In our inaugural “Ask the Experts” series, Peter Teska, Global Prevention Application Expert at Diversey, tackles some of the most pressing questions from our members. Read the full Q&A below.
WFBSC: What are some best practices that are currently employed on a global scale that have proven effective against COVID-19?
PT: The interventions that have had the largest impact are when a series of interventions are used together in a bundle. Several studies have been done showing the impact of masks, physical distancing/reducing crowding, the use of barriers, improved ventilation, hand hygiene, and surface hygiene. Collectively these types of interventions are called “Non-pharmaceutical interventions”, or NPIs. While it is generally difficult to separate the impact of a single intervention in a bundle, masks and physical distancing are believed to have the most impact for NPIs. The most effective intervention, vaccination, is just being implemented in many countries, but it is being shown to be more effective than NPIs.
WFBSC: Given an effective disinfection program will help not only reduce the spread of COVID-19, but also the spread of infections from influenza to the common cold, MRSA, Norovirus and more, what are the core tenets of an effective program?
PT: Early in the pandemic it was not clear what portion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurred via surfaces. Since then it has been demonstrated that while surface transmission of SARS-CoV-2 does occur, it is more of an opportunistic mode of transmission than a preferential mode of transmission. That does not mean that surface hygiene is unimportant. The role of surface hygiene in preventing pathogen transmission for a wide range of pathogens is well established, but the portion of infections prevented by better surface hygiene varies by pathogen. The reason to have a strong surface hygiene program is because it reduces the risk of a wide range of pathogens, rather than because of the incremental benefit against SARS-CoV-2. Effective surface hygiene programs include:
- Effective cleaners and disinfectants
- Cleaning tools that enhance the effectiveness of the cleaners/disinfectants
- Machines - where needed to clean/disinfect larger areas
- Clearly articulated evidence based cleaning practices provided to staff in written/visual form that standardizes cleaning practices
- Training for staff that includes competency verification.
- Appropriate use of larger area/whole room disinfection when needed
- Verification of the cleaning practices which may include a measure of the hygiene outcome
- Estimation of the total cost of ownership for the program
WFBSC: What are the arguments for using one type of disinfectant product over an another in specific facility environments based on what you’ve observed in regions outside of North America?
PT: Many different disinfectants can be effective, depending on the desired hygiene outcome. Facilities may consider different levels of hygiene depending on the type of business, facility traffic, their tolerance for risk, and the budget they have for facility hygiene. In general, facilities are looking for disinfectants with a broader efficacy range, better cleaning performance, better safety profiles, and improved sustainability. This makes certain disinfectants more suitable than others, yet in some facilities, the older disinfectant technologies that are less efficacious, have poorer cleaning or safety profiles, and are less sustainable may be acceptable as well. It’s important for a facility to consider the hygiene outcome they are trying to achieve when selecting a disinfectant – and the rest of the materials used in their surface hygiene program.
WFBSC: Can you speak to how to implement disinfection solutions in your business in order to achieve more efficiency/efficacy and lower cost?
PT: Understanding how the various tools used in a surface hygiene program – cleaners and disinfectants, cleaning tools, floor machines, etc. – all work together is important in evaluating the total program cost. As an example, there are different types and sizes of scrubber-driers for use in floor cleaning for large areas. While a smaller machine that cleans fewer square meters per hour may have a lower purchase price, when cleaning a large floor, the improved productivity of the larger machine may justify the higher purchase price. In a similar manner, using disinfectants that cause less side effects for staff (think less damage to their uniforms, less odor, less need to wear personal protective equipment) can result in improved efficiency when performing cleaning tasks. When validating the results of cleaning, the impact of using a better disinfectant may be improved hygiene outcomes (lower bacteria levels on surfaces, lower ATP readings, improve rating for visual cleanliness, etc.) and staff may be more efficient achieving these better outcomes.
WFBSC: After things begin to return to normal, what disinfection protocols do you think will or should become part of the new standard in the cleaning industry across the globe?
PT: When the impact of the pandemic is studied, we will see that improved surface hygiene standards adopted by many facilities had an impact on other infections as well. Studies are showing that norovirus cases are at their lowest levels in decades and influenza cases were virtually non-existent as well. While improved surface hygiene is not the only reason for these lower infection rates, it is part of the story. As with more frequent hand hygiene, cleaning and disinfecting surfaces at appropriate levels does impact infection rates for a wide range of pathogens. Facilities that improved hygiene standards during the pandemic will be faced with a choice about whether to maintain these standards or reduce to pre-pandemic levels. Making surface cleaning and disinfection easier to do, more frequent, and safer for staff will hopefully continue to drive standards that improve hygiene outcomes.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
