Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

EFFECTS OF HAND WASH AGENTS: PREVENT THE LABORATORY ASSOCIATED INFECTIONS

Journal Name:

  • International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences

Publication Year:

  • 2013
DOI: 
10.5958/j.2319-5886.2.3.099

Key Words:

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
Background: The aim of this study was to find out the prevalence of bacteria and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern in hands of the laboratory workers. Laboratory associated infections are an occupational hazard for laboratory workers in the microbiology laboratory. The workers can expose to infection if they do not properly wash their hands before taking food. Materials: Swabs from 35 laboratory workers was taken before and after applying the different disinfectants. The swabs were directly inoculated onto blood agar, MacConkey agar and nutrient agar. Inoculated plates were incubated at 37ºC for 24 hours. The antibiotic sensitivity testing was done by Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method according to CLSI guidelines. Results: This study detects the major pathogenic bacteria in hands i.e. Staphylococcus aureus (40.58%), CoNS (21.74%), Klebsiella oxytoca and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.70%) were isolated. Conclusion: This study helps to minimize the infections by proper hand washing and also minimizing the spread of infection from one person to others.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon 38._gujreet_singh_etal.pdf
  • 3
564-568
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Janice LF, Nancy DR, George EF, Jeanne
MH, Monica Patel, Patrick L. Weidner et al.
Alternative Hand Contamination Technique
To Compare the Activities of Antimicrobial
and Non antimicrobial Soaps under Different
Test Conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
2008; 74(12): 3739-3744.
2. Sewell DL. Laboratory-associated infections
and biosafety. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1995;
8(3): 389-405.
3. Harding AL, Brandt Byers K. Epidemiology
of laboratory-associated infections.
Biological safety: principles and practices.
568
Gurjeet et al., Int J Med res Health Sci. 2013;2(3):564-568
3rd ed. Washington, ASM Press. 2000; 35 -
54.
4. LSY. Ng, WT Teh, S Ng, LC. Eng, TY. Tan.
Bacterial contamination of hands and the
environment in a microbiology laboratory.
Journal of Hospital Infection. 2011; 78: 231 –
233.
5. Carrie AZ, Esther JC, Sheri LM, Charles PG,
Michael JD, James WA et al. Bacterial Hand
Contamination and Transfer after Use of
Contaminated Bulk-Soap-Refillable
Dispensers. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011;
2898-2904.
6. Albert RK, Condie F. Hand-washing patterns
in medical intensive-care units. N Engl J
Med. 1981; 304: 1465-1466.
7. Doebbeling BN, Stanley GL, Sheetz CT.
Comparative efficacy of alternative handwashing
agents in reducing nosocomial
infections in intensive care units. N Engl J
Med. 1992; 327: 88-93.
8. Jarvis WR. Handwashing: the Semmelweis
lesson forgotten?. Lancet. 1994; 344: 1311-
1312.
9. Gunter Kampf. How effective are hand
antiseptics for the postcontamination
treatment of hands when used as
recommended?. Association for Professionals
in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.
2008; 36(5): 356-360.
10. Dharod JM, Paciello S, Bermúdez-Millán A,
Venkitanarayanan K, Damio G, Pérez-
Escamilla R. Bacterial contamination of
hands increases risk of cross-contamination
among low-income Puerto Rican meal
preparers. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2009; 41(6):
389-397.
11. Didier Pittet, Sasi Dharan, Sylvie Touveneau,
Vale´rie Sauvan, Thomas V. Perneger.
Bacterial Contamination of the Hands of
Hospital Staff During Routine Patient Care.
Arch Intern Med. 1999; 159: 821-826.
12. CLSI document M100-S21’ Wayne, PA:
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.
Performance Standards for Antimicrobial
Susceptibility Testing; ‘Twenty-First
Informational Supplement. 2011; 30(1): 27-
51.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com