The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Risk of Hand or Glove Contamination After Contact With Patients Colonized With Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus or the Colonized Patients' Environment
Abstract
Objective.: To estimate the level of hand or glove contamination with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) among healthcare workers (HCWs) who touch a patient colonized with VRE and/or the colonized patient's environment during routine care. Design.: Structured observational study. Setting.: Medical intensive care unit of a 700-bed, tertiary-care teaching hospital. Participants.: VRE-colonized patients and their caregivers. Methods.: We obtained samples from sites on the intact skin of 22 patients colonized with VRE and samples from sites in the patients' rooms, before and after routine care, during 27 monitoring episodes. A total of 98 unique HCWs were observed during 131 HCW observations. Observers recorded the sites touched by HCWs. Culture samples were obtained from HCWs' hands and gloves before and after care. Results.: VRE were isolated from a mean (±SD) of 55% ± 24% of patient sites ( n = 256) and 17% ± 12% of environmental sites ( n = 1,572). Most HCWs (131 [56%]) touched both the patient and the patient's environment; no HCW touched only the patient. Of 103 HCWs whose hand samples were negative for VRE when they entered the room, 52% contaminated their hands or gloves after touching the environment, and 70% contaminated their hands or gloves after touching the patient and the environment ( P = .101). In a univariate logistic regression model, the risk of hand or glove contamination was associated with the number of contacts made (odds ratio, 1.1 [95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.19). In a multivariate model, the effect of the number of contacts could not be distinguished from the effect of type of contact (ie, touching the environment alone or touching both the patient and the environment). Overall, 37% of HCWs who did not wear gloves contaminated their hands, and 5% of HCWs who wore gloves did so (an 86% difference). Conclusion.: HCWs were nearly as likely to have contaminated their hands or gloves after touching the environment in a room occupied by a patient colonized by VRE as after touching the colonized patient and the patient's environment. Gloves were highly protective with respect to hand contamination.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Edwards, N. W. M., Best, E. L., Connell, S. D., Goswami, P., Carr, C. M., Wilcox, M. H., & Russell, S. J. (2017) · Science and Technology of Advanced Materials · doi:10.1080/14686996.2017.1288543 · Cited by 30
Duedu, K. O., Offei, G., Codjoe, F. S., & Donkor, E. S. (2017) · International Journal of Microbiology · doi:10.1155/2017/9509087 · Cited by 28
“These organisms can live on inanimate surfaces for as long as seven days to severalmonths in the hospital environment [7, 8].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Hayden, M. K., Blom, D. W., Lyle, E. A., Moore, C. G., & Weinstein, R. A.
- Venue
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 149-154
- ISSN
- 0899-823X (ISSN-L)
- 1559-6834
- OpenAlex
- W2050012426
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk of Hand or Glove Contamination After Contact With Patients Colonized With Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus or the Colonized Patients' Environment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/524331
- The paper
- Hayden, M. K., Blom, D. W., Lyle, E. A., Moore, C. G., & Weinstein, R. A. (2008). Risk of Hand or Glove Contamination After Contact With Patients Colonized With Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus or the Colonized Patients' Environment. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1086/524331
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.