F I N D I N G S - Health Design...cleaning and disinfection (including terminal cleaning) are still...
Transcript of F I N D I N G S - Health Design...cleaning and disinfection (including terminal cleaning) are still...
F I N D I N G S
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
2
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
As discussed in the accompanying issue brief, Contact Transmission, Part 1: The
Role of Surfaces in Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs), there are many
factors to consider when selecting and specifying materials for healthcare
settings. This issue brief will take a closer look at the role of high-touch hard and
soft surfaces in infection transmission, including the design features of surfaces
that can facilitate or hinder cleanability as well as several emerging cleaning and
disinfection technologies.
Rutali Joshi, MS, PhD Student
Research Intern
Ellen Taylor, PhD, AIA, MBA, EDAC
Vice President for Research
3
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
Figure 1 illustrates some of the research findings on surface contamination.
Infection transmission depends on both the frequency of contact and the level
of contamination. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
classified surfaces into two categories: minimal hand contact (e.g., floors,
ceilings) and high-touch surfaces (Sehulster et al., 2004). The prolonged survival
of pathogens on any healthcare surface is undesirable due to the potential risk
of cross-contamination. Retention and transmission depend on several
variables, including surface and pathogen characteristics, environmental
conditions, cleaning methodology, operational factors, and human interaction
with the surface (Campoccia, Montanaro, & Arciola, 2013).
Hard surfaces have already been recognized as pathogen reservoirs and
potential vehicles of transmission. However, high-touch soft surfaces tend to be
overlooked due to a lack of intervention studies demonstrating direct links to
infection. Since surface contamination can occur quickly after cleaning, the use
of antimicrobial surfaces—those exhibiting prolonged biocidal activity—is seen
as a supplemental strategy for controlling contamination through surface
treatments, although evidence is still emergent. These include bioactive
surfaces of heavy metals or their derivatives (e.g., copper, silver); electrostatic
and inhibitory surfaces that repel microbial adhesion; ‘self-cleaning’ coatings
that rely upon hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties; and novel coatings (e.g.,
nanoparticles, micro-patterned surfaces) (Dancer, 2016; Querido, Aguiar,
Neves, Pereira, & Teixeira, 2019). Surfaces coated or impregnated with
antimicrobial agents or metals can have a prolonged antiseptic effect (Weber &
Rutala, 2013a), but there are increasing concerns about potential health risks
and antimicrobial stewardship. For example, in 2015, Kaiser Permanente
banned the use of 15 antimicrobial chemical treatments that may be toxic to
humans or contribute to the development of drug-resistant bacteria (Kaiser
Permanente, 2015).
In spite of increased awareness of the challenges associated with cleaning hard
and soft surfaces, and the opportunities created by technological advancements
to eliminate infectious agents, our understanding of assessing surface
disinfection is limited due to lagging regulations that have made objective
evaluations difficult (Sattar, 2010). When selecting materials, stakeholders
4
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
should account for both the properties of each surface as well as the
epidemiology of infections (as discussed in Part 1). The primary takeaway from
the available research is that surface contamination can be reduced by
minimizing the number of joints or seams (including counters, flooring, and
related transitions between horizontal and vertical surfaces) and by selecting
material finishes that are smooth, non-porous (or impervious), durable (that do
not get damaged, scratched or pitted easily), stain- and water-resistant, and
easy to clean (Malone & Dellinger, 2011).
Traditional cleaning (including terminal cleaning) of surfaces has been found to
be episodic rather than continuous in reducing bioburden. As a result, the
properties of the materials in question are being investigated as part of a broad
approach to tackling HAIs (Esolen et al., 2018). The multifactorial nature of
infection prevention demands a systems approach integrating the built
environment, organizational values, and behavioral factors. Engaging a
multidisciplinary team in the design process is a key strategy to reduce surface
contamination and, in turn, HAIs.
As summarized in the Perception of Cleanliness issue brief, surfaces in the
healthcare setting can be classified as critical, semi-critical, or non-critical
according to their potential for infection transmission. Based on these
classifications and the level of care required, an individual surface may need to
be sterilized, disinfected, or cleaned (Quinn & Henneberger, 2015). The Facility
Guidelines Institute (FGI) Guidelines (2018) suggest that finishes should be
evaluated for their suitability, life cycle, quality, and safety (for both patients
and staff) . To achieve this goal, a thorough understanding of both surface
characteristics and cleaning methods is necessary.
Infection transmission depends on both the frequency of contact with the
surface and the level of contamination. The CDC has classified surfaces into two
categories: those involving minimal hand contact (e.g., floors, ceilings) and those
involving frequent hand contact (“high-touch surfaces”) (Sehulster et al., 2004).
Only one study has quantitatively assessed the frequency of contact between
(Huslage et al., 2010).
5
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
healthcare workers and surfaces; it defines high-touch surfaces as those
sustaining more than three contacts per interaction (Huslage, Rutala, Sickbert-
Bennett, & Weber, 2010).
The five high-touch surfaces identified in the immediate vicinity of the patient in
the ICU and the medical-surgical floor from this study were bed rails, bed
surfaces, supply carts, overbed tables, and intravenous pumps (Figure 2).
Curtains, chair cushions, door knobs, public seating, window sills, soap
dispensers, elevator buttons, tray tables, room sinks, and medical equipment all
fell into the medium-touch category, but these surfaces have shown high levels
of contamination in various studies (Pyrek, 2013; Solomon et al., 2018)
Materials are most often selected for comfort and aesthetics. Although these
features are important, there are other critical surface properties that should
be evaluated before making decisions. Tables 1a and 1b identify some of the
most frequently touched and contaminated surfaces in the healthcare setting,
the most commonly used material finishes for these surfaces, and the pathogens
that have been found to adhere to them.
Hard surfaces Material finishes Pathogens
Public surfaces
Public seating, tables, information desk Metal, molded plastic, stone, wood, glass, laminate ---
Elevator button Metal ---
Surfaces away from patient in patient room
Window sill Stone, wood, prefinished PVC sill
Sink counter top Stone, stainless steel, vitreous china (porcelain), enameled cast iron
Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE), Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Clostridium difficile (C. diff)
Toilet seat High-impact plastic or plastic coating, vitreous china (porcelain)
VRE, C. diff
Door knobs Metal (brass, copper, zinc) VRE, MRSA, C. diff
Chair Metal, molded plastic, stone, wood covered in fabric, leather
VRE, MRSA, C. diff
Bathroom light switch Plastic (e.g., Bakelite), antimicrobials (e.g., copper) ---
Surfaces near patient in patient room
Bed rail Polypropene, stainless steel, polyester-coated steel VRE, MRSA, C. diff
Bedside table Metal, molded plastic, stone, wood, glass, laminate VRE, MRSA
Tray table and supply cart Polypropene, stainless steel, polyester-coated steel, molded plastic
VRE, MRSA
6
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
Call box Plastic (e.g., Bakelite), antimicrobials (e.g., copper) VRE, MRSA, C. diff
Medical equipment/devices (e.g., pulse oximeters, thermometers, stethoscopes)
Glass, metal, plastic MRSA, Acinetobacter baumannii
IV pole grab area Stainless steel C. diff
--- indicates lack or absence of research specific to surface and pathogens
Soft surfaces Material finishes Pathogens
Privacy curtains 100% cotton, cotton/polyester blend, polyethylene plastic, polyurethane, nylon/spandex blend
C. diff, MRSA, VRE, Acinetobacter baumannii
Furniture upholstery 100% cotton, 100% polyester, cotton/polyester blend
VRE
Carpets 100% cotton, 100% polyester, cotton/polyester blend, olefin, nylon, olefin/nylon blend
C. diff, MRSA, VRE, Acinetobacter baumannii
Other textiles (e.g., scrubs, drapes, towels, pressure garments, keyboard cover)
100% cotton, cotton/polyester blend, nylon/spandex blend, polyurethane, polyvinyl
MRSA, VRE
Specifically patterned hard surfaces (or sometimes ad hoc-designed nano-
surfaces) can direct the alignment of pathogen cells and reduce the area of
contact. This affects the surface properties and should be considered during the
design process (Campoccia et al., 2013). As shown in Figure 3, surface features
whose dimensions greatly exceed those of the microorganisms will reduce
retention because the cells can be washed out fairly easily. Within larger
features, however, there could be micro-topographies and nano-topographies
that provide attachment points for the microbial cells (Edwards & Rutenberg,
2001; Verran, Packer, Kelly, & Whitehead, 2009). Non-porous surfaces like
acrylic, glass, laminates, metals, and plastics may have cracks or crevices making
them porous. These increases in porosity can make surfaces rougher, promoting
entrapment and immobilization of microorganisms (Ali, Moore, & Wilson, 2012).
If they are not adequately cleaned following spills of blood or bodily fluids,
porous areas retain moisture and allow pathogens to proliferate (Sehulster et
al., 2004). Pitting and degradation of glazed ceramics may also result in porosity,
leading to micro-holes that can be difficult to clean (Kronberg et al., 2007).
Some physicochemical properties such as adhesion (i.e., the angle and area of
contact between surfaces and soil) and hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity (i.e., the
ability to attract or repel water) can also impact the cleanability of a given
surface and should be taken into consideration (Decuzzi & Ferrari, 2010; Detry,
Sindic, & Deroanne, 2010; Verran et al., 2009).
7
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
The survival and transmission of microbes on soft surfaces has proven more
complex than their behavior on hard surfaces due to the porous and three-
dimensional nature of soft surfaces (Rogina-Car, Budimir, & Katovic, 2017;
Yeargin, Buckley, Fraser, & Jiang, 2016). Some soft surfaces are easy to remove
and launder (e.g., pillows, bedding, towels, patient gowns, surgical gowns, scrub
suits, lab coats, splash aprons, privacy drapes/curtains), while others are less so
(e.g., carpet, upholstery, window drapes) (McQueen & Ehnes, 2018; Yeargin et
al., 2016). Some hospitals use disposable materials for high-touch soft surfaces
like privacy curtains and drapes. Others prefer to wash and reuse materials due
to ecological and financial constraints.
In one study, Noskin et al. (2000) found that VRE was recovered from 30% of
the seat cushions sampled, and disinfection with quaternary ammonium
solution failed to remove VRE from 100% of the fabric chairs. Alternative
solutions, such as folding absorbent, non-porous protector sheets in multiple
layers over the fabric, were found to prevent contamination of the chairs. The
results of this study indicate that evaluating pore size, fabric permeability, and
fabric seam type is essential to the reduction of soft surface contamination.
Conventional sewing techniques (interlacing or interloping threads) can leave
holes in the fabric, making them ineffective microbial barriers (Rogina-Car et al.,
2017).
Another factor to consider when selecting fabrics or finishes is location.
Carpeting, for example, should be avoided in high-risk and/or high-traffic areas
like ICUs, ORs, and burn units, as well as any areas where blood or other bodily
fluids may be spilled (e.g., patient unit hallways). Vacuuming or dry cleaning can
help temporarily reduce pathogens, but carpeting that remains damp is a
perfect setting for microbes to thrive (Sehulster et al., 2014).
Cleaning surfaces is a critical part of infection control. However, the quality and
standard of cleaning in a given environment may be compromised due to factors
such as the choice of products, manufacturer specifications, inaccessibility,
inadequate monitoring because of time crunch or high patient volumes, and
staff shortage/turnover in the Environmental Services (EVS) department. Hard
8
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
surfaces encountering minimal hand contact may not require as much cleaning
as high-touch surfaces (Sehulster et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2018), but routine
cleaning and disinfection (including terminal cleaning) are still recommended.
Unfortunately, less than 50% of surfaces are cleaned during terminal cleaning
(Carling et al., 2008). Some launderable surfaces, like privacy curtains, are only
cleaned if found visibly soiled and can remain contaminated for long periods
(Kukla, 2013; McQueen & Ehnes, 2018).
Surfaces like textured acrylic walls, brushed stainless steel, and fabrics of
varying weaves can be challenging to clean. Most hospital furniture is made up
of a combination of materials and textiles with various seams, joints, and batten
strips, making it difficult (or impossible) to clean between surface materials
(Malone & Dellinger, 2011). In some cases, each material requires a different
disinfectant and cleaning method, adding to the existing burden of the staff
(Lankford et al., 2007) or resulting in damage to the furniture.
When selecting materials, stakeholders should keep the topographical and
morphological properties of each surface material in mind, along with the
epidemiology of infections (see Part 1 for more information). It is possible to
reduce surface contamination by using flush surfaces (or minimizing the number
of joints and seams) and by selecting finishes that are smooth, non-porous (or
impervious), durable (not easily damaged, scratched, or pitted), stain- and
water-resistant, and easy to clean or wipe down (Malone & Dellinger, 2011).
Seepage under assemblies where water is continually present has been shown
to encourage layer delamination and invite mold, mildew, and bacteria. Per the
2018 FGI Guidelines, water-resistant materials, sealed-seam construction
methods, and moisture-impervious surfaces should be selected for work or sink
areas. The location of the surface, frequency of touch, and associated user
behavior should be evaluated when determining both surface design and
cleaning protocols.
Three approaches to cleaning are described below, including design, selection,
and specification considerations. (For more information, see Part 1.)
9
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
Some of the most commonly used disinfectants for manual cleaning in
healthcare are chlorine-releasing compounds (hypochlorites), hydrogen
peroxide liquid disinfectant (accelerated/improved), and quaternary ammonium
compounds (Villapún, Dover, Cross, & González, 2016). Only products
formulated according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) guidance have been cleared for use (Rutala, 2008).
Furniture and medical equipment come with cleaning recommendations from
the manufacturer. However, the cleaning process is often complicated by
unique specifications for various materials and surfaces and the time required
for EVS staff to understand them, which can influence turnover and, in turn,
cost. The surface material, application method, and choice of applicator (e.g.,
microfiber/cotton mops or wipes vs. pre-moistened wipes) can also impact the
efficiency of manual cleaning efforts. Table 2 summarizes the mixed findings of
multiple studies on the use of various disinfectants on healthcare surfaces.
Chemical disinfectants Impact on surfaces
Chlorine (hypochlorites)
While hypochlorites (the most commonly used chlorine-based disinfectants) are bactericidal, fungicidal, virucidal, mycobactericidal, and sporicidal, they are corrosive to metals, can discolor fabrics, may irritate skin and eyes, and are harmful to the environment by developing biocide and antibiotic resistance (Dettenkofer & Block, 2005; Leas et al., 2015).
Wiping surfaces sprayed with these disinfectants can transfer spores to clean surfaces (Cadnum, Hurless, Kundrapu, & Donskey, 2013).
Hypochlorous acid (electrolyzed water) is a promising strategy shown to be more effective than quaternary ammonium solutions (Meakin, Bowman, Lewis, & Dancer, 2012). It can be left to dry on surfaces without leaving any toxic residue (Boyce, 2016).
Chlorine bleach is an economical, broad-spectrum chemical germicide that enhances the effectiveness of the laundering process. Chlorine bleach is not, however, an appropriate laundry additive for all fabrics (Sehulster et al., 2004).
Accelerated/improved hydrogen peroxide liquid disinfectants
Improved hydrogen peroxide (IHP) disinfectants are EPA-registered and have been shown to reduce bacterial levels on hard surfaces (Rutala, Gergen, & Weber, 2012).
IHP has also proven effective against multidrug-resistant pathogens on soft surfaces like privacy curtains. It is non-corrosive, unaffected by organic matter, and safe for EVS staff, though discoloration has been observed on upholstery disinfected with IHP (Leas et al., 2015).
Some limitations of IHP include higher costs (compared with other disinfectants) and a lack of activity against C. diff spores (Cadnum et al., 2015).
Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs)
QACs (or quats) are widely used, EPA-registered healthcare disinfectants that are generally regarded as effective when left undisturbed on non-critical surfaces. However, they are not sporicidal.
Using QACs with materials like cotton has shown diminished microbial activity (Sattar & Maillard, 2013).
10
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
Routine laundering, water cleaning, and vacuuming are assumed to be adequate
cleaning procedures for removable upholstery (Malik, Allwood, Hedberg, &
Goyal, 2006). Successful laundering depends on factors including the type of
linen and microorganism in question; the duration, mechanical action, dosage,
filling ratio, and temperature of the cycle; the detergent or disinfectant used;
and the conditions surrounding the laundering process, such as drying
(Bockmühl, 2017; Fijan & Turk, 2012). If one variable is changed, the others
must be adjusted to maintain an optimized effect. Other considerations with
design implications are the post-laundering process, including sorting, folding,
packing, and delivery (Mitchell, Spencer, & Edmiston, 2015), as well as access to
laundry facilities on or off site. The CDC, EPA, and other government agencies
have issued guidance on laundering contaminated textiles with registered
antimicrobial agents in order to standardize this process. Design decisions must
take into account any potential effects on facility operations.
Modern no-touch disinfection (NTD) technologies continue to reduce the
multitude of challenges that accompany manual cleaning and disinfection. NTD
technologies cannot, however, replace routine cleaning procedures; instead,
they are best used in terminal or discharge cleaning to reduce staff workload
and limit their contact with reservoirs of infection (Otter, Yezli, & French, 2014).
Every NTD system differs in its mechanics, efficiency, effectiveness, and
usability. Some are designed to target only easily visible surfaces in a single
operation and may need to be run more than once. This can affect turnover
time, which has cost implications for the system. As such, cleaning tools and
strategies should be based on a mindful consideration of the available evidence,
proposed applications, cost implications, staff training requirements, and
equipment logistics. Table 3 summarizes some increasingly used cleaning
technologies and their impact on healthcare surfaces.
NTD technologies Impact on surfaces
Steam vapor Minimal research exists on the effects of steam vapor, but it has been used in routine and outbreak situations.
Oxidizing agents (e.g., ozone)
Dancer (2014) has summarized the findings of studies in which ozone was successfully incorporated into laundry decontamination, reducing the E. coli count.
There is not yet any evidence on ozone’s impact on surfaces carrying bacterial and fungal spores.
11
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
Another mechanism used to reduce contamination is introducing antimicrobial
agents (heavy metals or germicides) to render a surface “self-disinfecting” or
“self-sanitizing.” In theory, treated surfaces have the potential to reduce HAIs
(Butler, 2018; McQueen & Ehnes, 2018), but several variables—including
coating or impregnation fabrication techniques, surface characteristics,
pathogen characteristics, and environmental conditions—can affect the results.
What with the ongoing prevalence of HAIs and a growing movement for
antimicrobial stewardship to minimize the development of antimicrobial
resistance (Doron & Davidson, 2011; Turner, 2017), there has been an
increasing interest in surfaces or textiles impregnated or coated with heavy
metals like silver, silver ions, copper, etc. Copper alloys and surfaces containing
copper oxide are growing in popularity due to their potential to reduce
microorganisms in the environment (Barnes, 2017; Casey et al., 2010; Michels &
Michels, 2017; Salgado et al., 2013). Though antimicrobial copper and silver are
both EPA-registered, and research on surface treatments with these two metals
continues to gain ground (Weber & Rutala, 2013b), other metals like titanium
are currently under examination (Villapún et al., 2016; Wojcieszak et al., 2016).
Table 4 summarizes the current evidence from multiple studies on the impact of
these strategies on different surfaces.
Hydrogen peroxide (HP) vapor/aerosol
Hydrogen peroxide vapors and aerosols have been designed in various concentrations for low-level and high-level disinfection of semi-critical surfaces in healthcare settings.
HP is found to be effective on a range of surfaces, including glass, plastics, and ceramic tiles (Bentley et al., 2012).
Vapor systems have demonstrated increased efficacy, shorter duration cycles, and more equal distribution as compared with aerosolized hydrogen peroxide (Boyce, 2016).
Though UV systems have a faster turnaround, HP vapor is considered to be better overall (Dancer, 2014).
UV-C/pulsed xenon light The advantages of UV-C technology include microbicidal activity against a wide range of healthcare-associated pathogens (e.g., C. diff) on both hard surfaces (Leas et al., 2015) and textiles (Bentley et al., 2016; Smolle et al., 2018).
UV-C technologies have proven more efficient in decontamination compared with hydrogen peroxide systems (Leas et al., 2015).
The location of the device and the reflectivity of surfaces around the room affected the extent of decontamination and treatment times (Tande, Carson, Rutala, & Guerrero, 2014).
UV-C light used in conjunction with a UV-reflective wall coating reduced decontamination times from ∼25 minutes to ∼3 minutes for MRSA and from ∼43 minutes to ∼9 minutes for C. diff spores (Leas et al., 2015).
Some limitations of this technology include high costs and the need for the room to be vacated and cleaned prior to terminal disinfection (Leas et al., 2015).
12
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
It is a common practice to coat or impregnate surfaces with germicides like
quaternary ammonium compounds, triclosan, or N-Halamines. One relevant
concern, however, is that pathogens might develop resistance to these
Strategy Commonly includes Impact on surfaces
Self-disinfecting surfaces
Surfaces coated or impregnated with heavy metal
Silver
Silver has demonstrated a broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity against bacteria, fungi, and viruses. There have been positive results from the use of silver on medical devices and textile fibers (e.g., uniforms and privacy curtains) (Hicks et al., 2016; Monteiro et al., 2009; Ortí-Lucas & Muñoz-Miguel, 2017).
It has been suggested that the impregnation of silver into a coating can be more effective than direct surface coating alone.
Copper
Door knobs impregnated with copper have shown high corrosion resistance. However, actual hand contact has shown high corrosion rates and discoloration (Fredj, Kolar, Prichard, & Burleigh, 2013).
Antimicrobial copper objects were found to reduce microbial burden in a PICU study by Schmidt et al. (2016), but McQueen & Ehnes (2018) expressed concerns about the effects of introducing NTDs in settings with antimicrobial metal surfaces.
Bacterial contamination on standard curtains and complex element compound curtains (i.e., curtains treated with antimicrobial agents like silver) did not differ after 10 days following installation. Research suggests that cleaning and abrasion may render the metal less effective over time, requiring regular replacement (Schweizer et al., 2012).
Copper-oxide-impregnated non-biocidal linens and pillow covers reduced the number of HAIs in a long-term care brain injury ward (Lazary et al., 2014).
8 types of high-touch items made of copper alloys (e.g., door handles, toilet seats, grab rails, light switches, overbed tables, commodes) had significantly lower microbial counts compared with those made of standard materials (Karpanen et al., 2012).
Surfaces coated or impregnated with germicide
Triclosan, while demonstrating antibacterial efficacy in synthetic polymers (Greenhalgh & Walker, 2017), has recently come under scrutiny as a possible environmental and human health hazard (Dancer, 2014).
Paints with quaternary ammonium compounds have been used to coat textiles, but seem to wear off with continued washing and show no activity against certain pathogens (Schettler, 2016). Quaternary ammonium molecules, combined with organosilanes (silicon chemicals), show conflicting results when applied to textiles or hard surfaces (Boyce, 2016).
High-touch surfaces in patient rooms showed no significant antimicrobial activity after applying two organosilane products (Boyce, Havill, Guercia, Schweon, & Moore, 2014).
A reduction in bacteria and antibiotic-resistant pathogens was found on ICU surfaces coated with similar antimicrobial agents (Tamimi, Carlino, & Gerba, 2014).
N-Halamine is another promising broad-spectrum biocide currently being incorporated into textiles and hard surfaces. To date, most testing has been done in laboratories rather than healthcare settings (2017). However, the treated textiles have been found to leave chlorine residue on the surface, resulting in stains and odors (McQueen & Ehnes, 2018; Schettler, 2016).
Advanced technologies
Light-activated microbial surfaces
There have been no conclusive findings about the efficacy of this technique on surface finishes (Wang et al., 2017).
Altered topography It is assumed that this technology can be retrofitted to practically any surface in the environment; however, data from real-world applications is not currently available.
13
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
treatments. Triclosan has also come under scrutiny as a potential environmental
and human health hazard (Dancer, 2014). It is one of the 15 chemical
treatments banned by Kaiser Permanente (2015), a list that includes a range of
applications such as adhesives; ceilings; wood and wood composites;
engineered wood and resilient flooring; floor sealants, coatings, and finishes;
high-performance coatings; natural oil wood finishes; toilet seats; carpet and
carpet backing; acoustical ceiling components; paint; and high-performance
coatings:
Benzisothiazolin-3-one (BIT)
4,4-dimethyloxazolidine
Diiodomethyl p-tolyl sulfone
Kathon 886 (CIT/MIT mixture)
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (CIT, CMIT)
Methylisothiazolinone (MIT)
N-octadecyldimethyl [3-(trimethoxysilyl) propyl]
Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl-C8-16-alkyldimethyl,
chlorides
Silver sodium hydrogen zirconium phosphate
Zinc pyrithione
Silver (nano)
Silver zinc zeolites
Hexamethylenetetramines.
Research into self-disinfecting surfaces has included investigation of reactive
radicals: light-activated antimicrobial agents such as surface coatings with
titanium-dioxide-based catalyst or an embedded photosensitizer (Dancer,
2014). This approach aims at multiple targets within the microbe instead of just
one, reducing the chance that antimicrobial resistance will develop (Wilson,
2003). According to Wilson, these applications are best suited for spaces with
higher illumination levels (e.g., treatment areas with exam lights, operating
rooms).
Another novel approach to prevent and reduce biofilm formation is engineered
altered topography (Leas et al., 2015; Weber, Anderson, & Rutala, 2013). This
14
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
approach incorporates a surface that is harder for microbes to attach to, a bio-
inspired concept born from the ability of plants and animals to prevent
pathogen colonization on their own surfaces (Glinel, Thebault, Humblot,
Pradier, & Jouenne, 2012). A similar technique known as “antifouling” has been
used in the marine industry to prevent the settlement of microorganisms on
ship hulls. One related product currently being promoted in the healthcare
industry is an engineered micro-pattern imparted onto the microstructure of
the surface to mimic the properties of shark skin (Leas et al., 2015; Platt &
Greene, 2017; Weber et al., 2013). More research is necessary to weigh the
pros and cons of each of these strategies.
A search of healthcare research in 2017 revealed that copper, silver, and
organosilanes were the most commonly studied metal-based antimicrobial
surfaces (Ahonen et al., 2017). However, a lack of conclusive evidence suggests
that more research on antimicrobial treatment of fabrics and surfaces is
required once related cleaning methodologies can be simplified and
standardized (Greenhalgh & Walker, 2017; Malone & Dellinger, 2011).
It is important to note that one surface selection or treatment does not
eliminate the need for other infection prevention practices. For example, the
EPA has established the following standards for labeling bactericidal copper:
“Antimicrobial copper containing surface products must be cleaned and
disinfected according to standard practice. Health care facilities must maintain
the product in accordance with infection control guidelines; users must
continue to follow all current infection control practices, including those
practices related to disinfection of environmental surfaces. This copper surface
material has been shown to reduce microbial contamination, but does not
necessarily prevent cross contamination. This product must not be waxed,
painted, lacquered, varnished, or otherwise coated by any material” (EPA,
2016).
There are many factors to consider in tackling HAIs via contact transmission:
surface materials and fabrics, cleaning and disinfection solutions, environmental
design, affordable and applicable technologies, staff operations and workflow,
and the available research. This means an interdisciplinary approach is the best
15
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
way forward. The design team should include experts in infection prevention
from diverse backgrounds such as medicine, microbiology, interior design,
engineering, and facility management, so that each member can contribute their
specialized knowledge to the design process (see the Tool for Engaging
Interdisciplinary Teams for more information). The broad range of insights a
multidisciplinary team can offer will be crucial in developing a systems approach
that examines infection control at the intersection of
organizational/operational factors, people and behaviors, and the physical
environment (Figure 4).
16
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
The conditions leading to HAIs can develop when particular pathogens interact
in particular ways with particular surfaces. The FGI Guidelines require that an
infection control risk assessment (ICRA) is conducted throughout the design
process, including an examination of all surfaces in patient care areas that
facilitate cleaning and disinfection (Facility Guidelines Institute, 2018). A wide
range of products related to surface materials and fabrics, cleaning strategies,
and disinfection technologies is available in the marketplace. The Guidelines
also provide fundamental requirements for the selection of surfaces (e.g.,
monolithic flooring) for specific areas of the healthcare setting (e.g., surgery)
depending on their individual needs (e.g., the ability to withstand chemical
cleaning or scrubbing).
Moreover, there is a need to bridge the gap between existing regulations,
expectations, and practices, and our ever-evolving understanding of the
epidemiology of infections. It is only by overcoming these obstacles—a limited
empirical knowledge of the available products and cleaning methods, the
challenges faced by EVS personnel, and shortfalls in organizational infection
control policies—that we can work toward better outcomes, from patient and
staff safety to overall quality of care (Storr, Wigglesworth, & Kilpatrick, 2013).
For more information on the pros and cons of existing cleaning strategies, refer
to the Tool for Selection of Cleaning Methods. The Top Design Strategies can
help start the discussion and provide guidance throughout the decision-making
process.
For more information on HAIs, refer to Contact Transmission, Part 1: The Role
of Surfaces in HAIs.
The Center for Health Design:
Moving Healthcare Forward
The Center for Health Design
advances best practices and
empowers healthcare leaders
with quality research providing
the value of design in improving
patient and performance
outcomes in healthcare facility
planning, design, and
construction, optimizing the
healthcare experience and
contributing to superior patient,
staff, and performance outcomes.
Learn more at
www.healthdesign.org
17
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
Ahonen, M., Kahru, A., Ivask, A., Kasemets, K., Kõljalg, S., Mantecca, P., … Crijns, F. (2017). Proactive Approach for Safe
Use of Antimicrobial Coatings in Healthcare Settings: Opinion of the COST Action Network AMiCI. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040366
Ali, S., Moore, G., & Wilson, A. P. R. (2012). Effect of surface coating and finish upon the cleanability of bed rails and the
spread of Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Hospital Infection, 80(3), 192–198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2011.12.005
Barnes, S. (2017, February 13). Antimicrobial Surfaces as a Tool to Support HAI Prevention. Infection Control Today.
Retrieved from https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/environmental-hygiene/antimicrobial-surfaces-tool-
support-hai-prevention
Bentley, J. J., Santoro, D., Gram, D. W., Dujowich, M., & Marsella, R. (2016). Can ultraviolet light C decrease the
environmental burden of antimicrobial-resistant and -sensitive bacteria on textiles? Veterinary Dermatology, 27(6),
457-e121. https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.12377
Bentley, K., Dove, B. K., Parks, S. R., Walker, J. T., & Bennett, A. M. (2012). Hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination of
surfaces artificially contaminated with norovirus surrogate feline calicivirus. The Journal of Hospital Infection, 80(2),
116–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2011.10.010
Bockmühl, D. P. (2017). Laundry hygiene—how to get more than clean. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 122(5), 1124–
1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13402
Boyce, J. M. (2016). Modern technologies for improving cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces in hospitals.
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, 5(10), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-016-0111-x
Boyce, J. M., Havill, N. L., Guercia, K. A., Schweon, S. J., & Moore, B. A. (2014). Evaluation of two organosilane products for
sustained antimicrobial activity on high-touch surfaces in patient rooms. American Journal of Infection Control,
42(3), 326–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2013.09.009
Butler, J. P. (2018). Effect of copper-impregnated composite bed linens and patient gowns on healthcare-associated
infection rates in six hospitals. Journal of Hospital Infection. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2018.05.013
Cadnum, J. L., Hurless, K. N., Kundrapu, S., & Donskey, C. J. (2013). Transfer of Clostridium difficile Spores by
Nonsporicidal Wipes and Improperly Used Hypochlorite Wipes Practice + Product = Perfection. Infection Control &
Hospital Epidemiology, 34(4), 441–442. https://doi.org/10.1086/669871
18
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
Cadnum, J. L., Mana, T. S. C., Jencson, A., Thota, P., Kundrapu, S., & Donskey, C. J. (2015). Effectiveness of a hydrogen
peroxide spray for decontamination of soft surfaces in hospitals. American Journal of Infection Control, 43(12),
1357–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.07.016
Campoccia, D., Montanaro, L., & Arciola, C. R. (2013). A review of the biomaterials technologies for infection-resistant
surfaces. Biomaterials, 34(34), 8533–8554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.07.089
Carling, P. C., Parry, M. M., Rupp, M. E., Po, J. L., Dick, B., Von Beheren, S., & Group, H. E. H. S. (2008). Improving Cleaning of
the Environment Surrounding Patients in 36 Acute Care Hospitals. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology,
29(11), 1035–1041. https://doi.org/10.1086/591940
Casey, A. L., Adams, D., Karpanen, T. J., Lambert, P. A., Cookson, B. D., Nightingale, P., … Elliott, T. S. J. (2010). Role of
copper in reducing hospital environment contamination. Journal of Hospital Infection, 74(1), 72–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2009.08.018
Dancer, S. J. (2014). Controlling Hospital-Acquired Infection: Focus on the Role of the Environment and New
Technologies for Decontamination. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 27(4), 665–690.
https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00020-14
Dancer, S. J. (2016). Dos and don’ts for hospital cleaning: Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 29(4), 415–423.
https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0000000000000289
Decuzzi, P., & Ferrari, M. (2010). Modulating cellular adhesion through nanotopography. Biomaterials, 31(1), 173–179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.018
Detry, J. G., Sindic, M., & Deroanne, C. (2010). Hygiene and Cleanability: A Focus on Surfaces. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition, 50(7), 583–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390802565913
Dettenkofer, M., & Block, C. (2005). Hospital disinfection: efficacy and safety issues. Current Opinion in Infectious
Diseases, 18(4), 320. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.qco.0000172701.75278.60
Dong, A., Wang, Y.-J., Gao, Y., Gao, T., & Gao, G. (2017). Chemical Insights into Antibacterial N-Halamines. Chemical
Reviews, 117(6), 4806–4862. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00687
Doron, S., & Davidson, L. E. (2011). Antimicrobial Stewardship. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 86(11), 1113–1123.
https://doi.org/10.4065/mcp.2011.0358
Edwards, K. J., & Rutenberg, A. D. (2001). Microbial response to surface microtopography: the role of metabolism in
localized mineral dissolution. Chemical Geology, 180(1–4), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2541(01)00303-5
EPA, O. (2016). Updated Draft Protocol for the Evaluation of Bactericidal Activity of Hard, Non-porous Copper
Containing Surface Products [Policies and Guidance]. Retrieved from US EPA website:
19
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/updated-draft-protocol-evaluation-bactericidal-activity-hard-non-
porous
Esolen, L. M., Thakur, L., Layon, A. J., Fuller, T. A., Harrington, D.-J., Jha, K., & Kariyawasam, S. (2018). The efficacy of self-
disinfecting bedrail covers in an intensive care unit. American Journal of Infection Control, 46(4), 417–419.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2017.09.026
Facility Guidelines Institute. (2018). FGI Guidelines for Design and Construction of Hospitals. St. Louis, MO: FGI.
Fijan, S., & Turk, S. Š. (2012). Hospital Textiles, Are They a Possible Vehicle for Healthcare-Associated Infections?
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(9), 3330–3343.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9093330
Fredj, N., Kolar, J. S., Prichard, D. M., & Burleigh, T. D. (2013). Study of relative color stability and corrosion resistance of
commercial copper alloys exposed to hand contact and synthetic hand sweat. Corrosion Science, 76, 415–423.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2013.07.015
Glinel, K., Thebault, P., Humblot, V., Pradier, C. M., & Jouenne, T. (2012). Antibacterial surfaces developed from bio-
inspired approaches. Acta Biomaterialia, 8(5), 1670–1684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2012.01.011
Greenhalgh, R., & Walker, J. T. (2017). Antimicrobial strategies for polymeric hygienic surfaces in healthcare.
International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 125(Supplement C), 214–227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2017.09.009
Hicks, A. L., Reed, R. B., Theis, T. L., Hanigan, D., Huling, H., Zaikova, T., … Miller, J. (2016). Environmental impacts of
reusable nanoscale silver-coated hospital gowns compared to single-use, disposable gowns. Environmental Science:
Nano, 3(5), 1124–1132. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EN00168H
Huslage, K., Rutala, W. A., Sickbert-Bennett, E., & Weber, D. J. (2010). A Quantitative Approach to Defining “High-Touch”
Surfaces in Hospitals. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 31(08), 850–853. https://doi.org/10.1086/655016
Kaiser Permanente. (2015, December). Kaiser Permanente Rejects Antimicrobials for Infection Control. Retrieved
September 20, 2018, from Kaiser Permanente Press Release website:
https://share.kaiserpermanente.org/article/kaiser-permanente-rejects-antimicrobials-for-infection-control/
Karpanen, T. J., Casey, A. L., Lambert, P. A., Cookson, B. D., Nightingale, P., Miruszenko, L., & Elliott, T. S. J. (2012). The
antimicrobial efficacy of copper alloy furnishing in the clinical environment: a crossover study. Infection Control and
Hospital Epidemiology, 33(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1086/663644
20
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
Kronberg, T., Ritschkoff, A.-C., Mahlberg, R., Mannila, J., Kallio, M., Vesa, A., & Hupa, L. (2007). Soil-resistant surfaces for
traditional ceramics. Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 27(2), 1775–1780.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2006.05.071
Kukla, C. (2013). A New Frontier: The Dangers of Pathogens on Soft Surfaces. Infection Control Today. Retrieved from
https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/environmental-hygiene/new-frontier-dangers-pathogens-soft-surfaces
Lankford, M. G., Collins, S., Youngberg, L., Rooney, D. M., Warren, J. R., & Noskin, G. A. (2007). Limiting the Spread of
Infection in Health Care Environments (p. 40). Retrieved from The Center for Health Design website:
http://www.healthdesign.org/research/reports/limiting_infections.php
Lazary, A., Weinberg, I., Vatine, J.-J., Jefidoff, A., Bardenstein, R., Borkow, G., & Ohana, N. (2014). Reduction of healthcare-
associated infections in a long-term care brain injury ward by replacing regular linens with biocidal copper oxide
impregnated linens. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 24, 23–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2014.01.022
Leas, B. F., Sullivan, N., Han, J. H., Pegues, D. A., Kaczmarek, J. L., & Umscheid, C. A. (2015). Environmental Cleaning for the
Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK316174/
Malik, Y. S., Allwood, P. B., Hedberg, C. W., & Goyal, S. M. (2006). Disinfection of fabrics and carpets artificially
contaminated with calicivirus: relevance in institutional and healthcare centres. Journal of Hospital Infection, 63(2),
205–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2006.01.013
Malone, E. B., & Dellinger, B. A. (2011). Furniture Design Features and Healthcare Outcomes (p. 73). Concord, CA: Center
for Health Design.
McQueen, R. H., & Ehnes, B. L. (2018). Antimicrobial textiles and infection prevention - Clothes and inanimate
environment. In G. Bearman, S. Munoz-Price, D. Morgan, & R. Murthy (Eds.), New Perspectives and Controversies in
Infection Prevention (p. in press). Springer International Publishing.
Meakin, N. S., Bowman, C., Lewis, M. R., & Dancer, S. J. (2012). Comparison of cleaning efficacy between in-use
disinfectant and electrolysed water in an English residential care home. Journal of Hospital Infection, 80(2), 122–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2011.10.015
Michels, & Michels, C. (2017). Potential of copper alloys to kill bacteria and reduce hospital infection rates. Internal
Medicine Review. Retrieved from http://www.internalmedicinereview.org/index.php/imr/article/view/363/pdf
Mitchell, A., Spencer, M., & Edmiston, C. (2015). Role of healthcare apparel and other healthcare textiles in the
transmission of pathogens: a review of the literature. Journal of Hospital Infection, 90(4), 285–292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2015.02.017
21
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
Monteiro, D. R., Gorup, L. F., Takamiya, A. S., Ruvollo-Filho, A. C., Camargo, E. R. de, & Barbosa, D. B. (2009). The growing
importance of materials that prevent microbial adhesion: antimicrobial effect of medical devices containing silver.
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 34(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2009.01.017
Noskin, G. A., Bednarz, P., Suriano, T., Reiner, S., & Peterson, L. (2000). Persistent contamination of fabric-covered
furniture by Vancomycin-resistant Enterocci: Implication for Upholstery Selection in Hospitals. American Journal of
Infection Control, 28(4), 311–313.
Ortí-Lucas, R. M., & Muñoz-Miguel, J. (2017). Effectiveness of surface coatings containing silver ions in bacterial
decontamination in a recovery unit. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, 6, 61.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-017-0217-9
Otter, J. A., Yezli, S., & French, G. L. (2014). The Role of Contaminated Surfaces in the Transmission of Nosocomial
Pathogens. In Use of Biocidal Surfaces for Reduction of Healthcare Acquired Infections (pp. 27–58).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08057-4_3
Pyrek, K. (2013). Soft-surface contamination in the patient-care environment and antimicrobial textiles. Infection Control
Today.
Querido, M. M., Aguiar, L., Neves, P., Pereira, C. C., & Teixeira, J. P. (2019). Self-Disinfecting Surfaces and Infection
Control. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2019.02.009
Quinn, M. M., & Henneberger, P. K. (2015). Cleaning and disinfecting environmental surfaces in health care: Toward an
integrated framework for infection and occupational illness prevention. American Journal of Infection Control, 43(5),
424–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.01.029
Rogina-Car, B., Budimir, A., & Katovic, D. (2017). Microbial barrier properties of healthcare professional uniforms. Textile
Research Journal; Princeton, 87(15), 1860–1868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0040517516659383
Rutala, W. A. (2008). Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities. 161.
Rutala, W. A., Gergen, M. F., & Weber, D. J. (2012). Efficacy of Improved Hydrogen Peroxide against Important
Healthcare-Associated Pathogens. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 33(11), 1159–1161.
https://doi.org/10.1086/668014
Salgado, C. D., Sepkowitz, K. A., John, J. F., Cantey, J. R., Attaway, H. H., Freeman, K. D., … Schmidt, M. G. (2013). Copper
Surfaces Reduce the Rate of Healthcare-Acquired Infections in the Intensive Care Unit. Infection Control & Hospital
Epidemiology, 34(05), 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1086/670207
22
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
Sattar, S. A. (2010). Promises and pitfalls of recent advances in chemical means of preventing the spread of nosocomial
infections by environmental surfaces. American Journal of Infection Control, 38(5, Supplement), S34–S40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2010.04.207
Sattar, S. A., & Maillard, J.-Y. (2013). The crucial role of wiping in decontamination of high-touch environmental surfaces:
Review of current status and directions for the future. American Journal of Infection Control, 41(5, Supplement),
S97–S104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.10.032
Schettler, T. (2016). Antimicrobials in Hospital Furnishings: Do They Help Reduce Healthcare-Associated Infections?
Retrieved from Health Care Without Harm website: https://noharm-uscanada.org/sites/default/files/documents-
files/3854/Antimicrobials%20Report%202016_1.pdf
Schmidt, M. G., von Dessauer, B., Benavente, C., Benadof, D., Cifuentes, P., Elgueta, A., … Navarrete, M. S. (2016). Copper
surfaces are associated with significantly lower concentrations of bacteria on selected surfaces within a pediatric
intensive care unit. American Journal of Infection Control, 44, 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.09.008
Sehulster, L. M., Chinn, R. Y. W., Arduino, M. J., Carpenter, J., Donlan, R., Besser, R., … Cleveland, J. (2004). Guidelines for
environmental infection control in health-care facilities. Recommendations from CDC and the Healthcare Infection
Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Retrieved from American Society for Healthcare
Engineering/American Hospital Association website: http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/eic_in_hcf_03.pdf
Smolle, C., Huss, F., Lindblad, M., Reischies, F., & Tano, E. (2018). Effectiveness of automated ultraviolet-C light for
decontamination of textiles inoculated with Enterococcus faecium. Journal of Hospital Infection, 98(1), 102–104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2017.07.034
Solomon, S. L., Plisko, J. D., Wittig, S. M., Edwards, L. V., Imhoff, R. H., DiPietro, B., & Plisko, M. J. (2018). Reducing
environmental surface contamination in healthcare settings: A statewide collaborative. American Journal of Infection
Control, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.03.016
Storr, J., Wigglesworth, N., & Kilpatrick, C. (2013). Integrating human factors with infection prevention and control.
Tamimi, A. H., Carlino, S., & Gerba, C. P. (2014). Long-term efficacy of a self-disinfecting coating in an intensive care unit.
American Journal of Infection Control, 42(11), 1178–1181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2014.07.005
Tande, B. M., Carson, P., Rutala, W., & Guerrero, D. M. (2014). Designing Healthcare Facilities to Maximize the
Effectiveness of UV Disinfection. American Journal of Infection Control, 42(6), S42–S43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2014.03.112
Turner, R. J. (2017). Metal‐based antimicrobial strategies. Microbial Biotechnology, 10(5), 1062–1065.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12785
23
Copyright 2019 © The Center for Health Design. All Rights Reserved.
An Issue Brief on Infection Control
Verran, J., Packer, A., Kelly, P., & Whitehead, K. A. (2009). The retention of bacteria on hygienic surfaces presenting
scratches of microbial dimensions. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 50(3), 258–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-
765X.2009.02784.x
Villapún, V. M., Dover, L. G., Cross, A., & González, S. (2016). Antibacterial Metallic Touch Surfaces. Materials, 9(9).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9090736
Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Murray, C. K., Hamblin, M. R., Hooper, D. C., & Dai, T. (2017). Antimicrobial blue light
inactivation of pathogenic microbes: State of the art. Drug Resistance Updates, 33–35(Supplement C), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drup.2017.10.002
Weber, D. J., Anderson, D., & Rutala, W. A. (2013). The role of the surface environment in healthcare-associated
infections: Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 26(4), 338–344.
https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0b013e3283630f04
Weber, D. J., & Rutala, W. A. (2013a). Self-disinfecting surfaces: Review of current methodologies and future prospects.
American Journal of Infection Control, 41(5, Supplement), S31–S35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.12.005
Weber, D. J., & Rutala, W. A. (2013b). Understanding and Preventing Transmission of Healthcare-Associated Pathogens
Due to the Contaminated Hospital Environment. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 34(5), 449–452.
https://doi.org/10.1086/670223
Wilson, M. (2003). Light-activated antimicrobial coating for the continuous disinfection of surfaces. Infection Control and
Hospital Epidemiology, 24(10), 782–784. https://doi.org/10.1086/502136
Wojcieszak, D., Mazur, M., Kaczmarek, D., Mazur, P., Szponar, B., Domaradzki, J., & Kepinski, L. (2016). Influence of the
surface properties on bactericidal and fungicidal activity of magnetron sputtered Ti–Ag and Nb–Ag thin films.
Materials Science and Engineering: C, 62, 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.01.029
Yeargin, T., Buckley, D., Fraser, A., & Jiang, X. (2016). The survival and inactivation of enteric viruses on soft surfaces: A
systematic review of the literature. American Journal of Infection Control, 44(11), 1365–1373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2016.03.018