Evaluation of the effects of footwear hygiene protocols on nonspecific bacterial contamination of floor surfaces in an equine hospital.
Abstract: To evaluate the effects of footwear hygiene protocols on bacterial contamination of floor surfaces in an equine hospital. Methods: Field trial. Methods: Footwear hygiene protocols evaluated included use of rubber overboots with footbaths and footmats containing a quaternary ammonium disinfectant, rubber overboots with footbaths and footmats containing a peroxygen disinfectant, and no restrictions on footwear type but mandatory use of footbaths and footmats containing a peroxygen disinfectant. Nonspecific aerobic bacterial counts were determined via 2 procedures for sample collection and bacterial enumeration (contact plates vs swabbing combined with use of spread plates), and the effects of each footwear hygiene protocol were compared. Results: There were no consistent findings suggesting that any of the protocols were associated with differences in numbers of bacteria recovered from floor surfaces. Although there were detectable differences in numbers of bacteria recovered in association with different footwear hygiene protocols, differences in least square mean bacterial counts did not appear to be clinically relevant (ie, were < 1 log10). Conclusions: Although cleaning and disinfection of footwear are important aids in reducing the risk of nosocomial transmission of infectious agents in veterinary hospitals, the numbers of aerobic bacteria recovered from floor surfaces were not affected by use of rubber overboots or the types of disinfectant used in this study. Further study is warranted to evaluate the usefulness of footwear hygiene practices relative to their efficacy for reducing transmission of specific pathogens or decreasing nosocomial disease risk.
Publication Date: 2006-04-04 PubMed ID: 16579786DOI: 10.2460/javma.228.7.1068Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
- Journal Article
- Research Support
- Non-U.S. Gov't
- Research Support
- U.S. Gov't
- Non-P.H.S.
Summary
This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.
The article explores the impact of different footwear hygiene protocols on the levels of bacteria on the floors of an equine hospital. The study found no consistent reduction in bacterial contamination as a result of these protocols.
Research Methodology
- The study conducted a field trial in an equine hospital to examine the effects of various footwear hygiene protocols.
- The protocols tested included the use of rubber overboots with footbaths and footmats that contained a quaternary ammonium disinfectant or a peroxygen disinfectant.
- An additional protocol tested involved no restrictions on footwear, but the mandatory use of footbaths and footmats containing a peroxygen disinfectant.
- To evaluate the effects of these protocols, nonspecific aerobic bacterial counts on the floor surfaces were measured via two sample collection and bacterial enumeration procedures: contact plates and swabbing combined with spread plates.
Research Findings
- The results showed no consistent evidence that the various footwear hygiene protocols had an impact on the levels of bacteria recovered from the floor surfaces.
- Although there were detectable differences in the numbers of bacteria recovered in association with different footwear hygiene protocols, the least square mean bacterial count differences were found to be clinically insignificant (i.e. less than 1 on the logarithmic scale).
Conclusions and Further Research
- The research concluded that while the cleaning and disinfection of footwear are crucial in minimizing the risk of nosocomial (hospital-acquired) transmission of infectious agents in veterinary hospitals, the methods investigated in this study – the use of rubber overboots and different disinfectants – did not make a discernible difference to the levels of aerobic bacteria on floor surfaces.
- The study indicated a need for further research to assess the effectiveness of footwear hygiene practices in specifically reducing the transmission of particular pathogens and lowering the risk of nosocomial diseases.
Cite This Article
APA
Stockton KA, Morley PS, Hyatt DR, Burgess BA, Patterson G, Dunowska M, Lee DE.
(2006).
Evaluation of the effects of footwear hygiene protocols on nonspecific bacterial contamination of floor surfaces in an equine hospital.
J Am Vet Med Assoc, 228(7), 1068-1073.
https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.228.7.1068 Publication
Researcher Affiliations
- Animal Population Health Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
MeSH Terms
- Animals
- Baths / veterinary
- Colony Count, Microbial / veterinary
- Cross Infection / prevention & control
- Cross Infection / veterinary
- Disinfectants / pharmacology
- Disinfection / methods
- Floors and Floorcoverings / standards
- Horse Diseases / microbiology
- Horses
- Hospitals, Animal / standards
- Hygiene
- Peroxides / pharmacology
- Shoes
- Treatment Outcome
Citations
This article has been cited 6 times.- Liew ECY, Phelan M, McDougall KL. The efficacy of a range of hygiene measures for boot cleaning to protect natural vegetation from Phytophthora cinnamomi.. Sci Rep 2023 Apr 10;13(1):5825.
- Humblet MF, Saegerman C. Internal audits as a tool to assess the compliance with biosecurity rules in a veterinary faculty.. Front Vet Sci 2023;10:960051.
- Hornig KJ, Burgess BA, Saklou NT, Johnson V, Malmlov A, Van Metre DC, Morley PS, Byers SR. Evaluation of the Efficacy of Disinfectant Footmats for the Reduction of Bacterial Contamination on Footwear in a Large Animal Veterinary Hospital.. J Vet Intern Med 2016 Nov;30(6):1882-1886.
- Traverse M, Aceto H. Environmental cleaning and disinfection.. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2015 Mar;45(2):299-330, vi.
- Hickman-Davis JM, Nicolaus ML, Petty JM, Harrison DM, Bergdall VK. Effectiveness of shoe covers for bioexclusion within an animal facility.. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2012 Mar;51(2):181-8.
- Jones M, Boileau M. Camelid herd health.. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2009 Jul;25(2):239-63.
Use Nutrition Calculator
Check if your horse's diet meets their nutrition requirements with our easy-to-use tool Check your horse's diet with our easy-to-use tool
Talk to a Nutritionist
Discuss your horse's feeding plan with our experts over a free phone consultation Discuss your horse's diet over a phone consultation
Submit Diet Evaluation
Get a customized feeding plan for your horse formulated by our equine nutritionists Get a custom feeding plan formulated by our nutritionists
