Skip to main content

Table 2 Effectiveness of post-discharge cleaning of high-touch surfaces, evaluated by four methods

From: Effectiveness of visual inspection compared with non-microbiologic methods to determine the thoroughness of post-discharge cleaning

Surface sampled

Number sampled

Mean aerobic colony count (± SE)

Number (%) clean by visual inspection

Median ATP RLU (range)

Number (%) clean by FM

Bedrail

20

1.5 (0.9)

9 (45.0)

63 (13–806)

6 (30.0)

Tray table

20

2.3 (1.2)

11 (55.0)

123.5 (26–4185)

17 (85.0)

Call button

20

38.7 (25.8)

10 (50.0)

276 (23–3601)

15 (75.0)

Telephone

20

7.7 (2.5)

12 (60.0)

166 (30–1863)

16 (80.0)

Bedside table

20

1.9 (0.9)

9 (45.0)

91 (15–889)

9 (45.0)

Chair

16

23.9 (13.1)

9 (56.3)

305.5 (53–1472)

3 (18.8)

Room sink

16

9.1 (3.7)

6 (37.5)

94.5 (11–511)

8 (50.0)

Room light switch

19

5.5 (2.2)

15 (79.0)

49 (5–314)

6 (31.6)

Room door knob

20

5.7 (2.9)

10 (50.0)

108.5 (18–354)

2 (10.0)

Bathroom light switch

20

4.4 (2.1)

13 (65.0)

138.5 (15–1716)

5 (25.0)

Bathroom hand rail

20

204.7 (195.6)

11 (55.0)

284 (14–6068)

5 (25.0)

Bathroom sink

20

10.5 (6.2)

7 (35.0)

160 (30–1610)

13 (65.0)

Toilet seat

20

19.5 (15.1)

18 (90.0)

74.5 (14–258)

19 (95.0)

Toilet flush handle

19

133.8 (78.5)

16 (84.2)

179 (33–1245)

14 (73.7)

Bedpan cleaner

20

21.4 (9.8)

9 (45.0)

190.5 (10–1530)

5 (25.0)

Total

290

32.9 (14.7)

165 (56.9)

130.5 (10–6068)

143 (49.3)

  1. Note: SE, standard error; ATP, adenosine triphosphate; RLU, relative light units; FM, fluorescent marker.