Disinfecting the iPad: evaluating effective methods

Howell, Victoria; Thoppil, Anita; Mariyaselvam, Maryanne; Jones, Rhiannon; Young, Holly; Sharma, Shreela V.; Blunt, Mark; Young, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.012

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The need to clean mobile phones is well known and agents such as ethanol and isopropanol have been investigated for this purpose [20][21][22][23]. Larger equipment harbours a higher microbial load and the frequent use of these devices in hospital information systems is crucial to limit the spread of hospital infections.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Larger equipment harbours a higher microbial load and the frequent use of these devices in hospital information systems is crucial to limit the spread of hospital infections. Tablet PC (and larger mobile device) hygiene has garnered attention, and disinfection methods and standardization protocols have been published [13,22,23]. Over time, more detailed research into mobile device infection control methods is expected to facilitate the development of guidelines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of keypads and touch-screen mobile phones/devices as potential risk for microbial contamination

Köroğlu

Günal

Yıldız

et al. 2015

J Infect Dev Ctries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Touch-screen mobile phones/devices (TMPs/Ds) are increasingly used in hospitals. They may act as a mobile reservoir for microbial pathogens. The rates of microbial contamination of TMPs/Ds and keypad mobile phones (KMPs) with respect to different variables including use by healthcare workers (HCWs)/non-HCWs and the demographic characteristics of users were investigated. Methodology: A total of 205 mobile phones/devices were screened for microbial contamination: 76 devices belonged to HCWs and 129 devices belonged to the non-HCW group. By rubbing swabs to front screen, back, keypad, and metallic surfaces of devices, 444 samples were collected. Results: Of 205 mobile phones/devices, 143 (97.9%) of the TMPs/Ds and 58 (98.3%) of the KMPs were positive for microbial contamination, and there were no significant differences in contamination rates between these groups, although TMPs/Ds had significantly higher microbial load than KMPs (p <0.05). The significant difference in this analysis was attributable to the screen size of mobile phones ≥ 5". Microbial contamination rates increased significantly as phone size increased (p <0.05). Higher numbers of coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CNS) were isolated from KMPs than TMPs/Ds (p = 0.049). The incidence of Enterococcus spp. was higher on the KMPs of HCWs, and methicillin resistant CNS was higher from the TMPs/Ds of non-HCWs (p <0.05). Isolation of CNS, Streptococcus spp. and Escherichia coli was higher from the TMPs/Ds of HCWs (p <0.05). Conclusions: We found no significant difference between TMP/Ds and KMPs in terms of microbial contamination, but TMP/Ds harboured more colonies and total microbial counts increased with screen size.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of keypads and touch-screen mobile phones/devices as potential risk for microbial contamination

Köroğlu

Günal

Yıldız

et al. 2015

J Infect Dev Ctries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Handheld ‘smart’ devices such as iPads, tablets, and smartphones are gaining popularity as technology in the healthcare system continues to advance and becomes increasingly wireless. While more recent data are emerging on the ability of tablet computers to act as fomites among healthcare workers in hospital, limited data are available which elucidate the presence of pathogens on tablet computers belonging to healthcare workers within outpatient practice settings [13],[14],[17]. Specifically, we sought to identify and compare organism colonization on iPads within a pharmacy school department where faculty members practice within a variety of healthcare settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kiedrowski et al set out to answer this question and recently published a comparison of iPad disinfection methods.They noted that moist cloths, alcohol swabs, and bleach wipes were able to remove 100% of MRSA from iPad screens, however, there was no discussion of organism yield using their recovery method [13]. Howell et al also aimed to answer this question and compared six different disinfectant wipes on iPads contaminated with MRSA, VRE, and C. difficile [17]. They concluded that Sani-Cloth CHG 2% (chlorhexidine 2%/alcohol 70%) wipes effectively disinfected the iPad against MRSA and VRE (but not C. difficile ), with a residual antibacterial effect and without causing damage after 480 cleaning episodes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Microbiology of the iPad Tablet Computer and the Potential to Serve as a Fomite in Both Inpatient Practice Settings as Well as Outside of the Hospital Environment

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe use of tablet computers and other touch screen technology within the healthcare system has rapidly expanded. It has been reported that these devices can harbor pathogens in hospitals; however, much less is known about what pathogens they can harbor when used outside the hospital environment compared to hospital practice.MethodsThirty iPads belonging to faculty with a variety of practice settings were sampled to determine the presence and quantity of clinically-relevant organisms. Flocked nylon swabs and neutralizer solution were used to sample the surface of each iPad. Samples were then plated on a variety of selective agars for presence and quantity of selected pathogens. In addition, faculty members were surveyed to classify the physical location of their practice settings and usage patterns. Continuous variables were compared via an unpaired Student's t test with two-tailed distribution; categorical variables were compared with the Fisher's exact test.ResultsOf the iPads sampled, 16 belonged to faculty practicing within a hospital and 14 belonged to a faculty member practicing outside a hospital. More faculty within the hospital group used their iPads at their practice sites (78.6% vs. 31.3%; p = 0.014) and within patient care areas (71.4% vs. 18.8%; p = 0.009) than the non-hospital group. There were no differences in the presence, absence, or quantity of, any of the pathogens selectively isolated between groups. Problematic nosocomial pathogens such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and P. aeruginosa were isolated from both hospital and non-hospital faculty iPads.ConclusionsGram positive and Gram negative organisms were recovered from the surfaces of iPads regardless of practice setting; these included problematic multidrug-resistant pathogens like MRSA, VRE, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Healthcare personnel in all settings should be aware of the potential for tablet computers to serve as a nidus for microorganism transmission.

show abstract

“…There are few data available on how to effectively clean/disinfect touchscreen operated devices without causing damage and there can be found some recommendations to place waterproof or water resistant barriers over the device [18]–[20]. However, to our knowledge, no data are available on a microbiological workup of the proposed approach (wrapping the device with a single-use plastic bag).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practicability of Hygienic Wrapping of Touchscreen Operated Mobile Devices in a Clinical Setting

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo prove effectiveness of wrapping tablet computers in order to reduce microbiological contamination and to evaluate whether a plastic bag-covered tablet leads to impaired user satisfaction or touchscreen functionality.Materials and MethodsWithin a period of 11 days 115 patients were provided with a tablet computer while waiting for their magnetic resonance imaging examination. Every day the contamination of the surface of the tablet was determined before the first and after the final use. Before the device was handed over to a patient, it was enclosed in a customized single-use plastic bag, which was analyzed for bacterial contamination after each use. A questionnaire was applied to determine whether the plastic bag impairs the user satisfaction and the functionality of the touchscreen.ResultsFollowing the use by patients the outside of the plastic bags was found to be contaminated with various bacteria (657.5 ± 368.5 colony forming units/day); some of them were potentially pathogenic. In contrast, the plastic bag covered surface of the tablet was significantly less contaminated (1.7 ± 1.9 colony forming units/day). Likewise, unused plastic bags did not show any contamination. 11% of the patients reported problems with the functionality of the touchscreen. These patients admitted that they had never used a tablet or a smartphone before.ConclusionsTablets get severely contaminated during usage in a clinical setting. Wrapping with a customized single-use plastic bag significantly reduces microbiological contamination of the device, protects patients from the acquisition of potentially pathogenic bacteria and hardly impairs the user satisfaction and the functionality of the touchscreen.

show abstract

Disinfecting the iPad: evaluating effective methods

Cited by 29 publications

References 18 publications

Comparison of keypads and touch-screen mobile phones/devices as potential risk for microbial contamination

Comparison of keypads and touch-screen mobile phones/devices as potential risk for microbial contamination

Surface Microbiology of the iPad Tablet Computer and the Potential to Serve as a Fomite in Both Inpatient Practice Settings as Well as Outside of the Hospital Environment

Practicability of Hygienic Wrapping of Touchscreen Operated Mobile Devices in a Clinical Setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About