Background: Hand hygiene plays a vital role in the prevention of transmission of microorganisms. Ozone (O3) is a highly reactive gas with a broad spectrum of antimicrobial effects on bacteria, viruses and protozoa. It can easily be produced locally in small generators, and dissolved in tap water, and quickly transmits into ordinary O2 in the surrounding air. Aim: To compare ozonized tap water and alcohol rub in decontamination of bacteriallycontaminated hands. Methods: A cross-over study among 30 nursing students. Hands were artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922) then sanitized with ozonized tap water (0.8 or 4 ppm) or 3 mL standard alcohol-based rub (Antibac 85%). The transient microbes from fingers were cultivated and colony-forming units (CFU)/mL were counted. The test procedure was modified from European Standard EN 1500:2013. Findings: All contaminated hands before disinfection showed a CFU-count >30,000/mL. The average bacterial counts in (CFU/mL) on both hands combined were 1017 (SD, 1391) after using ozonized water, and 2337 (SD, 4664) after alcohol hand disinfection. The median values were 500 (range, 6700) and 250 (range, 16000) respectively, a non-significant difference (P = 0.713). Twenty percent of participants reported adverse skin effects (burning/dryness) from alcohol disinfection compared with no adverse sensations with ozone. Conclusion: Ozonized tap water is an effective decontaminant of E. coli, and could be an alternative to traditional alcohol fluid hand disinfectants both in healthcare institutions and public places. Ozonized water may be particularly valuable for individuals with skin problems.

Effects of hand disinfection with alcohol hand rub, ozonized water or soap water -time for reconsideration? SummaryWe tested the effect of alcohol hand rub in eradicating Escherichia coli, and compared it with hand wash using ozonized tap water or soap and water. Alcohol eradicated all bacteria in 10 of 35 participants, but with an average (SD) of 2330 (4227) CFU/mL left after disinfection, while ozonized water removed all bacteria in 10 of 55 participants, with an average of only 538 (801) CFU/mL left (p=0.045). Soap washing was the most effective with total removal of bacteria in 6 of 20 participants, with an average of 98 (139) CFU/ml (p=0.048 and 0.018 versus ozonized water and alcohol, respectively).

Aim This study's aim was to improve our understanding of the impact of pre‐round meetings before ward rounds on hospital wards. Design Qualitative study. Method Focus group interviews were conducted with nurses and doctors. Results Participants reported that pre‐round meetings provide opportunities for interdisciplinary cooperation and have a positive impact on the quality of treatment and care. These meetings offer a forum for health professionals to develop a shared understanding and to convey congruent information to the patient. However, there may be reasons for omitting the pre‐round meetings before ward rounds on wards with acute admissions and high patient turnover. Continuity of those attending the meetings and attendance by consultants are needed for timely decision‐making and hence, successful pre‐round meetings. If health trusts establish systems promoting successful pre‐round meetings, the quality of treatment received by patients has potential for improvement.

No abstract

No abstract