4.1 Article

Bare below elbows: does this policy affect handwashing efficacy and reduce bacterial colonisation?

Journal

Publisher

ROYAL COLL SURGEONS ENGLAND
DOI: 10.1308/003588410X12771863936882

Keywords

Bare below elbows; Handwashing; Workwear

Categories

Funding

  1. Royal College of Surgeons of England

Ask authors/readers for more resources

INTRODUCTION UK Department of Health guidelines recommend that clinical staff are 'bare below the elbows'. There is a paucity of evidence to support this policy. One may hypothesise that absence of clothing around wrists facilitates more effective handwashing: this study aims to establish whether dress code affects bacterial colonisation before and after handwashing. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Sixty-six clinical staff volunteered to take part in the study, noting whether they were bare below the elbows (BBE) or not bare (NB). Using a standardised technique, imprints of left and right fingers, palms, wrists and forearms were taken onto mini agar plates. Imprints were repeated after handwashing. After incubation, colonies per plate were counted, and subcultures taken. RESULTS Thirty-eight staff were BBE and 28 were not. A total of 1112 plates were cultured. Before handwashing there was no significant difference in number of colonies between BBE and NB groups (Mann Whitney, P < 0.05). Handwashing reduced the colony count, with greatest effect on fingers, palms and dominant wrists (t-test, P < 0.05). Comparing the two groups again after handwashing revealed no significant difference (Mann Whitney, P < 0.05). Subcultures revealed predominantly skin flora. CONCLUSIONS There was a large variation in number of colonies cultured. Handwashing resulted in a statistically significant reduction in colony count on fingers, palms and dominant wrist regardless of clothing. We conclude that handwashing produces a significant reduction in number of bacterial colonies on staff hands, and that clothing that is not BBE does riot impede this reduction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available