Surgical Hand Antisepsis: Commitment, Tools, Technologies, and Prospects for Improvement (based on online testing)

Relevance. Surgical hand antisepsis is one of the components of the system for preventing infections in the surgical area (SSI). It is believed that modern surgical antiseptics allow for the complete removal of transient and partially resident microflora from the skin of the hands with minimal negative impact on the health of employees involved in surgical interventions. In the Russian Federation, there is a unified technology for surgical hand antisepsis, which is scientifically and methodologically substantiated and regulated by current sanitary rules. At the same time, adherence to the standard procedure of surgical hand antisepsis by healthcare workers (HW) remains unknown, and the negative impact of the antiseptics used on the skin of the hands and the health of employees has been practically not studied in recent years. Aim. To analyze the implementation of a standard surgical hand antisepsis procedure by medical workers involved in surgical interventions and the impact of modern antiseptics on their well-being. Materials and methods. Analyzed 1,335 electronic questionnaires, including information covering various aspects of surgical hand antisepsis from 33 medical organizations (MO) of 12 subjects of the Russian Federation. The recipes for hygiene products and antiseptics were specified in the instructions for drugs from thematic information and reference systems or official websites of manufacturers (143 units). The work used epidemiological (descriptive-evaluative and analytical), sociological and statistical research methods. Conclusions. The main violations of the technology of surgical hand antisepsis in the Ministry of Defense were: the use of liquid soap with disinfectant additives, non-sterile wipes for drying hands after washing, failure to comply with the decontamination time at certain stages of the technology, the use of water-based antiseptics, and the lack of hand care products for employees by the administration. All of the above are violations of the technology of surgical hand antisepsis approved at the legislative level. A negative impact on the health of MR of a number of detergents and antiseptics, as well as individual violations in the technology of the procedure, was established. An assessment was made of the commitment to surgical antisepsis of different categories of employees, and proposals were formulated to improve hand antisepsis for practical healthcare.

1. Brusina EB., Kovalishena OV., Tsigelnik AM. Healthcare-Associated Infections: Trends and Prevention Prospectives. Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention. 2017;16(4):73–80. doi.org/10.31631/2073-3046-2017-16-4-73-80.

2. Orlova OA, Akimkin VG. Organization epidemiogical surveillance of infections in the field of surgical intervention. Public health and life environment – PH&LE. 2018; 303(6):45-48 doi: 10.35627/2219-5238/2018-303-6-45-48.

3. Prevention of surgical site infections. Moscow: Association «National Association of Specialists for the Control of Infectious and Non-Infectious Diseases» (NASKI), 2023. 71 p. (In Russ.).

4. On the state of sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population in the Russian Federation in 2023: State report. M.: Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare, 2024. 364 p. (In Russ.).

5. Akimkin VG, Tutelyan AV, Orlova O.A.. et al. Information bulletin on healthcare-associated infections. M.: FBUN «Central Research Institute of Epidemiology» of Rospotrebnadzor, 2023. 57 p.

6. Sisin EI, Golubkova AA, Kozlova II, Jusuf EV, Melnik DA, Mendaeva AM, Gilmijarova VO. Surgical antisepsis in Russia: historical parallels. Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases. 2024;29(3):236–247. doi:10.17816/EID630074.

7. Sisin EI., Golubkova AA., Kozlova II., Ezhova OA., Berezikova KI, Gorbunova IE. Surgical hand antisepsis in the Soviet Union: key steps and technologies. Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases. 2024;29(6). doi: 10.17816/EID654105

8. Lokotkova AI., Mamkeev EH., Nazarova OA., et all. What remains behind the scenes when choosing a skin antiseptic. Disinfection affairs, 2023. 2 (124): 30–36. doi: 10.35411/2076-457X-2023-2-30-36

9. Audit of epidemiological safety of medical technologies. Audit of hand treatment technology. Methodological recommendations, 2020. 54 p.

10. Lyubimova AV, Zueva LP, Golubkova AA, Tekhova IG. Hand hygiene of medical personnel. Federal clinical recommendations. Moscow; 2014. 31 p. (In Russ).

11. WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care: a summary. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. 52 p. (In Russ).

12. Niurka MÁ, Yudalvis OC. Conocimientos, actitudes y prácticas sobre la adherencia al lavado de manos en personal de salud. Revista Cubana de Pediatría. 2020;92(2):e938. (In Spanish).

13. Smirnova SS, Stagilskaya YuS, Egorov IA, et al. Factors determining adherence to hand antisepsis by healthcare workers during pandemic infection spread (as exemplified by COVID-19). Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention. 2024;23(3):47–56 (In Russ.). https: doi:10.31631/2073-3046-2024-23-3-47-56.

14. Sadovnikov ЕE., Kondrikova NV., Barbarash OL., Brusina EB. Assessing the Effectiveness of Risk-Oriented Handwashing in Cardiac Surgery. Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention. 2024;23(5):56–62. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31631/2073-3046-2024-23-5-56-62

15. Sisin YI., Golubkova AA., Ezhova OA. Pilot project “Technologies and means of surgical hand antiseptics in medical organizations of Khanty-Mansiysk autonomous okrug — Yugra”: preliminary data. Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases. 2024;29(5):356–364. https://doi.org/10.17816/EID635857

16. Javitt MJ, Grossman A, Grajewski A, et all. Association Between Eliminating Water From Surgical Hand Antisepsis at a Large Ophthalmic Surgical Hospital and Cost. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020;138(4):382–386. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.0048.

17. Bidevkina MV, Baklanova OV, Rysina TZ, et all. Comparative toxicity of certain alcohols and alcohol-based skin antiseptics. Toxicological review. 2016:2:19–24.

18. Bidevkina MV, Potapova TN, Matrosenko MV. In vitro safety assessment of skin antiseptics. Disinfection affairs. 2021. 2(116):10–15. doi:10.35411/2076-457X-2021-2-10-15.

19. Kampf G. Hand hygiene in patient care. Fundamental and Clinical Medicine, 2018. 4:60.

20. Lisa M. Weatherly & Julie A. Gosse. Triclosan exposure, transformation, and human health effects. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 2017:8: 447–469.

21. Leeper SC, Almatari AL, Ingram JD, et all. Topical absorption of isopropyl alcohol induced cardiac and neurologic deficits in an adult female with intact skin. Vet Hum Toxicol. 2000;42(1):15–7.

22. Löffler H., Kampf G., Schmermund D., et all. How irritant is alcohol? British Journal of Dermatology, 2007;1(157): 74–81, doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2007.07944.x.

23. Lark RL, VanderHyde K, Deeb GM, et all. An Outbreak of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococcal Surgical-Site Infections Following Aortic Valve Replacement. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2001;22(10):618–623. doi:10.1086/501832.

24. Wang JT, Chang SC, Ko WJ, et all. A hospital-acquired outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection initiated by a surgeon carrier. J Hosp Infect. 2001;47(2):104–9. doi: 10.1053/jhin.2000.0878. PMID: 11170773.

25. Gorlova OE. . Hygienic assessment of atmospheric air pollution during the production of isopropanol and comparative characteristics of the effects of propyl and isopropyl alcohols on the body [aftoref]. Moscow,1969. 14 p. Available at: www.rsl.ru.

26. Torchinskii NV, Pakhomova IA, Brazhnikov AI. Nurses’ Attitude Towards Various Hand Hygiene Products. Soap vs Antiseptics. Ann Ig. 2021 Jan-Feb;33(1):10–20. doi: 10.7416/ai.2021.2404. PMID: 33354692.