English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Multiple mobile ultraviolet (UV) light devices are available for disinfection of hospital rooms, but few data are available on the relative ability of devices to reduce surface contamination and ease of use. The objective of the present study was to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of several devices in a laboratory setting. Methods Using a modification of the ASTM International method E2197, spores of Clostridioides difficile(ATCC strain BAA-1870) suspended in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) with 5% fetal calf serum were inoculated onto 20 mm stainless steel disks and dried. Disks were attached to right and left bedrails, under bed, call button, chair armrest, floor near device, table top, table bottom, floor far from device, toilet seat and grab bar and sink handle in a mock 6.4 × 4.1-meter hospital room with a 1.5 × 2.4-meter bathroom. Disks were exposed using cycle times and device placements recommended by device manufacturers. Spores from exposed disks and unexposed control disks were recovered in PBS with Triton X-100, enumerated using dilution plating, and log10reductions were determined by comparing the number of spores recovered from exposed and control disks. Times for set-up, treatment and resetting the space were recorded for each device. Results were expressed as mean log10reductions and percent reduction/minute of room vacancy. Results were compared using Kruskall-Wallis nonparametric analysis. Results Mean log10reductions, percent reductions, run times for patient rooms and bathroom, setup/reset times, total room vacancy times, and percent reduction/minute of room vacancy are shown in the Table. There were no significant differences in percent reductions between different locations for each device. There were, however, statistically significant differences between microbial reductions between the different machines (P &lt; 0.05 for all comparisons). Conclusion There are many factors to consider in selecting a UV device. These considerations should include mean log10reduction, total vacancy times and percent reduction achieved/minute of room vacancy. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

1221. Comparison of the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Mobile Ultraviolet Light Devices in a Simulated Patient Room