Cooper Rose A, Griffith Chris J, Malik Rifhat E, Obee Peter, Looker Nick
School of Health Sciences, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Am J Infect Control. 2007 Jun;35(5):338-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2006.07.015.
A survey of cleaning effectiveness was conducted in two wards in four acute hospitals in England and Wales. Surfaces were monitored immediately before and after cleaning on three separate occasions using visual assessment, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence, expressed in relative light units (RLUs), and microbiological methods (aerobic colony counts [ACC]), expressed in colony forming units (cfu) per cm(2).
Comparison of data from a total of over 3000 assessments showed highly significant differences in failure rates between visual assessment and either ATP or microbiological counts. There was no significant difference in failure rates between ATP and microbiological counts. Using visual assessment, failure rates were significantly lower after cleaning than before. Using ATP or microbiological methods, failure rates were not significantly different after cleaning.
Data obtained using both ATP and ACC, indicated considerable variability after cleaning and that failed surfaces were often well in excess of benchmark values.
Cumulatively, the results indicate that visual assessment is not a reliable indicator of surface cleanliness or of cleaning efficacy. Concerns also arise about the standards of surface cleanliness achieved after cleaning in the hospitals.
在英格兰和威尔士的四家急症医院的两个病房进行了清洁效果调查。在三次不同的清洁前后，使用视觉评估、以相对光单位（RLU）表示的三磷酸腺苷（ATP）生物发光法以及以每平方厘米菌落形成单位（cfu）表示的微生物学方法（需氧菌落计数[ACC]）对表面进行监测。
对总共3000多次评估的数据进行比较，结果显示视觉评估与ATP或微生物计数之间的失败率存在高度显著差异。ATP计数与微生物计数之间的失败率无显著差异。使用视觉评估时，清洁后的失败率显著低于清洁前。使用ATP或微生物学方法时，清洁后的失败率无显著差异。
使用ATP和ACC获得的数据表明，清洁后存在相当大的变异性，且清洁失败的表面往往远超过基准值。
综合来看，结果表明视觉评估不是表面清洁度或清洁效果的可靠指标。同时也对医院清洁后达到的表面清洁标准产生了担忧。
