Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39370526›Full record

Observational studyAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2024

Impact of sterile gloving during proximal manipulation of central line catheter hub: the multicenter observational study CleanHandPROX.

Sandra Dos Santos, Anne-Sophie Valentin, Mathilde Farizon, Nathalie van der Mee-Marquet, Nathalie VAN DER MEE-MARQUET on behalf of the CleanHandPROX collaboration group

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sandra Dos Santos *Centre d'appui Pour La Prévention Des Infections Associées Aux Soins, en Région Centre-Val de Loire, Hôpital Bretonneau, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire, 37044, Tours, France.
Anne-Sophie Valentin *Centre d'appui Pour La Prévention Des Infections Associées Aux Soins, en Région Centre-Val de Loire, Hôpital Bretonneau, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire, 37044, Tours, France.
Mathilde FarizonCentre d'appui Pour La Prévention Des Infections Associées Aux Soins, en Région Centre-Val de Loire, Hôpital Bretonneau, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire, 37044, Tours, France.
Nathalie van der Mee-MarquetCentre d'appui Pour La Prévention Des Infections Associées Aux Soins, en Région Centre-Val de Loire, Hôpital Bretonneau, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire, 37044, Tours, France. n.vandermee@chu-tours.fr.
Nathalie VAN DER MEE-MARQUET on behalf of the CleanHandPROX collaboration group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with central lines face an increased risk of developing bacteremia. Preventing late-onset catheter-related infections relies on implementing various measures during manipulations of the catheter hub of central lines (e.g., during connections, disconnections, blood withdrawals, pulsed rinses, or injections performed at the first connection after the central catheter). French guidelines include, among these measures, the requirement to put on sterile gloves immediately before proximal manipulation to help prevent contamination of the catheter hub during preparation. To our knowledge, no study has reported compliance with wearing sterile gloves during these manipulations, nor the impact of not wearing sterile gloves on the cleanliness of the fingers of healthcare workers (HCWs) just before manipulating the connectors.

methodsWe conducted a two-part study to assess compliance with sterile gloving and to provide direct microbiological evidence of bacterial contamination on HCWs' hands immediately before the manipulation of central lines when sterile gloving is not used. First, the use of sterile gloves was observed during proximal manipulations of central lines using a standardized grid. Second, we examined the microbial flora present on the fingers of each observed HCW just before proximal manipulation.

resultsA total of 260 HCWs from 35 healthcare institutions were observed during proximal manipulation. The HCWs were distributed into three groups: 188 used sterile gloves (72%), 23 used nonsterile gloves (9%), and 49 did not wear gloves (19%). The swabbing of the fingertips revealed microbial cultures from 72 samples (28%). A total of 97 microorganisms were identified, all of which are well-recognized agents responsible for catheter-related bacteremia, predominantly coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 36) and Bacillus sp. (n = 31). Fingertip contamination was lower for HCWs wearing sterile gloves (27/188; 14%) than for those wearing nonsterile gloves (12/23; 52%) or not wearing gloves (33/49; 67%) (p < 0.001). The contaminants were similar across the three groups.

conclusionsOur data support the positive impact of sterile gloving in ensuring clean fingertips during proximal manipulation of central lines, a key measure in preventing late-onset catheter-related bacteremia. The contamination of sterile gloves in one out of seven HCWs highlights the need for a clean care environment and minimal contact with the patient's skin and surroundings during proximal manipulation.

Indexed as

Catheter-Related InfectionsCatheterization, Central VenousCentral Venous CathetersCross InfectionEquipment ContaminationFemaleFranceGloves, ProtectiveGloves, SurgicalGuideline AdherenceHealth PersonnelHumansInfection ControlMaleAsepsisCentral linesCentral venous catheterImplantable catheter portsImprovement of practicesPeripherally inserted central catheterProximal manipulationSterile gloving

Identifiers

PMID39370526
PMCPMC11457555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.