A comparison of two cleaning methods applied in a small animal hospital
Abstract Background Environmental cleaning of near-patient surfaces in animal healthcare is an important infection prevention and control measure to lower the risk of spread of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). There is a lack of reports on the effect of cleaning of near-patient surfaces in a...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | BMC Veterinary Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-04631-0 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850039712484425728 |
|---|---|
| author | Todd Alsing-Johansson Elin Torstensson Karin Bergström Susanna Sternberg-Lewerin Anna Bergh Johanna Penell |
| author_facet | Todd Alsing-Johansson Elin Torstensson Karin Bergström Susanna Sternberg-Lewerin Anna Bergh Johanna Penell |
| author_sort | Todd Alsing-Johansson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Environmental cleaning of near-patient surfaces in animal healthcare is an important infection prevention and control measure to lower the risk of spread of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). There is a lack of reports on the effect of cleaning of near-patient surfaces in animal hospital wards. The aims of this study were to (1) determine bacterial load before cleaning, on near-patient surfaces in dog cages in a mixed medical and surgical ward and investigate factors associated with this bacterial load (2) compare the bacterial reduction on these surfaces after cleaning with (a) a scrubbing brush with detergent and rinsing before and after cleaning, and (b) a microfibre mop moistened with water, and after disinfection carried out after each cleaning method. In each cage the floor and the wall were sampled before cleaning, after cleaning, and after disinfection. Bacterial load and reduction were log10-transformed and for comparisons t-test, one-way Anova and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used. A generalized additive model was performed for analysis of the association between factors and bacterial load. Results The bacterial load in dog cages before cleaning varied, higher loads were noted after longer stay in the cage. The bacterial reduction was in most cases more effective after cleaning with scrubbing brushes with detergent compared to cleaning with damp microfibre mops. After cleaning, a majority of the samples were below the suggested threshold value 2.5 CFU/cm2, except for floor samples after microfibre cleaning. No significant difference in bacterial load, between cleaning methods was noted after disinfection. Overall, the bacterial load was significantly lower on walls than on floors. Conclusions Overall, the bacterial load was below the suggested threshold value after decontamination, except after microfibre cleaning of the floor. Scrub cleaning with a detergent should be considered for cleaning of anti-slip surfaces like the cage floor. The study shows a need for evidence-based cleaning and disinfection routines for near-patient surfaces and evidence-based threshold values for bacterial load, to reduce the risk of HAIs. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-1ffcb7a4cfc0492cb5bba3fad62d3066 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 1746-6148 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-03-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Veterinary Research |
| spelling | doaj-art-1ffcb7a4cfc0492cb5bba3fad62d30662025-08-20T02:56:15ZengBMCBMC Veterinary Research1746-61482025-03-0121111110.1186/s12917-025-04631-0A comparison of two cleaning methods applied in a small animal hospitalTodd Alsing-Johansson0Elin Torstensson1Karin Bergström2Susanna Sternberg-Lewerin3Anna Bergh4Johanna Penell5Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsala Veterinärklinik EvidensiaDepartment of Animal Health and Antimicrobial Strategies, Swedish Veterinary AgencyDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesAbstract Background Environmental cleaning of near-patient surfaces in animal healthcare is an important infection prevention and control measure to lower the risk of spread of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). There is a lack of reports on the effect of cleaning of near-patient surfaces in animal hospital wards. The aims of this study were to (1) determine bacterial load before cleaning, on near-patient surfaces in dog cages in a mixed medical and surgical ward and investigate factors associated with this bacterial load (2) compare the bacterial reduction on these surfaces after cleaning with (a) a scrubbing brush with detergent and rinsing before and after cleaning, and (b) a microfibre mop moistened with water, and after disinfection carried out after each cleaning method. In each cage the floor and the wall were sampled before cleaning, after cleaning, and after disinfection. Bacterial load and reduction were log10-transformed and for comparisons t-test, one-way Anova and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used. A generalized additive model was performed for analysis of the association between factors and bacterial load. Results The bacterial load in dog cages before cleaning varied, higher loads were noted after longer stay in the cage. The bacterial reduction was in most cases more effective after cleaning with scrubbing brushes with detergent compared to cleaning with damp microfibre mops. After cleaning, a majority of the samples were below the suggested threshold value 2.5 CFU/cm2, except for floor samples after microfibre cleaning. No significant difference in bacterial load, between cleaning methods was noted after disinfection. Overall, the bacterial load was significantly lower on walls than on floors. Conclusions Overall, the bacterial load was below the suggested threshold value after decontamination, except after microfibre cleaning of the floor. Scrub cleaning with a detergent should be considered for cleaning of anti-slip surfaces like the cage floor. The study shows a need for evidence-based cleaning and disinfection routines for near-patient surfaces and evidence-based threshold values for bacterial load, to reduce the risk of HAIs.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-04631-0Bacterial reductionBiosecurityContaminationDisinfectionHealthcare-associated infectionHygiene |
| spellingShingle | Todd Alsing-Johansson Elin Torstensson Karin Bergström Susanna Sternberg-Lewerin Anna Bergh Johanna Penell A comparison of two cleaning methods applied in a small animal hospital BMC Veterinary Research Bacterial reduction Biosecurity Contamination Disinfection Healthcare-associated infection Hygiene |
| title | A comparison of two cleaning methods applied in a small animal hospital |
| title_full | A comparison of two cleaning methods applied in a small animal hospital |
| title_fullStr | A comparison of two cleaning methods applied in a small animal hospital |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of two cleaning methods applied in a small animal hospital |
| title_short | A comparison of two cleaning methods applied in a small animal hospital |
| title_sort | comparison of two cleaning methods applied in a small animal hospital |
| topic | Bacterial reduction Biosecurity Contamination Disinfection Healthcare-associated infection Hygiene |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-04631-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT toddalsingjohansson acomparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital AT elintorstensson acomparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital AT karinbergstrom acomparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital AT susannasternberglewerin acomparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital AT annabergh acomparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital AT johannapenell acomparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital AT toddalsingjohansson comparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital AT elintorstensson comparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital AT karinbergstrom comparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital AT susannasternberglewerin comparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital AT annabergh comparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital AT johannapenell comparisonoftwocleaningmethodsappliedinasmallanimalhospital |