A preliminary study on the use and effect of hand antiseptics in veterinary practice

Abstract

OBJECTIVESTo assess use and effect of hand antiseptics in veterinary clinical practice.MATERIALS AND METHODSVeterinary practice nurses were questioned concerning their use of hand antiseptics, in particular waterless hand rubs. Subsequent clinical trials assessed the effect of single applications of alcohol‐based and quaternary ammonium compound‐based hand rubs at reducing bacterial counts on the hands of theatre nurses in a neutering clinic.RESULTSThe majority of responding practices used waterless hand rubs (alcohol‐based, 67 · 5% and quaternary ammonium compound‐based, 9 · 5%) as their primary hand hygiene agent and believed them to be effective. 23% of practices favoured an antiseptic hand‐wash. In clinical trials, alcohol‐based rubs were potentially more effective at reducing bacterial counts than quaternary ammonium compound‐based rubs especially in the period immediately after application. However, over 3 hours there was no significant change between these and a control group. There were more adverse skin effects in the group using alcohol‐based than in the quaternary ammonium compound‐based and control groups. The bacterial counts after application were unaffected by variables such as the number of animals contacted.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCEThe studies provide useful baseline data for evaluation of efficacy of more frequent applications of the most common antiseptic hand rubs used in veterinary practice.