SHIP Research Group, Research Centre for Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
SHIP Research Group, Research Centre for Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Am J Infect Control. 2022 Oct;50(10):1079-1090. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2022.02.003. Epub 2022 Feb 12.
This review, commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO), examined the effectiveness of the WHO 6-step hand hygiene (HH) technique in reducing microbial load on hands and covering hand surfaces, and compared its effectiveness to other techniques.
Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, Web of Science, Mednar, and Google Scholar were searched for primary studies, published in English (1978-February 2021), evaluating the microbiological effectiveness or hand surface coverage of HH techniques in healthcare workers. Reviewers independently performed quality assessment using Cochrane tools. The protocol for the narrative review was registered (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021236138).
Nine studies were included. Evidence demonstrated that the WHO technique reduced microbial load on hands. One study found the WHO technique more effective than the 3-step technique (P = .02), while another found no difference between these 2 techniques (P = .08). An adapted 3-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique in laboratory settings (P = .021), but not in clinical practice (P = .629). One study demonstrated that an adapted 6-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique (P = .001). Evidence was heterogeneous in application time, product, and volume. All studies were high risk of bias.
Eight studies found that the WHO 6-step technique reduced microbial load on healthcare workers' hands; but the studies were heterogeneous and further research is required to identify the most effective, yet feasible technique.
本综述由世界卫生组织(WHO)委托进行,旨在评估 WHO 六步手卫生(HH)技术对手部微生物负荷和手部表面覆盖的有效性,并将其与其他技术进行比较。
检索了 Medline、CINAHL、ProQuest、Web of Science、Mednar 和 Google Scholar 中的初级研究,这些研究发表于 1978 年至 2021 年 2 月期间,评估了医护人员 HH 技术的微生物学效果或手部表面覆盖率。审查员使用 Cochrane 工具独立进行质量评估。该叙述性综述的方案已在 PROSPERO 注册(PROSPERO 2021:CRD42021236138)。
纳入了 9 项研究。证据表明,WHO 技术可降低手部的微生物负荷。一项研究发现,与三步技术相比,WHO 技术更有效(P=0.02),而另一项研究发现这两种技术之间无差异(P=0.08)。在实验室环境中,改良的三步技术比 WHO 技术更有效(P=0.021),但在临床实践中并非如此(P=0.629)。一项研究表明,改良的六步技术比 WHO 技术更有效(P=0.001)。在应用时间、产品和体积方面,证据存在异质性。所有研究的偏倚风险均较高。
八项研究发现,WHO 六步技术可降低医护人员手部的微生物负荷;但这些研究存在异质性,需要进一步研究以确定最有效且可行的技术。