This clearly shows that alcohol-based hand-washing, when used regularly and vigorously (e.g. prior to any healthcare procedure by any level of personnel), infection will be reduced.
The Saudi study was a bit more detailed, with protocols varying depending on severity of procedure (surgery, etc.) and the administering of prophylactic antibiotics as part of the regular treatment procedure. Statistical analysis of the samples showed no significant differences between the Betadine Group and the Alcohol-Based Gel Group. However, the total number of infections within both groups were quite small, 20 out of 600 subjects in the trial. This suggests that the conditions at the Saudi hospital were already more sterile, with less than 5% (3.33%) even developing infections; compared to 13.1% in Vietnam. In both cases, demographic differences between patients were not statistically significant in the protocol.
Combining the data from the two studies, however, results in two conclusions: 1) There is a robust...
Since there is no statistical difference, however, the ease of use and cost-factor of the alcohol-based gel suggests that it is the more appropriate venue, particularly for developing countries with smaller budgets. Additionally, east of use and convenience may psychologically spur healthcare workers to follow protocol more effectively (i.e. washing hands with gel at 30-50 seconds vs. scrubbing with Betadine for 3-5 minutes). Both studies suggest that hand-washing with Betadine type products is not more effective than the use of alcohol-based hand gels in the reduction of hospital acquired infections.
REFERENCES
Al-Naami, M.Y., et al., (2009). EWMA Journal. 9 (3): 5-10.
Nguyen, K., et al.,…
