Are the Hands of Veterinary Staff a Reservoir for Antimicrobial-Resistant Bacteria? A Randomized Study to Evaluate Two Hand Hygiene Rubs in a Veterinary Hospital

Hand hygiene (HH) is the most successful intervention for hospital infection control. HH rubs with residual action are desired. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of alcohol (A-HH) and lactic acid (LA-HH) rubs, with the latter being marketed as having residual activity. We investigated reductions in bacterial colony-forming units (CFUs), prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) organisms, and risk factors for increased counts on the hands of veterinary staff. A randomized, crossover study (53 individuals) was performed in a referral veterinary teaching hospital. Hand plates were taken before, immediately after, and 6 hours after HH. A blinded investigator counted CFUs per plate. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus/pseudintermedius (MRSA/MRSP), Enterobacteriaceae, and Pseudomonas species (spp.) were characterized. Gender, profession, time point, and HH product were included as variables within multivariable analyses. A significant reduction in bacterial CFU was seen immediately after A-HH rub application (p < 0.001); however, neither product showed any significant residual action. Veterinarians had higher bacterial CFUs than nurses (p = 0.005); contact with patients, rather than the environment, was also associated with higher counts (p < 0.001). MRSA, MRSP, Enterobacteriaceae spp., and Pseudomonas spp. were detected on 7%, 2%, 14%, and 2% of study participant's hands (n = 208 samples), respectively. Frequent HH administration using an A-HH rub was effective at reducing bacterial CFU on hands in vivo in this veterinary hospital setting, but its use needs further encouragement in veterinary staff. The high prevalence of antimicrobial bacteria on hands is of concern; they might act as reservoirs for patients, the environment, and in-contact people.