Chlorhexidine Gluconate Bathing to Reduce Methicillin

Cover
Chlorhexidine Gluconate
Bathing to Reduce
Methicillin-Resistant
Staphylococcus aureus
Acquisition
ANN PETLIN, RN, MSN, CCRN-CSC, CCNS, PCCN, ACNS-BC
MARILYN SCHALLOM, RN, PhD, CCRN, CCNS
DONNA PRENTICE, RN, MSN(R), CCRN, ACNS-BC
CARRIE SONA, RN, MSN, CCRN, CCNS, ACNS-BC
PAULA MANTIA, RN, MSN, ANP-BC
KATHLEEN McMULLEN, MPH, CIC
CASSANDRA LANDHOLT, BS
BACKGROUND Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a virulent organism causing substantial
morbidity and mortality in intensive care units. Chlorhexidine gluconate, a topical antiseptic solution, is
effective against a wide spectrum of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, including MRSA.
OBJECTIVES To examine the impact of a bathing protocol using chlorhexidine gluconate and bath basin
management on MRSA acquisition in 5 adult intensive care units and to examine the cost differences
between chlorhexidine bathing by using the bath-basin method versus using prepackaged chlorhexidineimpregnated washcloths.
METHODS The protocol used a 4-oz bottle of 4% chlorhexidine gluconate soap in a bath basin of warm
water. Patients in 3 intensive care units underwent active surveillance for MRSA acquisition; patients in 2
other units were monitored for a new positive culture for MRSA at any site 48 hours after admission.
RESULTS Before the protocol, 132 patients acquired MRSA in 34 333 patient days (rate ratio, 3.84). Afterwards, 109 patients acquired MRSA in 41 376 patient days (rate ratio, 2.63). The rate ratio difference is
1.46 (95% CI, 1.12-1.90; P = .003). The chlorhexidine soap and bath basin method cost $3.18 as compared
with $5.52 for chlorhexidine-impregnated wipes (74% higher).
CONCLUSIONS The chlorhexidine bathing protocol is easy to implement, cost-effective, and led to decreased
unit-acquired MRSA rates in a variety of adult intensive care units. (Critical Care Nurse. 2014;34[5]:17-26)
CNE Continuing Nursing Education
This article has been designated for CNE credit. A closed-book, multiple-choice examination follows this article,
which tests your knowledge of the following objectives:
1. Discuss current research on chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing
2. Compare use of CHG-impregnated washcloths with CHG solution dissolved in bath water
3. Describe the effects of CHG bathing on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
©2014 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ccn2014943
www.ccnonline.org
CriticalCareNurse
Vol 34, No. 5, OCTOBER 2014
17
M
ethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA) is a virulent organism that causes substantial morbidity and mortality in intensive
care units (ICUs). The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention estimated that more
than 80000 cases of invasive MRSA infections occurred
in the United States in 2011, with more than 11000
deaths.1 Colonization with S aureus may precede infection. Culture swabs of the anterior nares can identify
patients who are colonized with MRSA even though
they may show no signs or symptoms of infection.2
MRSA and other microbes have been cultured from
bath basins in ICUs,3 which may contribute to colonization of the patient’s skin and lead to secondary
contamination at other sites.4
Reduction and elimination of hospital-acquired infections requires a multipronged approach. Hand hygiene
is the primary strategy to reduce hospital-acquired
infections and prevent transmission of resistant microbes
between patients.5 Rapid reporting of culture results allows
the health care team to initiate timely contact isolation
precautions that help reduce the spread of infection once
a resistant organism is identified. A multidisciplinary
critical care team partnership with infection prevention
specialists can facilitate these evidence-based prevention strategies. The increase in MRSA prevalence in the
community and the high level of mortality associated
with MRSA (3.62 deaths per 100000 population in the
United States)1 require clinicians to continuously
explore measures to prevent MRSA acquisition in critically ill patients. MRSA colonization can be a source of
fear, anxiety, and uncertainty for patients.6-8 Therefore,
prevention of hospital-acquired MRSA is an important
nursing intervention.
Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), a topical antiseptic
solution, is effective against a wide spectrum of grampositive and gram-negative bacteria, including MRSA.3
Low concentrations of CHG, such as when it is diluted in
bath-basin water or as supplied in bathing wipes, alter
the integrity of bacterial cell walls.9 Additionally, CHG
has residual activity on the skin that helps to reduce skin
microbes and prolongs skin antisepsis.10 A review of the
literature provides evidence that CHG bathing has several benefits.4,10-28 CHG bathing reduces the acquisition
of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus by hospitalized ICU
patients,4,10-14 Clostridium difficile,15 and hospital-acquired
MRSA.4,11-13,16,17 Bathing with CHG also reduces MRSA
skin colonization in known MRSA carrier patients during
their treatment.18-21 Several studies showed that bathing
with CHG and nasal administration of mupirocin reduce
the risk of infections,2,22 and CHG bathing alone specifically reduces the risk of central catheter–associated bloodstream infections in ICU patients4,23-26 and long-term acute
care patients.27 Two studies24,28 demonstrated that CHG
bathing reduced the rate of blood culture contamination.
Two of the ICUs at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, a Midwestern university teaching hospital were among the units
involved in a multi-institutional quasi-experimental study
by Climo et al11 on the effect of CHG bathing and MRSA
acquisition. Climo’s study demonstrated a 32% reduction
in MRSA acquisition. Those 2 ICUs resumed typical
soap-and-water bathing of their patients when the CHG
bathing intervention ended at the completion of the study.
Infection surveillance data showed a return to higher
MRSA acquisition rates with the soap-and-water baths
Authors
Ann Petlin is a clinical nurse specialist in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri.
Marilyn (Lynn) Schallom is a clinical nurse specialist and research scientist in the Department of Research for Patient Care Services at
Barnes-Jewish Hospital.
Donna Prentice is a clinical nurse specialist in a medical intensive care unit at Barnes-Jewish Hospital.
Carrie Sona is a clinical nurse specialist in the surgery/burns/trauma intensive care unit at Barnes-Jewish Hospital.
Paula Mantia is the advanced practice nurse in a medical intensive care unit at Barnes-Jewish Hospital.
Kathleen McMullen is an infection prevention specialist for the Department Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Prevention at Barnes-Jewish
Hospital.
Cassandra (Casey) Landholt is an infection prevention specialist for the Department Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Prevention at
Barnes-Jewish Hospital.
Corresponding author: Ann Petlin, RN, MSN, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, One Barnes-Jewish Hospital Plaza, Mail stop 90-00-056, St Louis, MO 63110 (e-mail: [email protected]).
To purchase electronic or print reprints, contact the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, 101 Columbia, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. Phone, (800) 899-1712 or (949)
362-2050 (ext 532); fax, (949) 362-2049; e-mail, [email protected].
18
CriticalCareNurse
Vol 34, No. 5, OCTOBER 2014
www.ccnonline.org
in both ICUs. Decolonization with nasal mupirocin was
not included during the study period. The purpose of
this study was to expand the intervention of the bathing
protocol to 5 ICUs at our hospital by using CHG bathing
and a bath-basin protocol and to examine its impact on
the acquisition of MRSA in our patients. Our goals were
(1) to determine if there was a difference in MRSA acquisition between soap-and-water baths and CHG bathing,
and (2) to examine the cost differences between CHG
bathing using the bath-basin method versus using
prepackaged CHG-impregnated washcloths.
Theoretical Framework
The Synergy Model from the American Association
of Critical-Care Nurses provided a theoretical framework for the clinical nurse specialists’ (CNSs’) interest in
and design of this study.29 This model encourages a
holistic view of patients, each with varying capacities
for health and vulnerability to illness. The model also
identifies nursing’s unique contribution to patient care
and outcomes. The patient characteristics of the Synergy Model that apply particularly well in our study are
the complexity and vulnerability of ICU patients as
well as their limited available resources to prevent
hospital-acquired infections. The ICU itself is a complex
environment that can place patients at risk of having
hospital-acquired complications. The CNSs bring the
nursing competencies of clinical inquiry, collaboration,
and facilitation of learning to the clinical research project. If the intervention reduced MRSA acquisition, our
study worked toward patient outcomes goals of absence
of complications, decreased infection acquisition, and
effective cost-resource utilization.
Methods
Overview of Study Design
This study used a pre/post-intervention design. The
hospital leadership model includes a unit-based critical
care CNS in each ICU. The CNSs individually worked
with their unit-based physician leadership and infection
prevention staff. Additionally, a CNS in the hospital’s
research department collaborated with each CNS to
implement the protocol. A champion(s) was also identified for each unit. Champions were typically staff nurses
and/or chairs of the units’ practice committees with the
support of the clinical nurse managers. The CNSs and
champions provided an educational overview both orally
www.ccnonline.org
and in newsletters about the protocol and monitored for
implementation progress and supply needs. Before this
study, we did not have a standard bathing protocol aside
from the traditional use of a bath basin with soap and
water. The hospital’s institutional review board approved
this study as exempt from human subjects committee
review because it was minimal risk, the CHG bathing
intervention applied to all patients in the study units,
and only unit-level data would be collected.
Bathing Protocol
The CHG bathing protocol directed the nurse to mix
the contents of a 4-ounce bottle of 4% CHG with warm
water in a 6-quart basin in the same fashion as performed in the study by Climo et al.11 Typical linens used
for a bath included 6 washcloths and 4 bath towels,
although these numbers were not specified in the protocol. Washcloths were used for 1 body area only and were
not reinserted into the CHG water after use. Staff bathed
patients from the neck down, avoiding contact with the
face, all mucous membranes, and wounds, as recommended by the manufacturer. Bath basins were marked
as dedicated
for bathing Implementation of the chlorhexidine gluconate
(CHG) bathing protocol was led by clinical
only. Staff
nurse specialists.
rinsed the
basin after
use and towel-dried it before storing it. If skin and
wound care items needed storage, the staff used a separate basin or other container. Nurses had been educated
about the bathing protocol and bath basin maintenance
steps by the end of 2009. Education strategies included
the services of the unit champions, use of posters and
newsletters, and inclusion of the CHG bathing protocol in
unit orientations. Implementation of the protocol began
in January 2010.
Procedure
The hospital performed active surveillance for MRSA,
which included nasal swabs for MRSA upon ICU admission, weekly, and upon discharge in the cardiothoracic,
medical, and surgical/burn/trauma ICUs for several years
before this project. This surveillance continued throughout this study. We defined MRSA acquisition in these 3
units as a nasal swab or clinical culture that was positive
for MRSA 48 hours after admission in any patient who
had a negative result or no nasal swab at admission.
CriticalCareNurse
Vol 34, No. 5, OCTOBER 2014
19
Table
Acquisition rates for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the units with active
surveillance for MRSA acquisition and in all 5 units
Three units with active
MRSA surveillance
Period
All 5 units (with and without
active surveillance)
Preintervention (July 2008-December 2009)
111 MRSA acquisitions in
22 292 patient days
MRSA acquisition rate = 4.98
132 MRSA acquisitions in
34 333 patient days
MRSA acquisition rate = 3.84
Postintervention (January 2010-April 2011)
91 MRSA acquisitions in
31 233 patient days
MRSA acquisition rate = 2.91
109 MRSA acquisitions in
41 376 patient days
MRSA acquisition rate = 2.63
The 2 other ICUs in our study, the coronary care unit
and a second medical ICU, did not have protocols for
active surveillance. They used incident surveillance
instead. We defined MRSA acquisition in these 2 units
as any patient with a new culture positive for MRSA at
any site 48 hours after admission.
The ICU physicians in all the study units were informed
of swabs and cultures that were positive for MRSA by a
telephone call from the microbiology laboratory. Patients
went on contact isolation precautions immediately upon
the report of a culture positive for MRSA. Infection prevention staff
Patients bathed with soap and water
monitored the
were 1.5 times more likely than patients MRSA acquibathed with CHG to acquire MRSA.
sition rates
and compliance with admission, weekly, and discharge surveillance
swabs, and they reported the data monthly to the 3 ICUs
in the study that were performing active surveillance.
They also observed hand hygiene compliance monthly
in all ICUs by using “secret shoppers” as data collectors
during both study periods.
Data Analysis
We used OpenEpi30 software to calculate MRSA
acquisition rate ratios in the preintervention and postintervention periods. We defined the MRSA acquisition
rate as the number of patients with nasal swabs negative
for MRSA upon admission, or no nasal swab performed
on admission, in whom MRSA from any source developed
more than 48 hours after their ICU admission, divided
by the number of patient days per month times 1000.
Patients who were known to be positive for MRSA on
ICU admission were excluded from the calculations. We
defined MRSA nasal swab compliance as the percentage
of admission, weekly, and discharge nasal swabs obtained.
20
CriticalCareNurse
Vol 34, No. 5, OCTOBER 2014
We did not collect a final nasal swab on patients who
died or were already found to be MRSA positive via the
active surveillance. We defined hand hygiene compliance as the percentage of staff members who were
observed performing hand hygiene upon entering or
exiting a patient’s room.
Results
In the preintervention period (July 2008-December
2009) when soap-and-water bathing was the routine,
there were 132 MRSA acquisitions in 34333 patient days
(see Table). This equaled a MRSA acquisition rate of
3.84 per 1000 patient days. In the postintervention period,
(January 2010-April 2011) with the CHG bathing protocol, there were 109 MRSA acquisitions in 41376 patient
days. This equaled a MRSA acquisition rate of 2.63 per
1000 patient days. The MRSA rate ratio difference is
1.46 (95% CI=1.12-1.90, P=.003; Figure 1). Patients in
the preintervention period were almost 1.5 times more
likely to acquire MRSA than patients who received the
CHG bathing protocol.
No significant differences in compliance were found
with nasal swabbing or with hand hygiene between
the study periods. Compliance rates with nasal swabbing for MRSA were 87% to 90% in the preintervention period and 86% to 92% after the intervention.
The patients in the medical ICU showed the greatest
decline in MRSA acquisition rates from 6.8 per 1000
patient days before the intervention to 3.8 per 1000
patient days after the intervention. They also had the
highest compliance (92%) with nasal swabbing. The
surgical/burn/trauma ICU had been one of the units
in the multi-institutional study by Climo et al.11 Their
MRSA acquisition rate returned to the multisite study
level when the CHG bathing protocol resumed with
our study.
www.ccnonline.org
MRSA acquisition rate per 1000 patient days
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Soap and water
Chlorhexidine
gluconate
Figure 1 The acquisition rate of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was 3.84 per 1000 patient
days before the chlorhexidine gluconate bathing routine was
implemented and 2.63 per 1000 patient days after the
implementation of chlorhexidine bathing. The difference in
MRSA rates is 1.46 (95% CI, 1.12-1.90; P = .003).
As part of this study, we collaborated with our hospital’s Patient Care Products Committee to analyze the
cost of bathing with the CHG soap and bath basin
method and compare that with the cost of bathing with
CHG-impregnated wipes. Our institution pays $1.75 for
each 4-ounce bottle of 4% CHG. The reusable bath basin
costs $0.35. The cost of the bath linens includes purchase
and reprocessing. Cotton washcloths are $0.04 each (6 per
bath=$0.24) and bath towels are $0.21 each (4 per bath
=$0.84). These individual items total $3.18 for 1 bed bath.
Reusing the bath basin reduces the cost of subsequent
baths. One vendor (D. Short, Cardinal Health, Dublin,
Ohio, e-mail communication, November 5, 2012) said
that 6 of the washcloths impregnated with 2% CHG,
enough for 1 bath, would cost $5.52.
Discussion
The adverse effects of bathing with CHG are related
to contact dermatitis or skin irritation that subsides
after stopping the use of CHG in the bath water. Many
studies report no skin reaction or do not report on this
outcome. In a study27 of long-term patients in an acute
care hospital, 1% of patients had dryness of skin develop
with a 4% CHG bath basin method. In another study,4
researchers reported skin reactions in 2% of patients
with use of 2% CHG–impregnated cloths; however, 3.4%
www.ccnonline.org
of patients in the same study had a skin reaction to
cloths that were not impregnated with antimicrobial
soap. There were no reports of skin irritation during the
study in our hospital.
Johnson and colleagues3 demonstrated patients’ bath
basins as potential sources of infections, with 98% of
basins growing potentially pathogenic microbes. Soon
after that study, many hospitals decided to abandon
bath basins for ICU bathing in favor of using washcloths
impregnated with 2% CHG. Historically, several studies11,15-18,20-22,27 of the effects of CHG bathing used 4% CHG
in bath basins or showering; other studies4,10,12-14,23-26,28
used cloths impregnated with 2% CHG. Our surgical/
burn/trauma ICU staff nurses willingly tried the CHGimpregnated cloths before this study but were not satisfied with their performance and preferred the bath-basin
method for patient bathing. Since the report of bath basin
contamination by Johnson et al,3 Powers and colleagues31
studied the presence of bacterial contaminants in wash
basins when CHG solution was used in place of standard
soap and water to wash patients. They reported that bacterial growth in patients’ bath basins decreased by 95.5%
with the use of CHG in the bath water. Similar results
were found in a comparison bench study32 of 2 different
brands of 4% CHG and 1 brand of liquid soap. Soap and
CHG were equally effective at preventing initial contamination compared with tap water. However, both brands
of CHG had
Using prepackaged CHG wipes ($5.52 per
significant
bath) was 74% more expensive than using the
marked
CHG soap and bath method ($3.18 per bath).
residual
effect on
bacterial contamination compared with soap and water
or tap water only.32 These 2 studies31,32 demonstrated that
bathing with CHG using a bath basin and tap water does
not increase the risk of exposing patients to bacterial
contaminants from the basin and tap water. Additionally, in a bench study of MRSA isolated over 4 years in a
setting that used 4% CHG bathing, researchers found no
detectable loss of antibiotic effectiveness or increase in
MRSA resistance or infection with other organisms.33
Using washcloths impregnated with 2% CHG ($5.52 per
bath) would be 74% more expensive than our CHG soap
and bath basin method ($3.18 per bath; Figure 2). Ritz
et al13 reported that a bath basin protocol was $2.50 less
than cloths impregnated with 2% CHG. To translate the
magnitude of this cost difference, the 41376 CHG-in-water
CriticalCareNurse
Vol 34, No. 5, OCTOBER 2014
21
6.00
5.00
Cost, $
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
CHG and
bath basin
Prepackaged
CHG wipes
Figure 2 The chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) soap and bath
basin method cost $3.18 as compared with $5.52 for the
wipes impregnated with CHG. The prepackaged CHG wipes
are 74% higher in cost than the CHG soap and bath basin
method.
baths given during our study cost our hospital about
$131000 whereas bathing with washcloths impregnated
with 2% CHG would have cost about $228000. The cost
of providing any
Hand hygiene compliance monitoring
intervention merhelped to ensure that staff members
its consideration
adhered to other accepted measures
in a climate of cost
that reduce cross-contamination of
containment. Each
patients.
institution negotiates prices with their vendors, so costs of the 2 methods
may vary.
We examined only the impact of CHG bathing on
MRSA and not on hospital-acquired infections from
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, C difficile, central
catheter–associated bloodstream infections, or surgical
site infections. All units had low rates of central catheter–
associated bloodstream infections and surgical units had
low rates of surgical site infections in the preintervention
period. Those low infection rates would have required a
very large number of patients from several years to
demonstrate a significant difference with CHG bathing.
We were not tracking catheter-associated urinary tract
infection rates in the preintervention period. However,
for units with high rates of any of these infections, CHG
bathing provides a reasonable intervention to reduce
such infections,4,22-27 although not all studies showed
reductions in infection rates.28
22
CriticalCareNurse
Vol 34, No. 5, OCTOBER 2014
Compliance with nasal swab screening and hand
hygiene are essential measures to analyze the impact of
CHG bathing. Otherwise, many nasal swabs may be
missed or too few CHG baths may be given to show the
effects of the intervention. High nasal swab compliance
rates played an important role in ensuring that the
MRSA acquisition rate data were accurate in the ICUs
that performed active surveillance. Compliance with
nasal swabbing helped to ensure that MRSA infections
were not overlooked by decreased testing. Use of the
CHG soap by each ICU is monitored by the rate of
restocking that item in each unit’s supply area. Hand
hygiene compliance monitoring helped to ensure that
staff members adhered to other accepted measures that
reduce cross-contamination of patients.
AACN’s evidence-based leveling system identifies a
rating of class B evidence for interventions developed
from “well-designed controlled studies, both randomized and nonrandomized, with results that consistently
support a specific action, intervention, or treatment.”34
Publications on the reduction of acquisition or decolonization of multidrug-resistant organisms provide class
B evidence for CHG bathing.
Research studies in the past several years, including
our results, have demonstrated the benefits of CHG
bathing in ICU patients. Our results also demonstrated
the role of the unit-based CNS in conducting research
and implementing best practices. Each unit-based CNS
partnered with his or her bedside nursing colleagues,
physicians, infection prevention staff, and hospital-wide
departments and provided a structure for implementing the protocol in multiple units simultaneously. By
implementing the protocol in multiple units, the results
and impact could be examined both at the unit level
and more widely. Unit-based results provided information to the bedside clinicians that was a direct result of
their practice. Combining the data from multiple ICUs
strengthened the findings for statistical analysis.
Limitations
Our study examined only 1 bathing protocol, the
same one as described by Climo et al11 in 2009. We used
this protocol because 2 of our ICUs had been involved in
that study. Other products and protocols have been
described since then.13-15 Another limitation of our study
was the differences in surveillance protocols for MRSA.
We had active surveillance in the cardiothoracic, medical,
www.ccnonline.org
and surgical/burn/trauma ICUs. We had incident surveillance in the coronary care unit and the second medical ICU. Finally, actual observation of CHG bathing did
not occur. We based compliance with the protocol on the
inventory of the 4-oz (120-mL) bottles of 4% CHG as
compared with the unit census. One bottle of 4% CHG
was considered to indicate 1 patient bath.
Nursing Implications
Daily CHG bathing in the ICU is a simple and effective means of decreasing MRSA acquisition. Although
reactions are infrequently reported, nurses should monitor each patient’s skin for any reaction. CHG bathing
has not been shown to increase antibiotic resistance. Both
a bath basin bathing protocol that uses 4% CHG and a
bathing protocol that uses prepackaged 2% CHG cloths
demonstrated reductions in hospital-acquired infections.
The costs of prepackaged cloths are higher, although
individual unit preferences and time requirements also
should be considered.13 CNSs and unit champions can
provide the evidence and assist with implementation
and monitoring for success. AACN’s Synergy Model is a
useful framework for clinical inquiry that helps to optimize outcomes for patients and their families, nurses,
and the system.
Conclusions
The CHG bathing protocol was easy to implement,
was cost-effective, and led to decreased unit-acquired
MRSA rates in a variety of adult ICUs at a Midwestern
university teaching hospital. Prevention of MRSA acquisition in ICU patients is important to reduce infection
and prevent anxiety and suffering for patients. Daily
bathing with CHG in the bath basin with tap water is
both effective and cost-efficient. CCN
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the hundreds of intensive care unit
nurses who gave thousands of baths and obtained numerous nasal swabs
during the study.
Financial Disclosures
None reported.
Now that you’ve read the article, create or contribute to an online discussion
about this topic using eLetters. Just visit www.ccnonline.org and select the article
you want to comment on. In the full-text or PDF view of the article, click
“Responses” in the middle column and then “Submit a response.”
www.ccnonline.org
To learn more about chlorhexidine bathing, read “Chlorhexidine
Bathing and Microbial Contamination in Patients’ Bath Basins”
by Powers et al in the American Journal of Critical Care, September
2012;21:338-342. Available at www.ajcconline.org.
References
1. Active Bacterial Core Surveillance (ABCs) Report, Emerging Infections
Program Network, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, 2011.
http://www.cdc.gov/abcs/reports-findings/survreports/mrsa11.pdf.
Accessed July 7, 2014.
2. Chen AF, Wessel CB, Rao N. Staphylococcus aureus screening and decolonization in orthopaedic surgery and reduction of surgical site infections.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2383-2399.
3. Johnson D, Lineweaver L, Maze LM. Patients’ bath basins as potential
sources of infection: a multicenter sampling study. Am J Crit Care. 2009;
18(1):31-40.
4. Climo M, Yokoe D, Warren D, et al. Effect of chlorhexidine bathing on
hospital-acquired infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(6):533-542.
5. Larson E. Skin hygiene and infection prevention: more of the same or
different approaches? Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29(5):1287-1294.
6. Lindberg M, Carlsson M, Högman M, Skytt B. Suffering from methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus: experiences and understandings of colonisation. J Hosp Infect. 2009;73:271-277.
7. Skyman E, Sjoström HT, Hellström L. Patients’ experiences of being
infected with MRSA at a hospital and subsequently source isolated.
Scand J Caring Sci. 2010;24:101-107.
8. Andersson H, Lindholm C, Fossum B. MRSA—global threat and personal
disaster: patients’ experiences. Int Nurs Rev. 2011;58:47-53.
9. Shalamanov DS. Chlorhexidine gluconate-induced morphological
changes in gram-negative microorganisms. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip.
2005;19:121-124.
10. Vernon MO, Hayden MK, Trick WE, et al. Chlorhexidine gluconate to
cleanse patients in a medical intensive care unit. Arch Intern Med. 2006;
166:306-312.
11. Climo MW, Sepkowitz KA, Zuccotti G, et al. The effect of daily bathing
with chlorhexidine on the acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, and healthcare-associated
bloodstream infections: results of a quasi-experimental multicenter
trial. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:1858-1865.
12. Kassakian SZ, Mermel LA, Jefferson JA, et al. Impact of chlorhexidine
bathing on hospital-acquired infections among general medical patients.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32:238-243.
13. Ritz J, Pashnik B, Padula C, et al. Effectiveness of 2 methods of CHG
bathing. J Nurs Care Qual. 2012:27(2):171-175.
14. Bass P, Karki S, Rhodes D, et al. Impact of chlorhexidine-impregnated
washcloths on reducing incidence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci
colonization in hematology-oncology patients. Am J Infect Control. 2013;
41:345-348.
15. Rupp ME, Cavalieri J, Lyden E, et al. Effect of hospital-wide chlorhexidine
patient bathing on healthcare-associated infections. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2012;33:1094-1100.
16. Ridenour G, Lampen R, Federspiel J, et al. Selective use of intranasal
mupirocin and chlorhexidine bathing and the incidence of methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization and infection among intensive care unit patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:1155-1161.
17. Gould IM, MacKenzie FM, MacLennan G, et al. Topical antimicrobials
in combination with admission screening and barrier precautions to
control endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an intensive care unit. Int J Antimicrobial Agents. 2007;29:536-543.
18. Fung SF, Louie M, Simor AE. Combined topical and oral antimicrobial
therapy for the eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA) colonization in hospitalized patients. Can J Infect Dis. 2002;13:
287-292.
19. Sandri AM, Dalarosa MG, de Alcantara LR, et al. Reduction in incidence
of nosocomial MRSA infection in an ICU: mupirocin and CHG baths for
nasal carriers of MRSA. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27(2):185-187.
20. Wendt C, Schinke S, Württemberger M, et al. Value of whole-body
washing with chlorhexidine for the eradication of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind
clinical trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(9):1036-1043.
CriticalCareNurse
Vol 34, No. 5, OCTOBER 2014
23
21. Fritz SA, Camins BC, Eisenstein KA, et al. Effectiveness of measures to
eradicate Staphylococcus aureus carriage in patients with communityassociated skin and soft-tissue infections: a randomized trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(9):872-880.
22. Camus C, Bellissant E, Sebille V, et al. Prevention of acquired infections
in intubated patients with the combination of two decontamination
regimens. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(2):307-314.
23. Bleasdale SC, Trick WE, Gonzalez IM, et al. Effectiveness of chlorhexidine bathing to reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infections in
medical intensive care units patients. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(19):20732079.
24. Popovich KJ, Hota B, Haynes R, et al. Effectiveness of routine patient
cleansing with chlorhexidine gluconate for infection prevention in the
medical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30(10):
959-963.
25. Dixon JM, Carver RL. Daily chlorhexidine gluconate bathing with
impregnated cloths results in statistically significant reduction in central line associated bloodstream infections. Am J Infect Control. 2010;30:
817-821.
26. Lopez AC. A quality improvement program combining maximal barrier
precaution compliance monitoring and daily CHG baths resulting in
decreased central line bloodstream infections. Dimens Crit Care Nurse.
2011;30(5):293-298.
27. Munoz-Price LS, Hota B, Stremer A, et al. Prevention of bloodstream
infections by use of daily chlorhexidine baths for patients at a long-term
acute care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30(11):1031-1035.
28. Popovich KJ, Hota B, Hayes R, Weinstein RA, Hayden MK. Daily skin
cleansing with chlorhexidine did not reduce the rate of central-line
associated blood stream infection in a surgical intensive care unit.
Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:854-858.
29. Moloney-Harmon PA. The Synergy Model: contemporary practice of
the clinical nurse specialist. Crit Care Nurse. 1999;19(2):101-104.
30. Dean AG, Sullivan KM, Soe MM. OpenEpi: open source epidemiologic
statistics for public health, Version 3.01. Updated April 6, 2013.
www.OpenEpi.com. Accessed July 7, 2014.
31. Powers J, Peed J, Burns L, et al. Chlorhexidine bathing and microbial contamination in patients’ bath basins. Am J Crit Care. 2012;21(5):338-343.
32. Rupp ME, Huerta T, Yu S, et al. Hospital basins used to administer
CHG baths. Infect Control Hospital Epidemiol. 2013;34(6):643-645.
33. Sangal V, Girvan EK, Jadhav S, et al. Impacts of a long-term programme
of active surveillance and chlorhexidine baths on the clinical and molecular epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
in an intensive care unit in Scotland. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012:40;
323-331.
34. Armola RR, Bourgault AM, Halm MA, et al. AACN levels of evidence:
what’s new? Crit Care Nurse. 2009;29(4):70-73.
24
CriticalCareNurse
Vol 34, No. 5, OCTOBER 2014
www.ccnonline.org
CCN Fast Facts
CriticalCareNurse
The journal for high acuity, progressive, and critical care nursing
Chlorhexidine Gluconate Bathing to Reduce
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Acquisition
Facts
show the effects of the intervention. High nasal swab
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is
compliance rates played an important role in ensuring
a virulent organism causing substantial morbidity and
that the MRSA acquisition rate data were accurate in
mortality in intensive care units. Because of the increase
the intensive care units (ICUs) that performed active
in MRSA prevalence in the community and the high level
surveillance.
of mortality associated with MRSA, prevention of hospital• Research studies, including our results, have demonstrated
acquired MRSA is an important nursing intervention.
the benefits of CHG bathing in ICU patients. Our results
• Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), a topical antiseptic
also demonstrated the role of the unit-based clinical nurse
solution, is effective against a wide spectrum of gramspecialist (CNS) in conducting research and implementpositive and gram-negative bacteria, including MRSA.
ing best practices. Each unit-based CNS partnered with
• Low concentrations of CHG, such as when it is diluted
his or her bedside nursing colleagues, physicians, infection
in bath-basin water or as supplied in bathing wipes,
prevention staff, and hospital-wide departments.
alter the integrity of bacterial cell walls. Additionally,
• By implementing the protocol in multiple units, the results
CHG has residual activity on the skin that helps to
and impact could be examined both at the unit level and
reduce skin microbes and prolongs skin antisepsis.
more widely. Unit-based results provided information to the
• CHG bathing has several benefits. CHG bathing
bedside clinicians that was a direct result of their practice.
reduces the acquisition of vancomycin-resistant
Enterococcus, Clostridium difficile, and hospitalNursing Implications
acquired MRSA. Bathing with CHG also reduces
• Daily CHG bathing in the ICU is a simple and effective
MRSA skin colonization in known MRSA carrier
means of decreasing MRSA acquisition.
patients during their treatment. Bathing with CHG
• Although reactions are infrequently reported, nurses
and nasal administration of mupirocin reduce the
should monitor each patient’s skin for any reaction.
risk of infections, and CHG bathing alone specifically
• CHG bathing has not been shown to increase antibiotic
reduces the risk of central catheter–associated bloodresistance.
stream infections. CHG bathing has also been shown
• Both a bath basin bathing protocol that uses 4% CHG
to reduce the rate of blood culture contamination.
and a bathing protocol that uses prepackaged 2% CHG
• The adverse effects of bathing with CHG are related
cloths demonstrated reductions in hospital-acquired
to contact dermatitis or skin irritation that subsides
infections. The costs of prepackaged cloths are higher,
after stopping the use of CHG in the bath water.
although individual unit preferences and time requireMany studies report no skin reaction or do not report
ments also should be considered.
on this outcome.
• CNSs and unit champions can provide the evidence and
• Compliance with nasal swab screening and hand
assist with implementation and monitoring for success.
hygiene are essential measures to analyze the impact
• AACN’s Synergy Model is a useful framework for clinical
of CHG bathing. Otherwise, many nasal swabs may
inquiry that helps to optimize outcomes for patients and
be missed or too few CHG baths may be given to
their families, nurses, and the system. CCN
Petlin A, Schallom M, Prentice D, Sona C, Mantia P, McMullen K, Landholt C. Chlorhexidine Gluconate Bathing to Reduce Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Acquisition. Critical Care Nurse. 2014;34(5):17-26.
www.ccnonline.org
CriticalCareNurse
Vol 34, No. 5, OCTOBER 2014
25