Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T02:25:37.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Effect of Ultraviolet Light on Clostridium difficile Spore Recovery Versus Bleach Alone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2017

Christina Liscynesky*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Lisa P. Hines
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Justin Smyer
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Megan Hanrahan
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Services, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Robert C. Orellana
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio Division of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Julie E. Mangino
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Department of Clinical Epidemiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
*
Address correspondence to Christina Liscynesky, MD, N1147 Doan Hall, 410 West 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201 (Christina.Liscynesky@osumc.edu).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Research Briefs
Copyright
© 2017 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

In 2014, 101,074 cases of hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infections were reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) by acute-care hospitals. 1 Environmental contamination is a risk factor for hospital-onset C. difficile.Reference Weber, Anderson, Sexton and Rutala 2 Ways to decrease environmental contamination include frequent hand hygiene and adequate environmental cleaning with sporicidal agentsReference Goldstein, Johnson and Maziade 3 ; however, both methods are subject to human error. Clostridium difficile spores can persist in hospital environments for up to 5 months.Reference Hota 4 In multiple studies, an additional step of no-touch disinfection using ultraviolet light at 254 nanometers (UV-C) has eradicated C. difficile spores in hospital environments.Reference Nerandzic, Thota and Sankar 5 , Reference Boyce, Farrel, Towle, Fekieta and Aniskiewicz 6

Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of manual cleaning and subsequent UV-C treatment on inpatient hospital room surfaces of patients with confirmed C. difficile infections (CDIs). We measured colony-forming units (CFUs) of C. difficile on high-touch surfaces.

The Surfacide system (Waukesha, WI) produces UV-C light and is composed of 3 towers that work together or individually. The towers are placed around the bed in a triangle to focus on high-touch surfaces and to minimize shadowing. This system utilizes a laser to measure the space and calculate the required disinfection cycle time using a prespecified algorithm while rotating 360°. The system is equipped with a motion sensor to trigger a machine shut down to protect patients and staff. At our 308-bed comprehensive cancer center, we have trained staff to operate the emitters.

Our study focused on patient rooms of occupants with confirmed CDI via positive toxin B gene (tcdB) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing results. These patients are placed in enteric contact isolation, which mandates daily room cleaning with bleach and daily bathroom UV-C disinfection, but the latter does not necessarily occur immediately after manual cleaning. One emitter is used in the bathroom with the door closed, while the patient may be present in the room. Upon discharge, the bathroom and room are terminally cleaned with bleach and are immediately disinfected with UV-C. One emitter typically runs for 10 minutes in a bathroom, then the 3 emitters run for 45 minutes in the patient room.

After bleach cleaning, prior to UV-C disinfection, 2–3 high-touch surfaces were sampled by vigorously swabbing the right side of each high-touch surface with a urethane sponge (4 cm×3.5 cm) moistened with neutralizing buffer (World Bioproducts EZ-10NB PUR). After UV-C disinfection, the same site was sampled, but on the left side of each high-touch surface. The 9 sample sites included over-bed table, toilet seat, computer keyboard, bathroom doorknob, bathroom faucet handles, bed side rails, bedside commode, recliner chair table, and call light (Table 1). Each swab was placed in a sterile bag, and 9.9 mL of 0.1% peptone buffer was added to each bag in the lab. The sponge was mechanically stomached to release recovered microorganisms into the buffer. Samples were dilution plated onto liver veal agar plates and incubated anaerobically at 37°C for 2 days. Sample cutoffs are reported as <10 CFUs as the lower limit of detection, meaning 9 to 0 colonies on the plate. Results are not reported between 0 and 9 CFUs due to addition of buffer, which releases organisms from swabs and dilutes the sample. Descriptive statistics for surfaces sampled prior to UV-C implementation were calculated using a dichotomous outcome of 10 CFUs. An overall comparison of UV-C treatment by ≥10 CFUs and <10 CFUs was assessed using the Fisher exact test. All statistical procedures were performed in SAS version 9.3 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Values were considered significant at P<.05.

TABLE 1 Clostridium difficile Culture Results: Effectiveness of Manual Cleaning Versus UV-C

NOTE. CFU, colony-forming units; UV-C, ultraviolet light at 254 nanometers.

Over 4 months, 476 sites were cultured: 186 were in bathrooms and 290 were in the patient rooms. Overall, prior to UV-C treatment, 32 of 238 (13%) were positive after bleach cleaning for C. difficile at ≥10 CFU. In the bathrooms, 5 of 88 high-touch surfaces (6%) were C. difficile positive; in the patient rooms, 27 of 118 high-touch surfaces (23%) were C. difficile positive, respectively. The toilet seat and the over-bed table were the 2 most commonly positive sites (Table 1).

Among all sites, after UV-C treatment, only 1 of 238 high-touch surfaces (0.4%) was positive: 1 computer keyboard had 10 CFUs. We observed a statistically significant decrease in the detection of CFU following UV-C treatment (odds ratio [OR], 0.027; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0006–0.1664; P<.0001). The hospital-onset C. difficile cases decreased to 11.4 per 10,000 patient days from 12.9 for the same period the prior year (during which UV-C had not yet been utilized).

In rooms of patients with confirmed CDI, UV-C treatment significantly reduced the amount of C. difficile spores present on the surfaces tested. Manual bleach cleaning alone resulted in residual spores in 13% of high-touch-surface cultures. These cultures were obtained as part of daily routine cleaning without the knowledge of Environmental Services workers. The performance of our cleaning staff is regularly evaluated by VeriClean blacklight audits, another objective evaluation tool demonstrating areas potentially missed by the cleaning staff. The average pass rate was 90.8% during the study period. Data recently published by Wong et alReference Wong, Woznow and Petrie 7 are consistent with our findings; they reported that 5 of 22 rooms (22%) were positive for C. difficile after terminal cleaning.Reference Wong, Woznow and Petrie 7 The hospital-onset C. difficile rate decreased as well, even without 100% compliance of UV-C treatment of discharge enteric contact isolation rooms.

In patient rooms of those with confirmed CDI, adding UV-C treatment to daily bathroom and terminal discharge cleaning reduces the amount of C. difficile spores present on frequently contaminated surfaces. UV-C disinfection represents an additional measure for room cleaning to avoid inadvertent transfer of C. difficile spores to hands or other surfaces.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Walters Arrey and Denise Webb for their help in successful implementation of UV-C disinfection.

Financial support: The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center provided the funds for the Clostridium difficile cultures.

Potential conflicts of interest: All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

REFERENCES

1. National and state healthcare-associated infections progress report (updated March 2016). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/datastat/. Updated September 27, 2016. Accessed November 18, 2016.Google Scholar
2. Weber, DJ, Anderson, DJ, Sexton, DJ, Rutala, WA. Role of the environment in the transmission of Clostridium difficile in healthcare facilities. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:S105S110.Google Scholar
3. Goldstein, EJC, Johnson, S, Maziade, P-J, et al. Pathway to prevention of nosocomial Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 2015;60:S148S158.Google Scholar
4. Hota, B. Contamination, disinfection, and cross-colonization: are hospital surfaces reservoirs for nosocomial infection? Clin Infect Dis 2004;39:11821189.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Nerandzic, MM, Thota, P, Sankar, CT, et al. Evaluation of a pulsed xenon ultraviolet disinfection syst. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:192197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Boyce, JM, Farrel, PA, Towle, D, Fekieta, R, Aniskiewicz, M. Impact of room location on UV-C irradiance and UV-C dosage and antimicrobial effect delivered by a mobile UV-C light device. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:667672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Wong, T, Woznow, T, Petrie, M, et al. Postdischarge decontamination of MRSA, VRE, and Clostridium difficile isolation rooms using 2 commercially available automated ultraviolet-C–emitting devices. Am J Infect Control 2016;44:416420.Google Scholar
Figure 0

TABLE 1 Clostridium difficile Culture Results: Effectiveness of Manual Cleaning Versus UV-C