In a recent press release, Tru-D examines a recent paper that has been published detailing the implementation process of the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room-Disinfection (BETR-D) study, the first and only randomized clinical trial on UVC disinfection.
The new report, Implementation Lessons Learned From the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room (BETR) Disinfection Study: Process and Perceptions of Enhanced Disinfection with Ultraviolet Disinfection Devices, was recently published in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. Among the key items discussed are logistic and administrative processes utilized during the trial and lessons learned that are pertinent to future utilization of UVC disinfection devices in other hospitals.
“The study implementation protocols mirror the messaging and program management process that Tru-D currently uses with our hospital partners,” said Alice Brewer, Clinical Affairs Director for Tru-D SmartUVC. “In order for a hospital to implement a successful UVC disinfection program, there must be good communication, a focus on patient safety, compliance tracking and appropriate resource allocation.”
The BETR-D study aimed to disinfect all contact precaution rooms; during the 28-month trial, Tru-D was deployed in 16,220 of 18,411 eligible contact precaution rooms with the median hospital compliance against contact precaution rooms being 89 percent (86 percent-92 percent). In order to achieve this high level of compliance, the authors urge environmental services leadership to work with infection prevention and bed control departments to ensure that enhanced strategies are prioritized in appropriate rooms.
In addition, the authors noted that administrative leaders are often conflicted on whether or not to use UV disinfection due to the need to promptly admit patients waiting in the emergency department or waiting area. The study authors stated, “We believe that this conflict needs to be viewed as a safety issue because enhanced disinfection using UV devices is an evidence-based strategy to improve patient safety.” The authors further explained that when they tracked the amount of time required to bring a patient to a room labeled as ‘under pressure’ they observed that, “In our experience, this pressure was related more to perception than an actual barrier to use of the UV device…there was always sufficient time to run a standard UV device cycle.”