Posted By John Malone
I have read the interesting contributions re Safety Girl's query - but could I ask that anyone replying to my post limits themselves to one simple query -

In an office environment where wash basins with soap and water are available in bathrooms, is there any reason to provide hand sanitiser gel as a flu prevention measure, i.e
is the gel in any way better or more effective than soap and water?

Posted By Chris Packham
1. Studies have shown that soap and water is perfectly adequate for skin decontamination.
2. Antiseptic soaps are no better. In fact, they can actually be counterproductive. In the first place you need to have the soap on your hands for around one minute for it to have any real effect. If you were to do this frequently the effect of the soap on the skin would present a significant risk of dermatitis.(Anti-microbial soaps are generally much more irritant to the skin than the normal liquid soap.) Finally, the antiseptic constituent will tend to deplete the skin's own bacteria. Since these are one of the factors that prevents colonisation by transient micro-organisms, e.g. H1N1, this could present an increased risk of skin colonisation.
The BMA has said that they could find no evidence that antimicrobial cleansers were any more effective than normal liquid soap.
3. Alcohol sanitising rubs can be used where hand washing is not possible. However, whilst hand washing actually removes the micro-organisms, the sanitising rub merely kills them (or at least most of them) but leaves them in place. They are quickly inactivated by organic soiling, so where hands are so soiled only soap and water will work. However, alcohol sanitising rubs that are properly buffered are kinder to the skin than soap and water.

Chris

Posted By Al..
No reason at all to use a hand sanitiser. Normal soap and water is all that is required. Do not waste your money and fall for the sales spiel of the suppliers. If hand sanitisers were needed then the NHS would be recommending that we all needed them in our homes. They are not and we don't need them.

Similarly all that is needed for cleaning surfaces in the workplace are the normal cleaning materials which you will have already. You do not need to buy anything additional just because there is a bit of flu about.

Pop along to http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Swineflu/DG_177814
where you will see
- wash your hands regularly with soap and water;
- clean hard surfaces (like door handles and remote controls) frequently with a normal cleaning product.

Posted By Chris Packham
Not at all!

When referring to normal soap I was referring to the liquid soap in a proper dispenser. That bar of soap is (a) unlikely to be antimicrobial, so washing for 14-20 seconds is plenty, and (b) potentially contaminated by a previous user with swine flu/gastroenteritis/etc. who has left his micro-organisms on the soap for you!

Chris

Posted By Chris Packham
Replace it with a normal, mild liquid soap, preferably one in a dispensing system where the soap is contained in a sealed, collapsible bag with integral valve and where the dispenser is merely a holder for the bag. If you really want to go the whole way, there are dispensers that are "no touch", i.e. have a sensor that operates the dispenser when you place your hand underneath. This way you have no contact with a potentially contaminated dispenser!

if you drop me an e-mail I can send you more information on this topic.

Chris

Posted By DaGuru
Interesting, we too have a bar of soap in the toilet area that gets used by potentially 40+ gents.

I personally use a anti-b wash, but I may now raise this issue with my employer.

Is this a justifiable request? (switching from bar of soap to dispensing unit) Dont want to stick my head out and get shot down in flames.

thanks.

Posted By Mark Eastbourne
Another informative post, thank you.

Mark

Posted By Swis
whichever is more economical....

Posted By whitesmar
Permit me to disagree on the subject of hand sanitisers (I take this to mean alcohol gel).

Most people do not wash their hands properly unless they have worked in the food industry, the NHS or microbiology labs. Even then, many still don't!

Alcohol gel tends to get into the bits that soap and water doesn't reach without encouragement, such as the finger webs. For this reason alone I would recommend having sanitiser available.

Drying hands is always a problem. Most of the food industry, or at least the blue-chip companies I've worked for, use paper towels. However, the bins need to be emptied on a regular basis as they themselves can become a hazard.

Posted By alan sheq
I agree we are Health and Safety professionals not infection specialists. what we can do is identify the hazard (swine flu) assess the risk (locations we find ourselves in) and have a method to manage it(personal hygiene). There is enough information about regarding swine flu and how to deal with it. Remember its not the only topic we have to deal with whatever industry you find yourselves in I'm sure there are more pressing issues.

Posted By Tork UK
I would like to add something to both Ian and Chris' comments regarding the drying issue. The three activities for drying that you have stated Ian have actually all been compared as part of study conducted by the University of Westminster in 2008.

Warm air hand dryers - often presented as a hygienic solution, new research reveals the opposite to be true. Not only do they drastically increase the amount of bacteria on hands (by 254%), they actually result in increased contamination throughout the washroom.

Linen roll towels - Mechanically operated linen rolls have a history of mechanical issues. There is a potential for contamination by touching pre-used sections. Linen towels are the least popular hand drying option for Europeans.

Paper towels - When it comes to both hygiene and consumer preference, paper towels are the clear winner. They can be installed quickly and are easy to maintain. They also reduce the amount of bacteria on hands after washing by 45% - 77%.

Hopefully that should shed some light on the issue.. Cheers!

Posted By Ian Blenkharn
Tork,

Wasn't there a dark cloud hanging over the head of someone at Westminster who was involved in publishing, but without peer review, data that supported paper towels and the like. Funded by a manufacturer's association and lacking completely in scientific integrity?

I recall the case but not the detail, though could no doubt track it down if anyone is interested.

I also recall a tongue-in-cheek note in the BMJ years ago. Comparing hot air dryers that didn't dry with paper towels that didn't dry either, the authors observed many who made a final wipe of their hands on their pants. Needless to say, the conclusion was to wipe your hands on your pants in the first place, save the forest and reduce the electricity bill!

Posted By James Skinner
Hi Ian. Many thanks for your comment, you are correct in stating that the original study did not undergo peer review. The report was commissioned by the European Tissue Symposium, a trade body representing 90% of Europe's tissue industry and this was made public, although ETS did not influence the research approach which was organised by the authors.
The report was temporarily withdrawn and republished with a new title excluding a brand name that had been used in the original document.