Research Proposal: Analysis Of The Sporicidal Activity

Analysis and Appraisal
Name
Institution
Analysis and Appraisal
Chatuev, B., & Peterson, J. (2009). Analysis of the sporicidal activity of chlorine dioxide disinfectant against Bacillus anthracis (Sterne strain). Journal of Hospital Infection, Vol 74, pg. 178-183.
Chatuev and Perenson (2009) describes the issue with disinfectants that if no is used correctly can cause problems to the surfaces, environment and the population. The article refers to the use of “Vimoba containing chlorine dioxide as the principal active ingredient used to kill B. anthracis spores.
While the article is keen on providing statistical figures showcasing the percentages at which chlorine dioxide solution works best, it does not offer any statistical data to demonstrate the gravity of the problem or deficit.
No specific examples of morbidity, mortality, and rate of incidence or rate of occurrence have been included in the article. However, the article does show the need to seek for effective methods of disinfection and decontamination.
This article is solely focused on the use of Chlorine as a disinfectant against Bacillus anthracis. It, therefore, does not support nor deny the proposed change but only reinforces the ineffectiveness of traditional methods.
Dancer, S. (2003). How do we assess hospital cleaning? A proposal for microbiological standards for surface hygiene in hospitals. Journal of Hospital Infection, Vol. 56, pg. 10-15.
Dancer (2014) mention that “Pathogens such as vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), multi-resistant Gram-negative bacilli, norovirus, and Clostridium difficile persist in the health care environment for days” To make emphasis on the problem tablet are present in the investigation to collect the data needed for the evaluation of the results. The introduction and discussion section are very well related to describe the issues with traditional and new technologies.
Dancer (2014), makes reference to a “statistical analysis where 13 new cases of MRSA infection were conducted. Another study was conducted for 6 years using retrospective before and after design conducted in a 300 bed Australia hospital evaluating the capacity of a detergent cleaning versus hydrogen peroxide (HP) in the contaminated rooms. Tables are also present to show data collected from original studies and well organized presentation of the study by heading and subheadings.
Dancer (2014) refers to the incidence of C. difficile and MRSA in hospitals rooms and the incidence of other infection outside hospital settings that affected the population. However, it does not provide specific examples on morbidity, mortality, and rate of incidence or rate of occurrence in the general population.
Dancer does not specifically mention the use of HPV as a disinfectant. However, he reinforces the need for cleanliness within the confines of the hospital. He urges the adoption of clean standards such as those of “internationally agreed microbiological standards for air, water and food preparation surfaces.” He continues to say that “widespread adoption of standards would allow risk assessment and evaluation of infection risks to patients (and staff) in hospitals.”
Fu, T., Gent, P., & Kumar, V. (2011). Efficacy, efficiency and safety aspects of hydrogen peroxide vapour and aerosolized hydrogen peroxide room disinfection systems. Journal of Hospital Infection, Vol. 80, pg. 199-205.
First of all the article already acknowledges how Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter baumannii and Clostridium difficile are the main causative agents of HAIs. Aside from the above, it goes further and acknowledges the use of hydrogen peroxide as an effective disinfectant. In this article, the author only seeks to determine which hydrogen peroxide disinfection system is effective. However, it makes it clear that conventional cleaning is not the best way to eliminate pathogens.
This article is quite different and does not seek to ascertain that HPV is the best or the disinfectant of choice. The authors only seek to determine which hydrogen peroxide system of decontamination is efficient than the other.
Fu, Gent, and Kumar (2011) also fails to provide specific examples of morbidity, mortality, and rate of incidence or rate of occurrence in the general public. However, their study reveals that the use of hydrogen peroxide vapor achieved a 6-log reduction.
Yes, this article explicitly supports the proposed change. Fu, Gent, and Kumar (2011) concluded that using hydrogen peroxide vapor is “safer, faster and more effective for biological inactivation.” This is enough evidence to support and to encourage the adoption of hydrogen peroxide as the disinfectant of choice.
Passaretti, C.L, Otter, J. A., Reich N. G., Myers, J., Shepard, J., Ross, T., Carroll, K.C., Lipsett, P., and Perl, T. M. (2013). An Evaluation of environmental decontamination with hydrogen peroxide vapor for reducing the risk of patient acquisition of multidrug- resistant organisms, clinical Infectious diseases. 56, (1). p. 27-35. doi.org/10.1093/cid/ cis839. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/56/1/27/417496/
Passaretti (2013), describe the problem regarding the contamination of hospitals rooms with MADROS and the issue of patients acquiring vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), multi-resistant Gram-negative bacilli, norovirus, and Clostridium difficile when admitted to contaminated rooms. The article shows the concern about traditional cleaning approaches which fail to eliminate all environmental multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) or health care acquired infections (HAIs) in contaminated rooms. Instead, evaluates the environmental and clinical impact of hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV) for room disinfection.
Passeratti et al. (2013) concluded that “patients admitted to rooms decontaminated using HPV were 64% less likely to acquire any MDRO and 80% less likely to acquire VRE after adjusting to other factors.”
Passaretti (2013), indicated that a total of 3.0 patients died in the cohort of no MDRO standard, 2.7 in the MDRO-HPV and 3.2 in the MDRO standard. The incidence rate demonstrated that patients in a disinfected room with HPV were very significant than those without HPV.
Yes, this article explicitly supports the proposed change. The researchers concluded that “HPV decontamination reduced environmental contamination and the risk of acquiring MDROs compared with standard cleaning protocols.” Even the idea of using HPV has not yet been widely adopted, so far, there is sufficient evidence to support its use.
Rutala, W., et al. (2013). Disinfectants used for environmental disinfection and new room decontamination technology. American Journal of Infection Control, Vol 41, No. 5, pg. S36-S41.
The article first acknowledges the environmental contamination can lead to high proliferation of healthcare-acquired infections. It describes it as a thorny issue in the healthcare sector while highlighting how disinfecting rooms and surfaces in the hospitals can help to save lives. The article specifically mentions the spread of HAIs through the hands of the healthcare personnel or direct patient contact.
Yes, Rutala et al. (2013) did include statistical data to help showcase the gravity of the issue. As per the article, “20% to 40% of healthcare-associated infections have been attributed to cross infection via hands of healthcare personnel.” However, the article continues to explain that contact between personnel and patients can also lead to the spread of these infections.
The article is very specific and casts healthcare-associated infections as “important sources” of morbidity and mortality in hospitals. Rutala et al. (2013) estimates that 1.7 million infections and 99,000 deaths are reported annually. These numbers are quite high and hospitals need to help protect the lives of their patients by using the proven hydrogen peroxide vapor for disinfection.
Yes, the article does support the proposed change and even...