Abstract:Background: Recent publicity has highlighted both the inadequacies of hospital cleaning and high levels of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in UK hospitals. "Standards for Environmental Cleanliness" (SEC) was a checklist developed in April 1999 by the Infection Control Nurses Association and the Association of Domestic Managers to evaluate cleaning services regardless of who is the provider. More recently, the National Health Service plan (July 2000) was an attempt to generate a rapid improvement in the cleanliness and tidiness of hospitals via a National Health Service patient environment audit (PEA). On the basis of models used in the food industry to manage cleaning practices cost-effectively, a risk-based audit checklist incorporating rapid hygiene monitoring was developed to assess the adequacy of cleaning programs and standards in hospitals. This checklist (Audit for Cleaning Efficacy, or ACE) as well as the SEC and PEA approaches were applied at 4 hospitals, and environmental microbial surface counts were compared. SEC and PEA rely on visual assessment, whereas the ACE approach is more comprehensive and included more specific questions relating to the management and monitoring of cleaning as well as standards on the basis of rapid hygiene monitoring. Methods: Two wards in each of the 4 hospitals were visited on 3 separate occasions immediately after cleaning was completed. Visual assessment, adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence, and microbiologic sampling of selected environmental sites were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaning. The 3 audits were completed during the final hospital visit. Results: Visual assessment indicated that 90% of sites were satisfactory, whereas adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence showed that 100% and microbiologic sampling showed that 90% of sites did not meet benchmark values. There was no significant difference between the SEC and PEA audits (P =.311), which used visual assessment, and the results suggest that they both are similar in passing surfaces that have microbiologic benchmark values that are too high. However, the ACE audit showed a significant difference (P = <.001) in results compared with the SEC and the PEA audits and did not pass surfaces with microbiologic benchmark values that were too high. The ACE audit, which incorporates rapid hygiene testing, showed a much stronger association with the microbial counts; this was not apparent with the SEC and the PEA audits. Conclusion: The data suggest that visual assessment is a poor indicator of cleaning efficacy and that the ACE audit gives a better assessment of cleaning programs compared with the other 2 audit methods in relation to microbial surface counts. It is recommended that hospital cleaning regimes be designed to ensure that surfaces are cleaned adequately and that efficacy is assessed with use of internal auditing and rapid hygiene testing.

A study of three methods for assessment of hospital environmental cleaning

Comparing visual inspection, aerobic colony counts, and adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay for evaluating surface cleanliness at a medical center

Efficacy of ATP bioluminescence method on hand hygiene quality detection in an intensive-care unit

Is it really clean? An evaluation of the efficacy of four methods for determining hospital cleanliness

Monitoring the effectiveness of cleaning in four British hospitals

Evaluating bio-burden of frequently touched surfaces using Adenosine Triphosphate bioluminescence (ATP): Results from the Researching Effective Approaches to Cleaning in Hospitals (REACH) trial

Methods to evaluate environmental cleanliness in healthcare facilities

Improving environmental cleaning in clinical areas: staff education based on adenosine triphosphate readings

Assessing effectiveness of cleaning and disinfection of equipment and environmental surfaces in cystic fibrosis clinics using an ATP assay

How clean is clean: a new approach to assess and enhance environmental cleaning and disinfection in an acute tertiary care facility

1705. Comparative Analysis of Luminometry -vs- Fluorescent Marker Use for Cleaning and Disinfection Processes in a Pediatric Hospital

Use of audit tools to evaluate the efficacy of cleaning systems in hospitals

Evaluation of the total adenylate (ATP + ADP + AMP) test for cleaning verification in healthcare settings

Value of ATP Bioluminescence Assay for Assessing Object Surface Contamination Degree in Intensive Care Unit

Monitoring of surface cleaning and disinfection in a Brazilian pediatric unit

Application of ATP bioluminescence assay in test of cleanliness of objects surfaces in ICUs of 46 hospitals

Hygienic monitoring in long-term care facilities using ATP, crAssphage, and human noroviruses to direct environmental surface cleaning

Effectiveness of various cleaning strategies in acute and long-term care facilities during novel corona virus 2019 disease pandemic-related staff shortages

The role of environmental cleaning in the control of hospital-acquired infection

Evaluation of the complexity of indoor air in hospital wards based on PM2.5, real-time PCR, adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay, microbial culture and mass spectrometry

Influence of fluorescent labeling combined with comprehensive management on environmental cleanliness in hospital