Evaluation of ChloraPrep (2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol) for skin antisepsis in preparation for blood culture collection

Summary Objectives Blood culture contamination is a significant adverse event. This study evaluated whether using ChloraPrep (2% alcoholic chlorhexidine) instead of 70% isopropyl alcohol wipes reduced contamination rates on two Medical Assessment Units (MAU1 and MAU2). Methods ChloraPrep was introdu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of infection 2008-12, Vol.57 (6), p.459-463
Main Authors: McLellan, E, Townsend, R, Parsons, H.K
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
2% Chlorhexidine gluconate
2-Propanol - pharmacology
Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents
Antisepsis - methods
Antiseptics
Attitude of Health Personnel
Biological and medical sciences
Blood - microbiology
Blood culture
ChloraPrep
Chlorhexidine - analogs & derivatives
Chlorhexidine - pharmacology
Contaminants
Disinfectants - pharmacology
Education
General aspects
Hospitals
Humans
Infectious Disease
Infectious diseases
Medical sciences
Pharmacology. Drug treatments
Skin - microbiology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary Objectives Blood culture contamination is a significant adverse event. This study evaluated whether using ChloraPrep (2% alcoholic chlorhexidine) instead of 70% isopropyl alcohol wipes reduced contamination rates on two Medical Assessment Units (MAU1 and MAU2). Methods ChloraPrep was introduced for 2 to 3-month intervention periods, initially on MAU1 and MAU2 and subsequently on MAU1 only. Contamination rates were compared with a matched time period in the preceding year and the three month period before ChloraPrep introduction. Education regarding venepucture technique was delivered. Results Contamination rates for the time matched pre-intervention period were 17.3% (51/295), MAU1 and 13.5% (31/230), MAU2. During the initial period of ChloraPrep use, rates declined (MAU1; 6.6% [ P < 0.001], MAU2; 8.5% [ P = 0.11] both Fisher's Exact Test). However, rates had already started to fall prior to ChloraPrep introduction. There was a non-significant difference between contamination rates in the comparator period immediately prior to ChloraPrep introduction and rates during the first intervention period (MAU1 and MAU2; P > 0.05). During the second intervention period, absence of ChloraPrep on MAU2 did not significantly affect contamination ( P = 0.41) on this ward. Conclusions ChloraPrep skin antisepsis did not give a significant reduction in blood culture contamination, but education may have led to the trend to lower contamination.
ISSN:0163-4453
1532-2742
DOI:10.1016/j.jinf.2008.08.012