Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Common hospital soap ‘effective’ in preventing MRSA


Bathing patients in a common hospital soap, chlorhexidine, is equally effective in preventing the transmission of MRSA as isolation techniques, according to US researchers.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommend “contact precautions”, which include wearing gowns and gloves during patient visits, to avoid the spread of MRSA and other diseases in healthcare settings.

The authors of the new study challenged the practice of using contact precautions to avoid infections and may provide a possible alternative strategy that could improve patient care.

“These findings could hold great significance for finding a relatively inexpensive and effective way to prevent the spread of MRSA”

James McKinnell

The researchers found fewer MRSA contamination events when patients were only bathed in chlorhexidine, compared to when patients were subject to contact precautions.

The study compared patient transmission and environmental contamination with MRSA in three intensive care units over a six-month period.

The researchers documented nine MRSA environmental contamination events during the period of time when the hospital ICU staff was using only contact precautions to prevent the spread of disease.

The researchers documented seven fewer MRSA contamination events during the time when the only precaution taken was bathing the patients in chlorhexidine.

Study author Dr James McKinnell, an infectious disease specialist at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, said: “Our research indicated bathing patients may be as effective in preventing disease transmission as the current practice of limiting contact with patients.

“Further study is needed, but these findings could hold great significance for finding a relatively inexpensive and effective way to prevent the spread of potentially deadly hospital-acquired infections and improve patient care,” he said.

He added that patients placed in contact precautions spent less time with clinicians and may have a lower quality of care.

Unfortunately, he said, contact precautions have become so prevalent in US healthcare settings that over 15% of hospitalised patients were exposed to the physical isolation and risks associated with limited contact with healthcare workers.

The findings were presented at the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America meeting in Orlando, Florida, this week.


Readers' comments (4)

  • Back to what we used to use!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • as students we sent swabs taken on a ward from hospital soap and from a damp flannel to the lab where they grew a "healthy" and robust colony of pseudomonas on an agar-agar plate!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Back in the 60's we had nasal swabs taken when we moved to a new ward. Regular swabs were taken from wards but you never seemed to hear the outcome. In the early 70's I staffed on an isolation ward, we used soap and water for hand washing. To attend to each patient we washed our hands a total of 5 times. I never knew of one cross infection!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with the previous comments. The rise in infection can be avoided by using soap and water! What a novel idea!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs