Suppr超能文献

在一家小动物医院应用的两种清洁方法的比较。

A comparison of two cleaning methods applied in a small animal hospital.

作者信息

Alsing-Johansson Todd, Torstensson Elin, Bergström Karin, Sternberg-Lewerin Susanna, Bergh Anna, Penell Johanna

机构信息

Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, 750 07, Sweden.

Uppsala Veterinärklinik Evidensia, Evidensia Djursjukvård, Danmarksgatan 26, Uppsala, 753 23, Sweden.

出版信息

BMC Vet Res. 2025 Mar 15;21(1):171. doi: 10.1186/s12917-025-04631-0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Environmental cleaning of near-patient surfaces in animal healthcare is an important infection prevention and control measure to lower the risk of spread of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). There is a lack of reports on the effect of cleaning of near-patient surfaces in animal hospital wards. The aims of this study were to (1) determine bacterial load before cleaning, on near-patient surfaces in dog cages in a mixed medical and surgical ward and investigate factors associated with this bacterial load (2) compare the bacterial reduction on these surfaces after cleaning with (a) a scrubbing brush with detergent and rinsing before and after cleaning, and (b) a microfibre mop moistened with water, and after disinfection carried out after each cleaning method. In each cage the floor and the wall were sampled before cleaning, after cleaning, and after disinfection. Bacterial load and reduction were log-transformed and for comparisons t-test, one-way Anova and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used. A generalized additive model was performed for analysis of the association between factors and bacterial load.

RESULTS

The bacterial load in dog cages before cleaning varied, higher loads were noted after longer stay in the cage. The bacterial reduction was in most cases more effective after cleaning with scrubbing brushes with detergent compared to cleaning with damp microfibre mops. After cleaning, a majority of the samples were below the suggested threshold value 2.5 CFU/cm, except for floor samples after microfibre cleaning. No significant difference in bacterial load, between cleaning methods was noted after disinfection. Overall, the bacterial load was significantly lower on walls than on floors.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the bacterial load was below the suggested threshold value after decontamination, except after microfibre cleaning of the floor. Scrub cleaning with a detergent should be considered for cleaning of anti-slip surfaces like the cage floor. The study shows a need for evidence-based cleaning and disinfection routines for near-patient surfaces and evidence-based threshold values for bacterial load, to reduce the risk of HAIs.

摘要

背景

动物医疗保健中对患者附近表面进行环境清洁是降低医疗相关感染(HAIs)传播风险的一项重要感染预防和控制措施。目前缺乏关于动物医院病房患者附近表面清洁效果的报告。本研究的目的是:(1)确定混合内科和外科病房狗笼中患者附近表面清洁前的细菌载量,并调查与该细菌载量相关的因素;(2)比较这些表面在清洁后与(a)使用带洗涤剂的擦洗刷并在清洁前后冲洗,以及(b)用水浸湿的微纤维拖把清洁后,再进行每种清洁方法后的消毒后的细菌减少情况。在每个笼子中,在清洁前、清洁后和消毒后对地板和墙壁进行采样。对细菌载量和减少量进行对数转换,并使用t检验、单因素方差分析和Wilcoxon秩和检验进行比较。采用广义相加模型分析因素与细菌载量之间的关联。

结果

狗笼清洁前的细菌载量各不相同,在笼中停留时间越长,细菌载量越高。在大多数情况下,与使用潮湿微纤维拖把清洁相比,使用带洗涤剂的擦洗刷清洁后细菌减少更有效。清洁后,除微纤维清洁后的地板样本外,大多数样本低于建议的阈值2.5 CFU/cm²。消毒后,不同清洁方法之间的细菌载量没有显著差异。总体而言,墙壁上的细菌载量明显低于地板上的细菌载量。

结论

总体而言,除地板微纤维清洁后外,去污后的细菌载量低于建议的阈值。对于像笼底这样的防滑表面清洁,应考虑使用洗涤剂进行擦洗清洁。该研究表明需要基于证据的患者附近表面清洁和消毒程序以及基于证据的细菌载量阈值,以降低医疗相关感染的风险。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9617/11910008/cf3fc0febee7/12917_2025_4631_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验