The World Health Organization (WHO) launched
the first Global Patient Safety Challenge in 2005 and introduced
the ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ in 2009 in an attempt to reduce
the burden of health care associated infections. Many NHS trusts
in England adopted this model of hand hygiene, which prompts health
care workers to clean their hands at five distinct stages of caring
for the patient. Our review analyses the scientific foundation for
the five moments of hand hygiene and explores the evidence, as referenced
by WHO, to support these recommendations. We found no strong scientific
support for this regime of hand hygiene as a means of reducing health
care associated infections. Consensus-based guidelines based on
weak scientific foundations should be assessed carefully to prevent
shifting the clinical focus from more important issues and to direct
limited resources more effectively. We recommend caution in the universal adoption of the WHO ‘5
moments of hand hygiene’ by orthopaedic surgeons and other health
care workers and emphasise the need for evidence-based principles
when adopting hospital guidelines aimed at promoting excellence
in clinical practice.
Deep infection was identified as a serious complication in the earliest days of total hip arthroplasty. It was identified that airborne contamination in conventional operating theatres was the major contributing factor. As progress was made in improving the engineering of operating theatres, airborne contamination was reduced. Detailed studies were carried out relating airborne contamination to deep infection rates. In a trial conducted by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC), it was found that the use of ultra-clean air (UCA) operating theatres was associated with a significant reduction in deep infection rates. Deep infection rates were further reduced by the use of a body exhaust system. The MRC trial also included a detailed microbiology study, which confirmed the relationship between airborne contamination and deep infection rates. Recent observational evidence from joint registries has shown that in contemporary practice, infection rates remain a problem, and may be getting worse. Registry observations have also called into question the value of “laminar flow” operating theatres. Observational evidence from joint registries provides very limited evidence on the efficacy of UCA operating theatres. Although there have been some changes in surgical practice in recent years, the conclusions of the MRC trial remain valid, and the use of UCA is essential in preventing deep infection. There is evidence that if UCA operating theatres are not used correctly, they may have poor microbiological performance. Current UCA operating theatres have limitations, and further research is required to update them and improve their microbiological performance in contemporary practice. Cite this article:
