Keeping hospitals clean and safe without breaking the bank; summary of the Healthcare Cleaning Forum 2018
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control volume 7, Article number: 132 (2018)
Keeping hospitals clean is a crucial patient safety issue. The importance of the hospital environment in patient care has only recently been recognized widely in infection prevention and control (IPC). In order to create a movement for change, a group of international infection control experts teamed up with Interclean, the largest cleaning trade-show in the world to create the Healthcare Cleaning Forum. This paper is the result of this conference, which featured leaders in healthcare environmental science from across Europe.
Although the available literature is limited, there is now enough evidence to demonstrate that maintaining the hygiene of the hospital environment helps prevent infections. Still, good interventional studies are rare, the quality of products and methods available is heterogeneous, and environmental hygiene personnel is often relatively untrained, unmotivated, under-paid, and under-appreciated by other actors in the hospital. Coupled with understaffed environmental hygiene service departments, this creates lasting issues in regards to patient and healthcare worker safety.
The Healthcare Cleaning Forum was designed as a platform for healthcare experts, cleaning experts, hospital managers and industry to meet productively. The conference aimed to summarize the state-of-the-art knowledge in the field, create awareness and dialogue, challenge dogma and begin to shape a research agenda for developing the field of hospital hygiene and environmental control. Hospital environmental hygiene is far more complex than other types of cleaning; further evidence-based research in the field is needed. It involves the integration of current and new technologies with human elements that must work together synergistically to achieve optimal results. The education, training and career development, behavior, and work organization of environmental hygiene personnel are at the core of the proposals for the creation of a global initiative. Ultimately, what is needed is a reevaluation of how hospitals view environmental hygiene: not just as an area from which to cut costs, but one that can add value. Hospitals and key stakeholders must work together to change how we maintain the hospital environment in order to better protect patients.
Revolutions are often started by ideas whose time have come. Compared to other domains in medicine, revolutions in the field of Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) are generally few and far between. The last one was probably the global shift to using alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) instead of washing hands with soap and water, about 25 years ago- a seemingly small change in practice that continues to save millions of lives [1–3]. Today, looking at the IPC landscape, the one area that has been consistently undervalued and understudied is the role of the hospital environment in patient care. Keeping hospitals clean is not just an aesthetic, but a patient safety issue.
Although the available literature is limited, there is enough evidence to demonstrate that cleaning hospitals helps prevent infections. Still, good intervention studies are rare, the quality of products and methods available is heterogeneous, and environmental hygiene personnel is often relatively untrained, unmotivated, under-paid, and under-appreciated by other actors in the hospital. Coupled with understaffed environmental hygiene services departments, this creates lasting issues in regards to patient and healthcare worker safety.
The situation is not helped by the lack of literature concerning the exact impact that a soiled or contaminated environment has on healthcare-associated infections (HAI). In order to begin the initiative to change how hospitals think about their environment, a group of infection control experts teamed up with Interclean, the largest cleaning trade-show in the world, to create the Healthcare Cleaning Forum: a nexus where hospital managers, industry, and healthcare and cleaning experts could meet productively. For the first time, Interclean dedicated an entire hall to cleaning in healthcare, and hosted a conference featuring leaders in healthcare environmental science from across Europe. The speakers summarized the state of the art knowledge in the field, challenged the current dogma and began to shape a research agenda for developing the field of hospital hygiene and environmental control. This article outlines the major issues and points brought up during the conference. It attempts to illustrate the large gap that exists between environmental hygiene and the healthcare industry, as well as bring some much-deserved attention to a concept whose time has come.
Cleaning as a patient safety initiative
We need to change how we think about the hospital environment- if the risks of transmission are known, no one wants to be the next patient in a contaminated room . When the world changed how they thought about hand hygiene 25 years ago [2, 5, 6], it realized how important hands were as the main vectors for spreading diseases from one patient to another in hospital settings. It is estimated that over 50–70% of all HAI are spread through contaminated hands. It is time to focus on the other 30–50%, a part of which might be linked to environmental transmission (Fig. 1). After all, “hands are really just another highly mobile surface in healthcare that are commonly contaminated and rarely disinfected” . Since there is a dynamic interchange between contamination on surfaces and hands , some of the transfer in which contaminated hands are the final link include contaminated surfaces as links earlier in the chain of transmission. Ideally, hospital environmental hygiene should follow the World Health Organization (WHO) model of “Clean Care is Safer Care” established for hand hygiene in 2005 , which spearheads good practices in more than 180 countries today [1, 9]. There is a need for creating evidence-based guidelines for hospital cleaning, and for using those guidelines to develop the right tools for education and implementation.
Although high-quality interventional studies are limited, there are enough to show that cleaning and disinfecting hospitals in order to prevent infection works. Analysis of numerous studies shows a clear correlation between “cleaning hygiene failures” and the number of intensive care unit-acquired infections (Fig. 2). Several studies showed that patients were much more likely to contract certain pathogens if the patient in the room before them was colonized or infected with a pathogen linked to HAI (Fig. 3) [4, 10–12]. There is a wealth of information on what products or chemicals eliminate which pathogens and how to apply them. This includes efficacy and toxicity studies as well as a few clinical studies assessing the effect of specific interventions to control outbreaks . More research is needed to measure the effects that cleaning methods have on HAI. Since improved environmental cleaning and decontamination measures are always bundled with other interventions during outbreaks, it is difficult to measure their precise impact.
Cleaning in healthcare
Hospital environmental hygiene is complex because it is dependent on the pathogen present and the product used to remove it. There are five main variables to cleaning, whether removing soil or disinfecting and cleaning on a microbiological level (Table 1; the acronym “WASTE” can be used to recall the 5 variables). These elements are: what product or intervention is applied, the technique and equipment used to apply the product, the type of surface, the level of contamination of the environment, and last but not least, the environmental hygiene personnel doing the cleaning . If any one of these elements is lacking, the cleaning will by definition be suboptimal. Because of this, changing cleaning practices in hospitals must be implemented through a multimodal strategy that takes these variables into account. The best cleaning substance in the world is useless if not applied correctly, and the best-trained personnel are useless if the product they are using is not effective against the particular pathogen that needs to be removed or killed.
But what is “clean”? (Table 2) Maintaining a hygienic hospital environment is not only about removing soil, but also about organizing an environment that is optimal for patient safety. Obviously if an area is visibly dirty, one cannot disinfect it. Visibly soiled surfaces must first be cleaned, and then, when or if appropriate, disinfected. Failure to do so means that the infective organisms cannot be targeted effectively . The 2018 survey from the European network to promote infection prevention for patient safety (EUNETIPS) aimed to analyze how different hospitals evaluated and have created their cleaning strategies . Cleanliness of a hospital also plays a large role in patient perception of the healthcare setting, and consequently of patient satisfaction [15, 16]. Patients are instrumental in convincing administrators to invest in cleaning, and must be sensitized to the issues in order to be allies for creating change.
In addition to a vast array of detergents and cleaning/disinfecting equipment, common chemicals used for disinfection include: alcohol, chlorine and chlorine compounds, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, iodophors, ortho-phthalaldehyde, peracetic acid, phenolics, and quaternary ammonium compounds . This paper will not go into any detail on these products as such a discussion would be too extensive and was not the purpose of the Healthcare Cleaning Forum 2018.
An ideal product would be effective against all bacteria, spores, viruses, and prions while having no impact on the environment and being completely safe as well as easy to use. Currently no such product exists; thus choosing any product will result in some level of tradeoff.
For example, hydrogen peroxide vapor does not leave any residues in the environment, but is expensive, can be corrosive, and is difficult to use compared with liquid disinfectants. Chlorine solutions are effective against spores, but have a strong odor, leave residues, and may damage certain environmental surfaces. UV light leaves no residue but cannot disinfect areas that it cannot shine on directly. This is the case for every single product available today; most only work against certain types of pathogens, and others are toxic or degrade certain materials in the patient environment.
The human component
But cleaning is not only dependent on the chemicals used. The ideal environmental hygiene personnel (Table 2) would remain thorough and meticulous, and always use the right technique, product and materials. Cleaning and disinfecting a hospital is a repetitive task that can quickly become mundane. Environmental hygiene personnel are often not trained sufficiently, and do not feel that they have the agency to make a difference in patient safety. Additionally, the amount of work that they are expected to do is not always in accordance with the time assigned to the task. Within the hospital hierarchy, environmental hygiene personnel are on one of the lowest rungs, and often credit is not given to them, especially considering the importance of their work. There is a major problem with how “cleaners” are often perceived as menial and uneducated by the rest of the hospital staff. In many countries, particularly in high-resources settings, cleaning personnel frequently originate from outside of the country, and do not express themselves in the local language, thus making discussions and interactive exchanges with other categories of health professionals difficult or even impossible.
Additionally, few hospitals have sufficient systems in place to train and certify their cleaning staff. Without certification, advancement is unstructured and can be limited since there is no way to gauge the quality of a staff as a whole. Often there is a high turnover rate among personnel within the cleaning service or a language barrier between the cleaners and the rest of the staff. Cleaning personnel must be trained to understand why their work is important to the hospital, and need to be recognized and certified in order to improve motivation and compliance .
Logistics of hospital cleaning
The place of the environmental hygiene services department (Table 2) within a hospital is important, especially with regard to how they work together with the IPC service. Nursing assistants are generally responsible for cleaning one part of the patient environment and the environmental hygiene personnel for another; but often, respective tasks are not clearly defined. For example, if who needs to clean the bedside table is not explicitly stated, then there is a good chance that that table may not be cleaned by anyone. In one survey, one third of environmental hygiene personnel admitted that they were not really clear about what they were responsible for . Absences or shortage of staff on wards, and/or the transfer of responsibilities between colleagues could complicate an already unclear situation and result in crucial maintenance not being performed. This can result in the spreading of disorder: a few minor mistakes, or disregard for a few of the rules, eventually cause increased disregard for rules in general among the whole staff .
In addition to the aforementioned issues, environmental hygiene services are often outsourced to external companies. While probably not as much of an issue in a stairwell or an office, it is virtually impossible for a hospital to optimize the cleaning staff and its quality if they have little to no oversight of or influence on the environmental hygiene. Outsourcing is not necessarily bad, but the right conditions must be observed, and crucial areas need to be cleaned by trained and certified professionals, even if costs are bit higher initially.
Education, training and communication
So how can we effectively educate and train hospital personnel for modern environmental hygiene maintenance? While the science of cleaning and disinfecting agents and equipment has evolved immensely in the last few decades, the education of cleaning personnel and their integration into healthcare worker teams has not. Cleaning and disinfecting hospitals is very different from cleaning public spaces such as hotels or offices; hospitals must realize this and adapt to the challenges. There is a range of environments within each hospital, from offices to intensive care units or hospital pharmacy services, some of which require specialized approaches to environmental hygiene maintenance. There are even different requirements for different sectors within the same department. The pathogens present in hospitals can be quite different from those present in the community, and the patient population is more vulnerable. Each type of pathogen has its own specific transmission pattern, host affinity, and microbiological characteristics.
Leaders and trainers must be seen as legitimate by staff, and need to ensure their understanding and motivation. Only if there is a high process understanding in training can quality become routine; an informed person tends to be more compliant, and a compliant person is more motivated. Motivated teams are more efficient and more aware, and individuals need to understand that everyone’s work is important. Personal responsibility and team cohesion require solid collaboration, which in turn requires the equality and realization of rights and duties. Repetition, feedback and team-building help optimize performance in environments that inherently foster human error. Analyzing hospital architecture, workflow, and ergonomics can go a long way to reducing it. It is important to realize that the best product, equipment or intervention is worthless without well-trained, responsible and compliant staff.
Possibilities of automation and self-disinfecting surfaces
Automation can be useful, but currently does not replace the need for thorough manual cleaning. Although manual cleaning and disinfection can be qualitatively as good as machine automated disinfection (or even better in some instances), one has less oversight over humans, and they do not clean at their best all of the time. Environmental hygiene service managers can use a variety of tools including visual inspection, cultures, ATP meters or UV light reactive fluorescent markers to verify how well a given area has been cleaned and disinfected. Though even the best-trained people are prone to error, machines never skip any steps. Automated or semi-automated room disinfection is not to replace personnel, but to raise the bar on the standard of disinfection and, in some instances, prevent work-related musculoskeletal constraints among environmental hygiene personnel. At some point, solely manual approaches are doomed to fail, as hospital environments are intricate and difficult to maintain in an appropriately clean state. In one study, up to 50% of an environment remained uncleaned after manual cleaning. Another study showed that after four rounds of manual cleaning and disinfection with a bleach solution, 25% of rooms were still contaminated with Acinetobacter baumanii . Automated room disinfection with hydrogen peroxide vapor or ultraviolet light have shown promising results in targeting specific microorganisms, although they only work once a room has already been manually cleaned to remove soil .
Beyond machines, there is an important need for more research into surfaces that inherently inhibit bacterial contamination or that have self-disinfecting properties. A few that have been studied are the micro-patterning of surfaces or the inclusion of copper in them in order to reduce contamination . The idea of having something permanently in the patient environment that is always working is an attractive one (although perhaps expensive): if one can control the level of contamination at the source, then there is less to remove and less risk for sub-optimal cleaning and disinfection. Further research, including unbiased, high-quality clinical efficacy and effectiveness studies are however still needed before further recommendations can be made regarding these materials [22, 23].
Cost vs. value of hospital cleaning and disinfection
It is imperative to develop a new and efficient model for hospital environmental hygiene maintenance. The return on investment for successful hand hygiene promotion has been shown to up to 23 times the initial amount invested [24–26]. In order to have similar figures for hospital environmental hygiene, we need to first understand what the cost of maintaining a clean hospital environment is, and what its value is. Although many hospitals are quick to spend money on new software, specialized staff and fancy equipment, they often look at maintaining the environment hygiene as an opportunity to save in the budget.
Hospitals often try to cut environmental hygiene maintenance costs as much as possible, both in the products that they use, and in the training and continued education of their workforce. The essential shift in approach needs to happen in how hospitals assess this cost and value. Because the costs of not cleaning can affect numerous budgets within a hospital, it is difficult to accurately account for them. Hospitals need to look beyond actual expenditures to averted expenditures, such as increase in patient-days due to HAI, as well as opportunity costs such as hospital staff time or missed surgical revenue due to increased turnaround time in an operating theater. There are also increases in costs associated with antimicrobial resistance in HAI, which has a cost estimated at over €85 trillion ($100 trillion) globally by 2050 . For example, one relatively small outbreak with approximately 40 cases cost a hospital over €1 million . Prevention is always better and less expensive than a cure, especially when we are running out of antibiotics. So when making a decision about which environmental hygiene maintenance systems to buy, which products to use, or how much to invest in training the cleaning personnel, hospitals would do well to look at the costs of not doing so, or deciding on a cheaper solution. In order to save money in the long-term and improve patient satisfaction, hospitals need to invest in quality across the board whether in materials, disinfectants, technological innovation, or the training, education, and certification of their workforce (Fig. 4).
A time for cooperation
It is imperative to develop public-private partnerships in the field of clean hospitals. Industry and academia both have a role to play in raising standards and providing hospitals with the best possible products and methods. First, currently marketed sub-standards products and methods should be suppressed. Ultimately, the difference will no longer be between good and bad products on the market, but within implementation and training of those products and technologies.
Cleaning and environmental maintenance is a science. Initially, assessing the approach for the hygiene of a toilet seat seems almost redundant. However, many of the questions around this seemingly simple activity require study and scientific assessment. One must decide material to use to clean the toilet seat (e.g. microfiber or cotton cloth), which liquid agent to use (e.g. a detergent or a disinfectant and, if a disinfectant, which one), and the ideal frequency of the cleaning and disinfection (e.g. daily, after each use, or both). Many questions remain unanswered; some are addressed in the Appendix (see Appendix). Hospitals must get out of the vicious circle of cutting costs and instead assess value. They must realize that being a hospital “cleaner” is not a job but a profession, and invest in their workforce. Academics must encourage further studies (see research agenda, Table 3) as well as weave together the data available in order to present hospitals with a convincing business case of why to invest in hospital cleaning.
Because clean hospitals is an idea whose time is now.
The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated.
Infection prevention and control
World Health Organization
World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care. 2009.
Vermeil T, et al. Hand hygiene in hospitals: anatomy of a revolution. J Hosp Infect. 2018.
Grayson ML, et al. Effects of the Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative after 8 years on infection control practices, health-care worker education, and clinical outcomes: a longitudinal study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;0.
Mitchell BG, Dancer SJ, Anderson M, Dehn E. Risk of organism acquisition from prior room occupants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect. 2015;91:211–7.
Pittet D, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Infection Control Programme. Lancet Lond Engl. 2000;356:1307–12.
Pittet D, Donaldson L. Clean care is safer care: a worldwide priority. Lancet Lond Engl. 2005;366:1246–7.
Otter J. The inaugural healthcare cleaning forum. Reflect Infect Prevent Contr. 2018.
Pittet D, et al. Evidence-based model for hand transmission during patient care and the role of improved practices. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6:641–52.
Kilpatrick C, Storr J, Allegranzi B. ‘A Worldwide WHO Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Campaign’ Ch. 38 in Hand Hygiene: A Handbook for Medical Professionals. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. pp. 275–284.
Dancer SJ. Controlling hospital-acquired infection: focus on the role of the environment and new Technologies for Decontamination. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014;27:665–90.
Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Miller MB, Huslage K, Sickbert-Bennett E. Role of hospital surfaces in the transmission of emerging health care-associated pathogens: norovirus, Clostridium difficile, and Acinetobacter species. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38:S25–33.
Otter JA, Yezli S, Salkeld JAG, French GL. Evidence that contaminated surfaces contribute to the transmission of hospital pathogens and an overview of strategies to address contaminated surfaces in hospital settings. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:S6–S11.
Albrecht, P. HUG Entretien environment du patient. 2018.
Parneix, P. Cleaning as a patient safety initiative. 2018.
Quintana JM, et al. Predictors of patient satisfaction with hospital health care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:102.
Schoenfelder T, Klewer J, Kugler J. Determinants of patient satisfaction: a study among 39 hospitals in an in-patient setting in Germany. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011;23:503–9.
Mitchell BG, et al. Changes in knowledge and attitudes of hospital environmental services staff: the researching effective approaches to cleaning in hospitals (REACH) study. Am J Infect Control. 2018;46(9):980–5.
Voss, A. Cleaning in healthcare: the new concept. 2018.
Strassle P, et al. The effect of terminal cleaning on environmental contamination rates of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Am J Infect Control. 2012;40:1005–7.
Havill NL, Moore BA, Boyce JM. Comparison of the microbiological efficacy of hydrogen peroxide vapor and ultraviolet light processes for room decontamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33:507–12.
Mann EE, et al. Surface micropattern limits bacterial contamination. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2014;3:28.
Hall L, et al. Researching effective approaches to cleaning in hospitals: protocol of the REACH study, a multi-site stepped-wedge randomised trial. Implement Sci. 2016;11:44.
M Abbas et al. Conflicts of interest in infection prevention and control research: no smoke without fire. A narrative review. Intensive Care Med Press; 2108.
Pittet D, Sax H, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S. Cost implications of successful hand hygiene promotion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:264–6.
Graves N. The economic impact of improved hand hygiene. In: Hand Hygiene: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 285–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118846810.ch39.
Craig, D, et al. Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent healthcare-associated infections literature review. 2017.
The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance Chaired by Jim O’Neill. Tackling Drug Resistant Infections Globally: Final Report and Recommendations. 2016.
Otter JA, et al. Counting the cost of an outbreak of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: an economic evaluation from a hospital perspective. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017;23:188–96.
Disinfection and Decontamination: Principles, Applications and Related Issues Edited by Gurusamy Manivannan Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007. 512 pp., Illustrated.
Detergent | Definition of detergent in English by Oxford Dictionaries. Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/detergent. Accessed 16 Aug 2018.
Disinfectant | definition of disinfectant by Medical dictionary. Available at: https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/disinfectant. Accessed 16 Aug 2018.
Disinfectant | Definition of Disinfectant by Merriam-Webster. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinfectant. Accessed: 16 Aug 2018.
Fumigate | Definition of Fumigate by Merriam-Webster. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fumigate. Accessed 16 Aug 2018.
Healthcare forum. Available at: https://www.intercleanshow.com/en/amsterdam/healthcare-cleaning-forum. Accessed 26 June 2018.
WHO. WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care. WHO. Available at: http://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/tools/9789241597906/en/. Accessed 26 June 2018.
Allegranzi B, et al. Burden of endemic health-care-associated infection in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Lond Engl. 2011;377:228–41.
Allegranzi B, et al. Global implementation of WHO’s multimodal strategy for improvement of hand hygiene: a quasi-experimental study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:843–51.
Pittet D. Hand hygiene: It’s all about when and how. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29:957–9.
The authors would like to thank Interclean, CAP Partners and colleagues and collaborators who made the Healthcare Cleaning Forum possible, especially Marianne Kemmer, Sofie Struve Løgstrup, Henrik J. Nielsen, Paul Riemens, and Rob den Hertog. They also wish to thank Markus Dettenkofer for his contribution. The authors would also like to address their special thanks to Nasim Lotfinejad from the Department of Research, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran, for her illustrations.
Principal funding by the Infection Control Programme & WHO Collaborating Centre on Patient Safety (SPCI/WCC), University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland; hand hygiene research activities at the SPCI/WCC are supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (32003B_163262).
Andreas Voss has received grants by the Framework Programme of the European Commission, Interreg, ZonMW, and VWS. In addition he received funding or speakers fees by Ophardt, Deb, Ecolab, Momentum Bioscience, Brill & Partner, Gama, bioMerieux, UVDI, and 3M.
Didier Pittet has received funding by the European Commission and the Swiss National Science Foundation for several research and clinical studies; he also works with the WHO in the context of the WHO initiative Private Organizations for Patient Safety (POPS) Hand Hygiene. The aim of this WHO initiative is to harness industry strengths to align and improve implementation of WHO recommendations for hand hygiene in healthcare in different parts of the world, including in least developed countries. In this instance companies/industry with a focus on hand hygiene and infection control related advancement have the specific aims of improving access to affordable hand hygiene products as well as supporting education and research.
The 2018 Healthcare Cleaning Forum was logistically supported by Interclean and benefitted from the coordination efforts of CAP Partners.
Availability of data and materials
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Please see signed author forms, ethical approval was not needed for this paper.
Consent for publication
Alexandra Peters and Didier Pittet have no conflicts of interest to declare and have received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation for research.
Andreea Moldovan: has no conflicts of interest to declare and has received funding from St. Constantin Hospital, Brasov, Romania.
Jon Otter has, in the last 3 years, received Academic fees from CAP Partner, Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Elsevier, and IDSA; consulting fees from Aquarius, Arthur D Little, Fields Consulting, Gama Healthcare Ltd., GK Intelligence Limited, Pfizer Ltd.; and speaker fees from 3M, Hospital Da Luz, Portugal, Odense University Hospital (Denmark), Pall Medical Ltd., Serosep Ltd., Society for Applied Microbiology, Virox, and Webber Training.
Pierre Parneix French Ministry of Health through the Regional Health Agency of Nouvelle Aquitaine.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
During the speaker presentations at the Healthcare Cleaning Forum conference in Amsterdam (May 16th, 2018), audience participants were able to ask questions directly via their smartphones. A total of 87 questions were submitted. Some of these questions were chosen and then posted on the screen above the speakers, who then addressed them directly after each presentation. These questions, as well as some that there were not posted during the conference, have been organized, and in some cases, combined or rephrased for clarity. The responses from the speakers have been synthesized in the table below.
Questions answered directly in the paper are not listed in the Table.
About this article
Cite this article
Peters, A., Otter, J., Moldovan, A. et al. Keeping hospitals clean and safe without breaking the bank; summary of the Healthcare Cleaning Forum 2018. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 7, 132 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-018-0420-3