The concept that a ‘tipping point’ occurs when a behaviour or cultural norm reaches a threshold when sufficient knowledge, information, expectation and/or peer pressure is amassed is beautifully illustrated in this book, which tells the story of Dr. Pittet’s hand hygiene journey. Malcolm Gladwell popularized this idea in his 2000 bestseller, “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference”. In his book, Mr. Gladwell uses the
example of an epidemic such as measles which starts with a very few cases, but reaches a point at which the spread is rapid and daunting in its scope. Crouzet’s book has produced an easy-to-read narrative of Dr. Pittet’s tipping
point contributions to global health through his work on hand hygiene

Larson, Elaine L.

Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control

PubMed

Elaine Larson

Crossref

Review of ‘Clean Hands Save Lives’, written by Thierry Crouzet

Springer - Publisher Connector

Larson Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control 2014, 3:13
http://www.aricjournal.com/content/3/1/13BOOK REVIEW Open AccessReview of ‘Clean Hands Save Lives’, written by
Thierry Crouzet
Elaine Larson1,2Book details
L’Âge d’Homme, Tom Clegg & Thierry Crouzet L’Âge
d’Homme, CP 5076, 1002 Lausanne (Suisse) 5, rue
Férou, 75006 Paris (France).
Keywords: Hand hygiene, Semmelweis
hand hygiene behavior [25,26]. Didier took up the ‘cause’
of hand hygiene in the early 1990s and soon recognizedThe concept that a ‘tipping point’ occurs when a behav-
iour or cultural norm reaches a threshold when suffi-
cient knowledge, information, expectation and/or peer
pressure is amassed is beautifully illustrated in this book,
which tells the story of Dr. Pittet’s hand hygiene journey.
Malcolm Gladwell popularized this idea in his 2000 best
seller, “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make
A Big Difference” [1]. In his book, Mr. Gladwell uses the
example of an epidemic such as measles which starts
with a very few cases, but reaches a point at which the
spread is rapid and daunting in its scope. Crouzet’s book
has produced an easy-to-read narrative of Dr. Pittet’s tip-
ping point contributions to global health through his
work on hand hygiene.
Research demonstrating the efficacy of alcohol hand
hygiene has been published around the world, starting
in the 1970s and continuing through today—examples
are from the UK [2-6], Croatia [7], Finland [8], The
Netherlands [9], Germany [10], Austria [11-13], South
Africa [14], Japan [15], and the United States [16-21].
Additionally, a hand hygiene guideline recommending
alcohol-based products was first published in 1988 [22]
and then again in 1995 [23], well before the CDC and
WHO guidelines recommended alcoholic solutions. Hence,
Dr. Pittet sits on the shoulders of others who came before
him to establish a body of evidence of the efficacy of
alcohol-based hand hygiene products.Correspondence: Ell23@columbia.edu
1School of Nursing, Columbia University, 617 W. 168th St, Room 330,
New York, NY 10032, USA
2Epidemiology Department, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia
University, 617 W. 168th St, Room 330, New York, NY 10032, USA
© 2014 Larson; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. T
Commons Attribution License (http://creativec
reproduction in any medium, provided the or
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.or
unless otherwise stated.But an important lesson for the scientific community
is that conducting and publishing rigorous research is
not sufficient for reaching that tipping point which re-
sults in changed behaviour and culture. The publication
in 2002 of CDC’s hand hygiene guideline [24], for ex-
ample, had only minimal impact on healthcare personnel
that changing habits so engrained as hand hygiene re-
quired not only evidence of effectiveness but the ap-
plication of multiple behavioural and systems-level
strategies.
This book describes in colourful and rather dramatic
(even evangelistic) terms the unfolding and evolution of
Dr. Pittet’s work and contributions. It is not, however, a
book for scientists seeking factual data. Rather it is a
saga of a charismatic and committed individual who was
in the right place at a tipping point and had a prepared
mind and the passion to help make hand hygiene glo-
bally accessible and demonstrate its impact.
There are problems with the book. First, it contains a
number of factual inaccuracies and slight misinterpre-
tations, and, with the exception of the usual nod to
Semmelweis, provides little historical perspective or
knowledge of the field. Examples of some of the more
egregious inaccuracies are below:
– Stating that “No one had thought of distributing it
(alcohol) widely in hospitals” (p. 65) when alcohol-
based products were used in a number of countries,
and implying that HUG was the first place to make
an inexpensive alcohol-based sanitizer in-house. In
fact, a number of individuals and groups of care
providers were teaching health care providers in
lesser developed countries how to prepare alcohol
hand hygiene preparations in their own settings. For
example, in 1992 Jhpeigo, a global non-profit
organization established in 1974 (http://www.
jhpiego.org/content/jhpiego-history), published a
manual which was widely circulated throughouthis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
ommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
iginal work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain
g/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,
Larson Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control 2014, 3:13 Page 2 of 3
http://www.aricjournal.com/content/3/1/13many countries of the world, particularly in lesser
developed regions, which not only recommended
alcohol-based products for hand hygiene but also
provided a ‘recipe’ for inexpensive local production
[27]. The manual was again updated in 2003 [28]
and has since undergone five reprintings, a testament
to its widespread distribution. It offers guidance
for hospitals and other facilities regarding how to
institutionalize infection prevention processes such as
hand hygiene. Healthcare institutions around the
world were producing their own alcohol formulations
for years before Dr. Pittet’s first visit to Africa.
– Attributing the ‘editorial struggle’ of the publication
of one of Dr. Pittet’s early papers discussed in
Chapter II to the journal’s resistance to change
when, in fact, it is typical for authors to receive
multiple requests for editing and revision.
– Stating that the US was purposefully failing to monitor
and/or report infection rates. The author says:“If countries such as France are exemplary in
their efforts, making the use of alcohol a
criterion of health care quality, others are more
lax, starting with the United States. Having
taken the lead in the 1970s and 1980s due to
the zeal of lawyers, they then lagged behind in
response to that same zeal. The best way to
avoid lawsuits was to neglect measuring
infection rates. Out of sight, out of mind.
That meant one of the five elements of the
multimodal strategy was missing: the reporting
of results. All too often, U.S. health care
workers do not know the real rates of infection
in their service and have no means of knowing
whether their performance is improving or not.
In these conditions it’s difficult to correct or
improve behavior” (p. 135).
Contrary to this statement, the US was one of the first
countries to initiate and continue a national infection
surveillance system, originally called the National Noso-
comial Infection Surveillance system and continuing to
current times as the National Healthcare Safety Network
(http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/). Reporting of infection rates
is now mandatory in many states, albeit specific require-
ments differ by state, and The Centers for Medicaid and
Medicare Services no longer reimburse hospitals for sev-
eral potentially preventable healthcare-associated infec-
tions. Surveillance has been the cornerstone of much of
CDC’s infection prevention and control efforts since the
1970s and has been continuous since then.
The author was certainly right about the fact that most
US health care workers do not know the rates of infec-
tion where they work. One wonders, however, if mosthealth care workers in France, or any other country for
that matter, are privy to those rates.
The second problem with the book, from the perspec-
tive of a researcher schooled in the publishing style of
peer-reviewed scientific papers, is the flowery embellish-
ments and writing style. For example, Chapter II, “Spiritual
heir to Ignaz Semmelweis” (a rather dramatic title) pro-
vides emotion-packed anecdotes about puerperal sepsis
and Semmelweis’ struggles (which, in all fairness, are com-
mon in most literature regarding this important historical
figure and likely to be accurate). And the dramatic de-
scription of a nurse in 1997 (!!) being booed and ridiculed
by attendees at the French Society for Hospital Hygiene
when she discussed using alcohol for hand hygiene is be-
yond belief to this US nurse researcher. The ‘Geneva
model of hand hygiene’ was labeled ‘a consecration’, and
Pittet’s work was likened to religious fervor and faith.
The writing style is just a personal preference, however,
because the book does a great job of telling a meaningful,
important, and moving story. Clearly the primary audi-
ence of this book is the lay public and the story telling
style was entertaining and colourful. Just don’t use it for
fact-finding! There was indeed a body of work on alcohol-
based hand hygiene before Dr. Pittet began his journey,
but his amazing and distinctive accomplishment has been
to serve as the tipping point to globalize the importance
of hand hygiene, conceptualize the practice in ways that
are universally meaningful and accessible, and demon-
strate its value. As Crouzet states:
“Making a gesture as simple as cleansing one’s hands
into an historic innovation certainly requires a special
kind of personality, a connection to people and to
the most ordinary ideas, an open mind combined
with an innate goodness” (p. 100).
All in all, this book accomplishes the monumental and
worthy task of telling the story of hand hygiene and its
role in reducing morbidity and mortality through the
tipping point work of a Dr. Pittet, a visionary scientist
and tireless humanitarian.Acknowledgements
None.
Received: 16 April 2014 Accepted: 17 April 2014
Published: 5 May 2014References
1. Gladwell M: The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.
New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company; 2000.
2. Ayliffe GA, Bridges K, Lilly HA, Lowbury EJ, Varney J, Wilkins MD:
Comparison of two methods for assessing the removal of total
organisms and pathogens from the skin. J Hyg (Lond) 1975, 75(2):259–274.
3. Lowbury EJ, Ayliffe GA: Proceedings: alcoholic solutions and other agents
for disinfection of the surgeon’s hands. J Clin Pathol 1975, 28(9):753–754.
Larson Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control 2014, 3:13 Page 3 of 3
http://www.aricjournal.com/content/3/1/134. Lowbury EJ, Lilly HA, Ayliffe GA: Preoperative disinfection of surgeons’
hands: use of alcoholic solutions and effects of gloves on skin flora.
Br Med J 1974, 4(5941):369–372.
5. Mackintosh CA, Hoffman PN: An extended model for transfer of micro-
organisms via the hands: differences between organisms and the effect
of alcohol disinfection. J Hyg (Lond) 1984, 92(3):345–355.
6. Ayliffe GA, Babb JR, Davies JG, Lilly HA: Hand disinfection: a comparison of
various agents in laboratory and ward studies. J Hosp Infect 1988, 11(3):226–243.
7. Rode M, Filipic B, Herman O: Disinfection of dentists’ hands with ten percent
propolis alcohol solution. Zobozdrav Vestn 1977, 32(5–6):137–142. Summer.
8. Mouton RP, Mouton RP, Ojajarvi J: Handwashing in Finland. J Hosp Infect
1991, 18(B):35–40.
9. Mouton RP: Consensus prevention of hospital infections. Ned Tijdschr
Geneeskd 1990, 134(5):231–235.
10. Kalmar P, Steinhagen RH: Surgical hand disinfection using alcoholic
rubbing disinfectants. Chirurg 1984, 55(4):280–287.
11. Rotter ML, Koller W: Surgical hand disinfection: effect of sequential use of
two chlorhexidine preparations. J Hosp Infect 1990, 16(2):161–166.
12. Wewalka G, Rotter M, Koller W, Stanek G: Comparison of efficacy of 14
procedures for the hygienic disinfection of hands (author’s transl).
Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B 1977, 165(2):242–249.
13. Rotter M, Koller W, Kundi M: Usability of three alcohols for a standard
disinfection method to be employed for the evaluation of procedures
for the hygienic disinfection of hands (author’s transl).
Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B 1977, 164(5–6):428–438.
14. Maarschalk T: The use of a chlorhexidine-alcohol mixture as a hand rinse
in a neonatal department. S Afr Med J 1983, 64(22):865–867.
15. Namura S, Nishijima S, Mitsuya K, Asada Y: Study of the efficacy of antiseptic
handrub lotions with hand washing machines. J Dermatol 1994, 21(6):405–410.
16. Aly R, Maibach HI: A comparison of the antimicrobial effect of 0.5%
chlorhexidine (Hibistat) and 70% isopropyl alcohol on hands contaminated
with Serratia marcescens. Clin Exp Dermatol 1980, 5(2):197–201.
17. Larson EL, Eke PI, Laughon BE: Efficacy of alcohol-based hand rinses under
frequent-use conditions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986, 30(4):542–544.
18. Butz AM, Laughon BE, Gullette DL, Larson EL: Alcohol-impregnated wipes
as an alternative in hand hygiene. Am J Infect Control 1990, 18(2):70–76.
19. Larson EL, Butz AM, Gullette DL, Laughon BA: Alcohol for surgical
scrubbing? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990, 11(3):139–143.
20. Boyce JM, Larson EL, Weinstein RA: Alcohol-based hand gels and hand
hygiene in hospitals. Lancet 2002, 360(9344):1509–1510. author reply 1511.
21. Boyce JM: Using alcohol for hand antisepsis: dispelling old myths.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000, 21(7):438–441.
22. Larson E: Guideline for use of topical antimicrobial agents. Am J Infect
Control 1988, 16(6):253–266.
23. Larson EL: APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health
care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995, 23(4):251–269.
24. Boyce JM, Pittet D, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory C, Force HSAIHHT:
Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/
SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Am J Infect Control 2002, 30(8):S1–S46.
25. Larson EL, Quiros D, Lin SX: Dissemination of the CDC’s Hand Hygiene Guideline
and impact on infection rates. Am J Infect Control 2007, 35(10):666–675.
26. Quiros D, Lin S, Larson EL: Attitudes toward practice guidelines among
intensive care unit personnel: a cross-sectional anonymous survey.
Heart Lung 2007, 36(4):287–297.
27. Tietjen L, Cronin W, McIntosh N: Infection Prevention for Family Planning
Service Programs: A Problem Solving Reference Manual. Durant, OK: Essential
Medical Information Systems, Inc; 1992.
28. Tietjen L, Bossemeyer D, McIntosh N: Infection Prevention Guidelines for Healthcare
Facilities With Limited Resources. Baltimore, MD: Jhpiego Corporation; 2003.
doi:10.1186/2047-2994-3-13
Cite this article as: Larson: Review of ‘Clean Hands Save Lives’, written
by Thierry Crouzet. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control 2014 3:13.Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of: 
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color ﬁgure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at 
www.biomedcentral.com/submit


Columbia University Academic Commons

Larson Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control 2014, 3:13http://www.aricjournal.com/content/3/1/13BOOK REVIEW Open AccessReview of ‘Clean Hands Save Lives’, written byThierry CrouzetElaine Larson1,2Book detailsL’Âge d’Homme, Tom Clegg & Thierry Crouzet L’Âged’Homme, CP 5076, 1002 Lausanne (Suisse) 5, rueFérou, 75006 Paris (France).Keywords: Hand hygiene, Semmelweishand hygiene behavior [25,26]. Didier took up the ‘cause’of hand hygiene in the early 1990s and soon recognizedThe concept that a ‘tipping point’ occurs when a behav-iour or cultural norm reaches a threshold when suffi-cient knowledge, information, expectation and/or peerpressure is amassed is beautifully illustrated in this book,which tells the story of Dr. Pittet’s hand hygiene journey.Malcolm Gladwell popularized this idea in his 2000 bestseller, “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can MakeA Big Difference” [1]. In his book, Mr. Gladwell uses theexample of an epidemic such as measles which startswith a very few cases, but reaches a point at which thespread is rapid and daunting in its scope. Crouzet’s bookhas produced an easy-to-read narrative of Dr. Pittet’s tip-ping point contributions to global health through hiswork on hand hygiene.Research demonstrating the efficacy of alcohol handhygiene has been published around the world, startingin the 1970s and continuing through today—examplesare from the UK [2-6], Croatia [7], Finland [8], TheNetherlands [9], Germany [10], Austria [11-13], SouthAfrica [14], Japan [15], and the United States [16-21].Additionally, a hand hygiene guideline recommendingalcohol-based products was first published in 1988 [22]and then again in 1995 [23], well before the CDC andWHO guidelines recommended alcoholic solutions. Hence,Dr. Pittet sits on the shoulders of others who came beforehim to establish a body of evidence of the efficacy ofalcohol-based hand hygiene products.Correspondence: Ell23@columbia.edu1School of Nursing, Columbia University, 617 W. 168th St, Room 330,New York, NY 10032, USA2Epidemiology Department, Mailman School of Public Health, ColumbiaUniversity, 617 W. 168th St, Room 330, New York, NY 10032, USA© 2014 Larson; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. TCommons Attribution License (http://creativecreproduction in any medium, provided the orDedication waiver (http://creativecommons.orunless otherwise stated.But an important lesson for the scientific communityis that conducting and publishing rigorous research isnot sufficient for reaching that tipping point which re-sults in changed behaviour and culture. The publicationin 2002 of CDC’s hand hygiene guideline [24], for ex-ample, had only minimal impact on healthcare personnelthat changing habits so engrained as hand hygiene re-quired not only evidence of effectiveness but the ap-plication of multiple behavioural and systems-levelstrategies.This book describes in colourful and rather dramatic(even evangelistic) terms the unfolding and evolution ofDr. Pittet’s work and contributions. It is not, however, abook for scientists seeking factual data. Rather it is asaga of a charismatic and committed individual who wasin the right place at a tipping point and had a preparedmind and the passion to help make hand hygiene glo-bally accessible and demonstrate its impact.There are problems with the book. First, it contains anumber of factual inaccuracies and slight misinterpre-tations, and, with the exception of the usual nod toSemmelweis, provides little historical perspective orknowledge of the field. Examples of some of the moreegregious inaccuracies are below:– Stating that “No one had thought of distributing it(alcohol) widely in hospitals” (p. 65) when alcohol-based products were used in a number of countries,and implying that HUG was the first place to makean inexpensive alcohol-based sanitizer in-house. Infact, a number of individuals and groups of careproviders were teaching health care providers inlesser developed countries how to prepare alcoholhand hygiene preparations in their own settings. Forexample, in 1992 Jhpeigo, a global non-profitorganization established in 1974 (http://www.jhpiego.org/content/jhpiego-history), published amanual which was widely circulated throughouthis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creativeommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andiginal work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domaing/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,Larson Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control 2014, 3:13 Page 2 of 3http://www.aricjournal.com/content/3/1/13many countries of the world, particularly in lesserdeveloped regions, which not only recommendedalcohol-based products for hand hygiene but alsoprovided a ‘recipe’ for inexpensive local production[27]. The manual was again updated in 2003 [28]and has since undergone five reprintings, a testamentto its widespread distribution. It offers guidancefor hospitals and other facilities regarding how toinstitutionalize infection prevention processes such ashand hygiene. Healthcare institutions around theworld were producing their own alcohol formulationsfor years before Dr. Pittet’s first visit to Africa.– Attributing the ‘editorial struggle’ of the publicationof one of Dr. Pittet’s early papers discussed inChapter II to the journal’s resistance to changewhen, in fact, it is typical for authors to receivemultiple requests for editing and revision.– Stating that the US was purposefully failing to monitorand/or report infection rates. The author says:“If countries such as France are exemplary intheir efforts, making the use of alcohol acriterion of health care quality, others are morelax, starting with the United States. Havingtaken the lead in the 1970s and 1980s due tothe zeal of lawyers, they then lagged behind inresponse to that same zeal. The best way toavoid lawsuits was to neglect measuringinfection rates. Out of sight, out of mind.That meant one of the five elements of themultimodal strategy was missing: the reportingof results. All too often, U.S. health careworkers do not know the real rates of infectionin their service and have no means of knowingwhether their performance is improving or not.In these conditions it’s difficult to correct orimprove behavior” (p. 135).Contrary to this statement, the US was one of the firstcountries to initiate and continue a national infectionsurveillance system, originally called the National Noso-comial Infection Surveillance system and continuing tocurrent times as the National Healthcare Safety Network(http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/). Reporting of infection ratesis now mandatory in many states, albeit specific require-ments differ by state, and The Centers for Medicaid andMedicare Services no longer reimburse hospitals for sev-eral potentially preventable healthcare-associated infec-tions. Surveillance has been the cornerstone of much ofCDC’s infection prevention and control efforts since the1970s and has been continuous since then.The author was certainly right about the fact that mostUS health care workers do not know the rates of infec-tion where they work. One wonders, however, if mosthealth care workers in France, or any other country forthat matter, are privy to those rates.The second problem with the book, from the perspec-tive of a researcher schooled in the publishing style ofpeer-reviewed scientific papers, is the flowery embellish-ments and writing style. For example, Chapter II, “Spiritualheir to Ignaz Semmelweis” (a rather dramatic title) pro-vides emotion-packed anecdotes about puerperal sepsisand Semmelweis’ struggles (which, in all fairness, are com-mon in most literature regarding this important historicalfigure and likely to be accurate). And the dramatic de-scription of a nurse in 1997 (!!) being booed and ridiculedby attendees at the French Society for Hospital Hygienewhen she discussed using alcohol for hand hygiene is be-yond belief to this US nurse researcher. The ‘Genevamodel of hand hygiene’ was labeled ‘a consecration’, andPittet’s work was likened to religious fervor and faith.The writing style is just a personal preference, however,because the book does a great job of telling a meaningful,important, and moving story. Clearly the primary audi-ence of this book is the lay public and the story tellingstyle was entertaining and colourful. Just don’t use it forfact-finding! There was indeed a body of work on alcohol-based hand hygiene before Dr. Pittet began his journey,but his amazing and distinctive accomplishment has beento serve as the tipping point to globalize the importanceof hand hygiene, conceptualize the practice in ways thatare universally meaningful and accessible, and demon-strate its value. As Crouzet states:“Making a gesture as simple as cleansing one’s handsinto an historic innovation certainly requires a specialkind of personality, a connection to people and tothe most ordinary ideas, an open mind combinedwith an innate goodness” (p. 100).All in all, this book accomplishes the monumental andworthy task of telling the story of hand hygiene and itsrole in reducing morbidity and mortality through thetipping point work of a Dr. Pittet, a visionary scientistand tireless humanitarian.AcknowledgementsNone.Received: 16 April 2014 Accepted: 17 April 2014Published: 5 May 2014References1. Gladwell M: The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company; 2000.2. Ayliffe GA, Bridges K, Lilly HA, Lowbury EJ, Varney J, Wilkins MD:Comparison of two methods for assessing the removal of totalorganisms and pathogens from the skin. J Hyg (Lond) 1975, 75(2):259–274.3. Lowbury EJ, Ayliffe GA: Proceedings: alcoholic solutions and other agentsfor disinfection of the surgeon’s hands. J Clin Pathol 1975, 28(9):753–754.Larson Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control 2014, 3:13 Page 3 of 3http://www.aricjournal.com/content/3/1/134. Lowbury EJ, Lilly HA, Ayliffe GA: Preoperative disinfection of surgeons’hands: use of alcoholic solutions and effects of gloves on skin flora.Br Med J 1974, 4(5941):369–372.5. Mackintosh CA, Hoffman PN: An extended model for transfer of micro-organisms via the hands: differences between organisms and the effectof alcohol disinfection. J Hyg (Lond) 1984, 92(3):345–355.6. Ayliffe GA, Babb JR, Davies JG, Lilly HA: Hand disinfection: a comparison ofvarious agents in laboratory and ward studies. J Hosp Infect 1988, 11(3):226–243.7. Rode M, Filipic B, Herman O: Disinfection of dentists’ hands with ten percentpropolis alcohol solution. Zobozdrav Vestn 1977, 32(5–6):137–142. Summer.8. Mouton RP, Mouton RP, Ojajarvi J: Handwashing in Finland. J Hosp Infect1991, 18(B):35–40.9. Mouton RP: Consensus prevention of hospital infections. Ned TijdschrGeneeskd 1990, 134(5):231–235.10. Kalmar P, Steinhagen RH: Surgical hand disinfection using alcoholicrubbing disinfectants. Chirurg 1984, 55(4):280–287.11. Rotter ML, Koller W: Surgical hand disinfection: effect of sequential use oftwo chlorhexidine preparations. J Hosp Infect 1990, 16(2):161–166.12. Wewalka G, Rotter M, Koller W, Stanek G: Comparison of efficacy of 14procedures for the hygienic disinfection of hands (author’s transl).Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B 1977, 165(2):242–249.13. Rotter M, Koller W, Kundi M: Usability of three alcohols for a standarddisinfection method to be employed for the evaluation of proceduresfor the hygienic disinfection of hands (author’s transl).Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B 1977, 164(5–6):428–438.14. Maarschalk T: The use of a chlorhexidine-alcohol mixture as a hand rinsein a neonatal department. S Afr Med J 1983, 64(22):865–867.15. Namura S, Nishijima S, Mitsuya K, Asada Y: Study of the efficacy of antiseptichandrub lotions with hand washing machines. J Dermatol 1994, 21(6):405–410.16. Aly R, Maibach HI: A comparison of the antimicrobial effect of 0.5%chlorhexidine (Hibistat) and 70% isopropyl alcohol on hands contaminatedwith Serratia marcescens. Clin Exp Dermatol 1980, 5(2):197–201.17. Larson EL, Eke PI, Laughon BE: Efficacy of alcohol-based hand rinses underfrequent-use conditions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986, 30(4):542–544.18. Butz AM, Laughon BE, Gullette DL, Larson EL: Alcohol-impregnated wipesas an alternative in hand hygiene. Am J Infect Control 1990, 18(2):70–76.19. Larson EL, Butz AM, Gullette DL, Laughon BA: Alcohol for surgicalscrubbing? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990, 11(3):139–143.20. Boyce JM, Larson EL, Weinstein RA: Alcohol-based hand gels and handhygiene in hospitals. Lancet 2002, 360(9344):1509–1510. author reply 1511.21. Boyce JM: Using alcohol for hand antisepsis: dispelling old myths.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000, 21(7):438–441.22. Larson E: Guideline for use of topical antimicrobial agents. Am J InfectControl 1988, 16(6):253–266.23. Larson EL: APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in healthcare settings. Am J Infect Control 1995, 23(4):251–269.24. Boyce JM, Pittet D, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory C, Force HSAIHHT:Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of theHealthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Am J Infect Control 2002, 30(8):S1–S46.25. Larson EL, Quiros D, Lin SX: Dissemination of the CDC’s Hand Hygiene Guidelineand impact on infection rates. Am J Infect Control 2007, 35(10):666–675.26. Quiros D, Lin S, Larson EL: Attitudes toward practice guidelines amongintensive care unit personnel: a cross-sectional anonymous survey.Heart Lung 2007, 36(4):287–297.27. Tietjen L, Cronin W, McIntosh N: Infection Prevention for Family PlanningService Programs: A Problem Solving Reference Manual. Durant, OK: EssentialMedical Information Systems, Inc; 1992.28. Tietjen L, Bossemeyer D, McIntosh N: Infection Prevention Guidelines for HealthcareFacilities With Limited Resources. Baltimore, MD: Jhpiego Corporation; 2003.doi:10.1186/2047-2994-3-13Cite this article as: Larson: Review of ‘Clean Hands Save Lives’, writtenby Thierry Crouzet. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control 2014 3:13.Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Centraland take full advantage of: • Convenient online submission• Thorough peer review• No space constraints or color figure charges• Immediate publication on acceptance• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar• Research which is freely available for redistributionSubmit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit

file:///data/core-remote/dit/data/Springer-OA/pdf/0f8/aHR0cDovL2xpbmsuc3ByaW5nZXIuY29tLzEwLjExODYvMjA0Ny0yOTk0LTMtMTMucGRm.pdf

Review of ‘Clean Hands Save Lives’, written by Thierry Crouzet

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

Springer - Publisher Connector

Springer - Publisher Connector

Columbia University Academic Commons