Introduction
Nosocomial or healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) continue to be a relevant problem in the modern healthcare system. In hospitals, patients and nurses are at immediate risk of HAIs exposure; hence, it is crucial to improve hygiene in medical facilities.
The PICOT question is the following: How effective are alcohol-based sanitizers (I) compared to alcohol-free sanitizers and washing (C) in preventing HAIs (O) among patients and nurses (P) during their stay in the hospitals (T)? The current paper argues that the implementation of alcohol-based sanitizers significantly reduces the risks of nosocomial infections and has both direct and indirect benefits for all relevant stakeholders.
Background of Studies
The two chosen research works are quantitative studies by Najdawi et al. (2022) and Chojnacki et al. (2021), which are relatively similar in their objectives and methodologies. The first study by Najdawi et al. (2022) examines the overall efficiency of alcohol-based and alcohol-free sanitizers in preventing HAIs on the example of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) strains. The research is significant since it reveals relevant information about the effectiveness of traditional and innovative hand sanitizers in moderating the most prominent strains that lead to nosocomial infections.
Consequently, the research by Chojnacki et al. (2021) examines a significantly more diverse sample of forty-six commercial hand sanitizers acquired from various sources (e.g., gas stations, shops, and pharmacies). The highly varied distribution of sanitizers allowed the authors to examine the crucial differences and propose an objective overview of their potential application in hospitals. Lastly, the research question of both quantitative studies concerns the evaluation of alcohol-based and alcohol-free hand sanitizers in preventing HAIs.
Relevance to the Topic
Both studies are relevant to the topic since they provide direct evidence for the formulated PICOT question. Namely, the research papers examine the most prominent strains (O) in the healthcare setting (T), compare alcohol-based and alcohol-free sanitizers (C), and prove the effectiveness of the intervention (I).
Concerning the population, the results of the studies could be applied to administered patients and nurses since all stakeholders are at risk of HAIs exposure during the hospital stay. Hence, the outcomes discussed in the two articles will be used to answer the PICOT question, emphasizing comparison and intervention groups since these categories are identical to the ones formulated in the thesis.
Method of Studies
The methodology of the two studies is relatively similar, implying that both papers examine the effectiveness of several hand sanitizers in reducing the density of prominent strains in the laboratory setting. The crucial differences include the sample size of hand sanitizers and the consequent method of statistical analysis.
The research by Chojnacki et al. (2021) utilized “standard spot plating and kill curve-based assays” (p. 11), while Najdawi et al. (2022) used ImageJ to examine the characteristics of agar plates. The benefit of the first methodology is the combination of plate assay testing and kill curve testing might reveal the varied effectiveness of hand sanitizers among distinct strains.
At the same time, the approach in the second work implies the improved accuracy of strain density estimation as they allow for more detailed digital pictures. One of the limitations of the first methodology is the random sample of hand sanitizers purchased from various stores, implying that the quality of the products might affect the results. The primary limitation of the second study is the artificial/lab setting. It means that the actual results in hospitals might differ from the experiments.
Results of Studies
The key finding of the study by Chojnacki et al. (2021) is that alcohol-based hand sanitizers, particularly 80% ethanol and 75% isopropyl, are highly effective in preventing HAIs. Moreover, these samples demonstrated a significantly higher antibacterial performance compared to other commercial products.
Najdawi et al. (2022) have also established the elevated effectiveness of alcohol-based sanitizers, but the authors noted that sanitizers with benzalkonium chloride (BAC) components were even more effective. This outcome is the primary contradiction between the two papers. Both papers acknowledge the effectiveness of alcohol-based and BAC, but Najdawi et al. (2022) particularly emphasize the significance of the latter.
The implications of the studies include the advancement of academic research in hand sanitizers and their effects on nosocomial infection transmissions. The distinction among alcohol-free, alcohol-based, and sanitizers with active BAC components is crucial to minimize the prevalence of HAIs in medical facilities and reduce the number of associated incidents. Even though the results of the two studies provide relatively ambiguous implications, they are vital in advancing academic progress.
Ethical Considerations
Two vital ethical considerations in conducting research, particularly in laboratory medicine, are the safety of stakeholders and the credibility of results. The authors in the two examined studies have ensured the former by adhering to the regulated standards of laboratory experiments. Consequently, both works thoroughly describe the methodology, samples, and estimated effects to guarantee the credibility and transparency of the research. Ultimately, the papers by Chojnacki et al. (2021) and Najdawi et al. (2022) take ethical considerations into account while performing the experiments.
Conclusion
Nosocomial infections significantly obstruct healthcare services and lead to numerous complications in terms of stakeholders’ health and financial burden. The examined quantitative studies have thoroughly demonstrated that alcohol-based sanitizers greatly reduce the risks of HAIs and might minimize the collateral damage in medical facilities.
Even though the authors achieved slightly different results in the comparison between alcohol-based (70-80% ethanol) and BAC sanitizers, it is evident that both types are highly effective and should be used in hospitals. Ultimately, the examined studies not only demonstrated the importance of alcohol-based hand sanitizers in preventing nosocomial infections but also advanced academic research on the topic.
References
Chojnacki, M., Dobrotka, C., Osborn, R., Johnson, W., Young, M., Meyer, B.,… & Dunman, P. M. (2021). Evaluating the antimicrobial properties of commercial hand sanitizers.MSphere, 6(2), e00062-21. Web.
Najdawi, J. J., Hubble, L. D., Scarborough, A. J., Watz, M. J., & Watson, P. (2022). Determining the efficacy of sanitizers against virulent nosocomial infections. Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 7, 1-3. Web.