuch P, Knych T. Antibiotic resistance, ability to form biofilm and
susceptibility to copper alloys of selected staphylococcal strains
isolated from touch surfaces in Polish hospital wards. Antimicrobial
Resistance and Infection Control. 2017;6:80.

31. Rutala WA, Weber DJ, and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices
Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Guildeline for Disinfection and
Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities. Centers for Disease Control
website
https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/. 2008.
Accessed December 11, 2017.

32. Salgado CD, Sepkowitz KA, John JF, et al. Copper surfaces reduce the
rate of healthcare-acquired infections in the intensive care unit. Infect
Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34:479-486.

33. Schmidt MG, Attaway HH, Sharpe PA, et al. Sustained reduction of
microbial burden on common hospital surfaces through introduction
of copper. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50:2217-2223.

34. Schweizer M, Graham M, Ohl M, Heilmann K, Boyken L, Diekema D.

Novel hospital curtains with antimicrobial properties: a randomized,
controlled trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33:1081-1085.

35. Shaughnessy MK, Micielli RL, DePestel DD, et al. Evaluation of

hospital room assignment and acquisition of clostridium difficile
infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(3):201-206.

36. Sherlock O, O'Connell N, Creamer E, Humphreys H. Is it really clean?

An evaluation of the efficacy of four methods for determining
hospital cleanliness. J Hosp Infect. 2009;72:140-146.

11
37. Smith PW, Beam E, Sayles H, Rupp ME, Cavalieri RJ, Gibbs S, Hewlett
A. Impact of adenosine triphosphate detection and feedback on
hospital room cleaning. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:564-
569.

38. Snyder GM, Holyoak AD, Leary KE, Sullivan BF, Davis RB, Wright SB.
Effectiveness of visual inspection compared with non-microbiologic
methods to determine the thoroughness of post-discharge
cleaning. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2013;2:26.

39. Stewardson AJ, Pittet D. Hand hygiene. In: Bearman GM, Stevens M,
Edmond MB, Wenzel RP, eds. A Guide to Infection Control in the
Hospital. 5th ed. Brookline, MA: International Society for Infectious
Diseases; 2014:22-30.

40. Ward MA, Schweizer ML, Polgreen PM, Gupta K, Reisinger HS,
Perencevich EN. Automated and electronically assisted hand hygiene
monitoring systems: a systematic review. Am J Infect Control.
2014;42:472-478.

41. Weber DJ, Rutala WA. The environment as a source of nosocomial

infections. In: Wenzel RP ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial
Infections. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Williams and Wilkins; 2003:575-
597.

42. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Miller MB, Huslage K, Sickbert-Bennett E. Role
of hospital surfaces in the transmission of emerging health care-
associated pathogens: norovirus, Clostridium difficile, and
Acinetobacter species. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38:S25-33.

12
43. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Kanamori H, Gergen MF, Sickbert-Bennett EE.
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: frequency of hospital
room contamination and survival on various inoculated
surfaces. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36:590-593.

44. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Anderson DJ, Chen LF, Sickbert-Bennett EE,
Boyce JM. Effectiveness of ultraviolet devices and hydrogen peroxide
systems for terminal room decontamination: Focus on clinical trials.
Am J Infect Control. 2016;44:e77-84.

45. Wendt C. Patient areas, disinfection and environmental cleaning. In:

Bearman GM, Stevens M, Edmond MB, Wenzel RP, eds. A Guide to
Infection Control in the Hospital. 5th ed. Brookline, MA: International
Society for Infectious Diseases; 2014:39-44.

46. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient
Safety Challenge. World Health Organization website
http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s16320e/s16320e.pd
f. 2009. Accessed November 29, 2017.

13