S58 Vol. 35 No. 10 Supplement 1 Bloomfield et alTable 20. Increased risk situations <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> homeRout<strong>in</strong>e day-to-day situationsNonrout<strong>in</strong>e situationsIncreased risk from source <strong>of</strong><strong>in</strong>fection <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> homePeople who are o<strong>the</strong>rwisehealthy but at <strong>in</strong>creasedrisk <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fectionIncreased risk from <strong>in</strong>fectedfamily membersPeople at <strong>in</strong>creasedrisk <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fectionHandl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> raw meat, poultry,fish, fruit, and vegetablesFamily members or pets that arecolonized or <strong>in</strong>fected with, forexample, Salmonella, C difficile,MRSAYoung babies, elderly adults,pregnant womenPeople <strong>in</strong> poor liv<strong>in</strong>g conditionsFamily members <strong>in</strong>fected withcolds, flu, norovirus,Salmonella, Shigella, and o<strong>the</strong>rsPatients home from hospital oroutpatients <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g peoplewith ca<strong>the</strong>ters, wounds, oro<strong>the</strong>rsPeople undergo<strong>in</strong>g drugtreatment; people withunderly<strong>in</strong>g illness, eg, diabetes,HIV<strong>in</strong> com<strong>in</strong>g years, ra<strong>the</strong>r than decl<strong>in</strong>e. One such factor is<strong>the</strong> ris<strong>in</strong>g proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> communitywho are more vulnerable to <strong>in</strong>fection. An importantpart <strong>of</strong> current European and US health policy is commitmentto shorter hospital stays. A key requirementis to ensure that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased health provision at homeis not accompanied by an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> ID <strong>risks</strong>; o<strong>the</strong>rwise,<strong>the</strong> cost sav<strong>in</strong>gs ga<strong>in</strong>ed by care <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> community arelikely to be overridden by costs <strong>of</strong> rehospitalization.Even for <strong>the</strong> ‘‘healthy community,’’ ID represents a significanteconomic burden because <strong>of</strong> absence fromwork and school and added health care costs. Secondary<strong>in</strong>fections can produce complications, and some <strong>in</strong>fectionsmay be associated with <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong>diseases such as cancer or o<strong>the</strong>r chronic conditions,which can manifest at a later date. Those responsiblefor ensur<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> public are protected from <strong>in</strong>fection<strong>in</strong> health care facilities are now realiz<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong>ir abilityto manage <strong>the</strong> problem is hampered by spread <strong>of</strong>pathogens such as MRSA, C difficile, and norovirus <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> community and <strong>the</strong> home, and <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fectedpeople or carriers who come <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong>ir facilities,and are look<strong>in</strong>g for ways to address this by engag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>public to adopt more rigorous standards <strong>of</strong> <strong>hygiene</strong>.One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> th<strong>in</strong>gs that is apparent from newlyemerg<strong>in</strong>g data, and that is reflected <strong>in</strong> this review, is<strong>the</strong> extent to which common <strong>in</strong>fections circulat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> community are <strong>hygiene</strong> related. This suggests, <strong>in</strong>turn, that <strong>hygiene</strong> promotion could have a significantbenefit <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> improved public health and well-be<strong>in</strong>g;<strong>in</strong> particular, <strong>the</strong> data highlight <strong>the</strong> extent to whichviruses (norovirus, rotavirus, rh<strong>in</strong>ovirus, <strong>in</strong>fluenza, ando<strong>the</strong>r viruses) are responsible for <strong>hygiene</strong>-related diseasesnow circulat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> community.<strong>The</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> conclusions from this review are asfollows:dID circulat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> home and community is a seriouspublic health problem <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> developed as wellas <strong>the</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g world.dddddGood <strong>hygiene</strong> practice is key to reduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> burden<strong>of</strong> ID <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> home and community.Hand <strong>hygiene</strong> is a key component <strong>of</strong> good <strong>hygiene</strong>practice <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> home and community and can producesignificant benefits <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> reduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>cidence<strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fection, most particularly for gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<strong>in</strong>fections but also for respiratory tract and sk<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>fections.Decontam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> <strong>hand</strong>s can be carried out ei<strong>the</strong>rby <strong>hand</strong>wash<strong>in</strong>g with soap or by <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> waterless<strong>hand</strong> sanitizers, which achieve a log reduction <strong>in</strong> bacterialand viral contam<strong>in</strong>ation on <strong>hand</strong>s by <strong>the</strong> removal<strong>of</strong> contam<strong>in</strong>ation or by kill<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> organisms<strong>in</strong> situ. <strong>The</strong> health impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>hand</strong> <strong>hygiene</strong> with<strong>in</strong> agiven community can be <strong>in</strong>creased by us<strong>in</strong>g productsand <strong>procedures</strong>, ei<strong>the</strong>r alone or <strong>in</strong> sequence, thatmaximize <strong>the</strong> log reduction <strong>of</strong> both bacteria and viruseson <strong>hand</strong>s.<strong>The</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>hand</strong> <strong>hygiene</strong> <strong>in</strong> reduc<strong>in</strong>g ID <strong>risks</strong>could be <strong>in</strong>creased by conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g people to apply<strong>hand</strong> <strong>hygiene</strong> <strong>procedures</strong> correctly (eg, wash <strong>the</strong>ir<strong>hand</strong>s correctly) and at <strong>the</strong> correct time.To optimize health benefits, promotion <strong>of</strong> <strong>hand</strong><strong>hygiene</strong> must be accompanied by <strong>hygiene</strong> educationand should also <strong>in</strong>volve promotion <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>raspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>hygiene</strong>, for example, surface and cloth<strong>hygiene</strong>.FURTHER RESEARCHThis report highlights a number <strong>of</strong> areas <strong>in</strong> whichadditional data are needed:d Fur<strong>the</strong>r studies are needed to characterize <strong>the</strong>frequency <strong>of</strong>, and factors associated with, ID transmission<strong>in</strong> non<strong>in</strong>stitutional sett<strong>in</strong>gs such as <strong>the</strong>home.d Fur<strong>the</strong>r studies are needed to assess <strong>the</strong> relative efficacy<strong>of</strong> <strong>hand</strong> <strong>hygiene</strong> <strong>procedures</strong> <strong>in</strong> reduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>hand</strong>contam<strong>in</strong>ation (<strong>hand</strong>wash<strong>in</strong>g with soap and use <strong>of</strong>
Bloomfield et al December 2007 S59dddABHS, <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g different ‘‘contact/application/r<strong>in</strong>s<strong>in</strong>g’’times, and o<strong>the</strong>rs). This <strong>in</strong>cludes <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g:(1) <strong>in</strong> vivo panel tests to determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> reduction <strong>in</strong>bacteria and viruses on <strong>hand</strong>s under controlledconditions. Committee European Normalisation orASTM tests now provide standard test models forcompar<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> efficacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>hand</strong>wash<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong>use <strong>of</strong> waterless <strong>hand</strong> sanitizer products, under def<strong>in</strong>edconditions. <strong>The</strong>y provide an economic approach(relative to <strong>in</strong>tervention studies) that canbe used, alone or <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation with QMRA, to <strong>in</strong>form<strong>hygiene</strong> policy and/or <strong>the</strong> design <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>terventionstudies. (2) Field studies to determ<strong>in</strong>e logreduction <strong>in</strong> counts on <strong>hand</strong>s <strong>in</strong> relation to howpeople actually wash <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>hand</strong>s or apply ABHS<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir homes.Additional data are needed to understand how, when,and why people practice <strong>hand</strong> <strong>hygiene</strong> at home andhow this relates to <strong>the</strong>ir understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> ID transmissionand <strong>risks</strong>.Intervention studies are needed to determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong>health impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>hand</strong> <strong>hygiene</strong> promotion with <strong>hygiene</strong>education, compared with <strong>hygiene</strong> promotionwithout education. This should also <strong>in</strong>clude understand<strong>in</strong>ghow <strong>hand</strong> <strong>hygiene</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>es with surface<strong>hygiene</strong> to <strong>in</strong>fluence health outcome.Intervention studies are needed to determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> potentialfor an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> health impact from promot<strong>in</strong>guse <strong>of</strong> ABHS <strong>in</strong> conjunction with <strong>hand</strong>wash<strong>in</strong>g(ie, <strong>hand</strong>wash<strong>in</strong>g followed by use <strong>of</strong> ABHS) or as asupplement to <strong>hand</strong>wash<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>in</strong> situations <strong>in</strong> whichaccess to water is limited), compared with <strong>the</strong> promotion<strong>of</strong> <strong>hand</strong>wash<strong>in</strong>g alone.<strong>The</strong> authors thank Dr. Michele Pearson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Atlanta, GA, for her very valuable and extensive contributions to <strong>the</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong>this review.References1. P<strong>in</strong>ner RW, Teutsch SM, Simonson L, Klug LA, Graber JM, Clarke MJ,et al. Trends <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>fectious disease mortality <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> United States.JAMA 1996;275:189-93.2. Griffith C, Redmond E. Evaluat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>hygiene</strong> behaviour <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> domesticsett<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>hygiene</strong> behaviour. J Infect 2001;43:70-4.3. Pittet D. Improv<strong>in</strong>g adherence to <strong>hygiene</strong> practice: a multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>aryapproach. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:234-40.4. Curtis V. Talk<strong>in</strong>g dirty: how to save a million lives. Int J Environ HealthRes 2003;13(Suppl 1):S73-80.5. Kretzer EK, Larson EL. Behavioural <strong>in</strong>terventions to improve <strong>in</strong>fectioncontrol practices. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:245-53.6. Whitby M, Pessoa-Silva CL, McLaws ML, Allegranzi B, Sax H, LarsonE, et al. Behavioural considerations for <strong>hand</strong> <strong>hygiene</strong> practices: <strong>the</strong>basic build<strong>in</strong>g blocks. J Hosp Infect 2007;65:1-8.7. Amato-Gauci A, Ammon A, eds. <strong>The</strong> First European Communicable DiseaseEpidemiological Report. European Centre for Disease Preventionand Control. Available at: http://www.ecdc.eu.<strong>in</strong>t/pdf/Epi_report_2007.pdf.Accessed 2007.8. Campylobacteriosis overtakes salmonellosis as <strong>the</strong> most reportedanimal <strong>in</strong>fection transmitted to humans <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU European FoodStandards Agency. Available at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/press_releases_2006/pr_zoonoses_report2005.html. Accessed 2006.9. WHO assesses that up to 40% <strong>of</strong> food poison<strong>in</strong>g outbreaks occur <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> home. Several foodborne diseases are <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Europe.WHO’s ‘‘five keys to safer food’’ for w<strong>in</strong>ter holidays. 2003 PressRelease EURO/16/03. Available at: http://www.euro.who.<strong>in</strong>t/eprise/ma<strong>in</strong>/who/mediacentre/PR/2003/20031212_2.10. Food Poison<strong>in</strong>g Notifications—annual totals England and Wales,1982–2005. Available at: www.hpa.org.uk/<strong>in</strong>fections/topics_az/noids/food_poison<strong>in</strong>g.htm.11. Food Standards Agency. A report <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> study <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fectious <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>aldisease <strong>in</strong> England. London: <strong>The</strong> Stationary Office; 2000.12. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS, Shapiro C, et al.Food-related illness and death <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> United States. Emerg Infect Dis1999;5:607-25.13. Centers For Disease Control and Surveillance. Outbreak Responseand Surveillance Team. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/outbreak_data.htm.14. Le Baigue S, Long S, Adak GK, O’Brien SJ. Infectious <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>aldisease—it’s not all foodborne! PHLS 25th Annual Scientific Conference,2000.15. Gillespie IA, O’Brien SJ, Adak GK. General outbreaks <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fectious<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al diseases l<strong>in</strong>ked with private residences <strong>in</strong> England andWales, 1992-1999: questionnaire study. BMJ 2001;323:1097-8.16. Wheeler JG, Sethi D, Cowden JM, Wall PG, Rodrigues LC, Tompk<strong>in</strong>sDS, et al. Study <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fectious <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al disease <strong>in</strong> England: rates <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>community, present<strong>in</strong>g to general practice and reported to nationalsurveillance. BMJ 1999;318:1046-50.17. de Wit MA, Koopmans MP, Kortbeek LM, van Leeuwen NJ, BarteldsAI, van Duynhoven YT. Gastroenteritis <strong>in</strong> sent<strong>in</strong>el general practices<strong>in</strong> <strong>The</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:82-91.18. de Wit MA, Koopmans MP, van Duynhoven YT. Risk factors for norovirus,Sapporo-like virus and group A rotavirus gastroenteritis.Emerg Infect Dis 2003;9:1563-9.19. Davis MA, Sheng1 H, Newman J, Hancock D, Hovde J. Comparison<strong>of</strong> a waterless <strong>hand</strong>-<strong>hygiene</strong> preparation and soap-and-water <strong>hand</strong>wash<strong>in</strong>g to reduce coliforms on <strong>hand</strong>s <strong>in</strong> animal exhibit sett<strong>in</strong>gs. EpidemiolInfect 2006;134:1024-8.20. Widdowson MA, Monroe SS, Glass RI. Are noroviruses emerg<strong>in</strong>g?Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11:735-7.21. Carter MJ. Enterically <strong>in</strong>fect<strong>in</strong>g viruses: pathogenicity, transmissionand significance for food and waterborne <strong>in</strong>fection. J Appl Microbiol2005;98:1354-80.22. Japan: largest norovirus s<strong>in</strong>ce 1981. Available at: http://depts.wash<strong>in</strong>gton.edu/e<strong>in</strong>et/?a5pr<strong>in</strong>tArticle&pr<strong>in</strong>t5284.23. Kroneman A, Vennema H, Harris J, Reuter G, von Bonsdorff C-H,Hedlund K-O, et al. Increase <strong>in</strong> norovirus activity reported <strong>in</strong>Europe. Eurosurveillance 2006;11(12). Available at:http://wwweurosurveillance.org/ew/2006/061214.asp#1/.24. Shapiro CN, Shaw FE, Mendel EJ, Hadler SC. Epidemiology <strong>of</strong> hepatitisA <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> United States. In: Holl<strong>in</strong>ger FB, Lemon SM, Margolis HS,editors. Viral hepatitis and liver disease. Baltimore: Williams and Wilk<strong>in</strong>s;1991. p. 214.25. Bloomfield SF, Cookson BD, Falk<strong>in</strong>er FR, Griffith C, Cleary V. Methicill<strong>in</strong>-resistantStaphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Clostridium difficile, andESBL-produc<strong>in</strong>g Escherichia coli <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> home and community: assess<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> problem, controll<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> spread. International ScientificForum on Home Hygiene 2006. Available at: http://www.ifh-home<strong>hygiene</strong>.org/2003/2library/MRSA_expert_report.pdf.26. Perry S, de la Luz Sanchez M, Yang S, Haggerty TD, Philip Hurst P,Perez-Perez G, et al. Gastroenteritis and transmission <strong>of</strong> Helicobacterpylori <strong>in</strong>fection <strong>in</strong> households. Emerg Infect Dis 2006;12:1701-8.