Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 11 – uploaded by Kevin Hallas

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Note:

Table 11 Note:

Related Figures (22)

Table 3.2 Summary of commonly used routine daily cleaning methods. Numerous studies have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of different cleaning methods (Dharan et al 1999, White et al. 2007). The following table describes various floor cleaning methods and summarises their strengths and weaknesses.
Table 3.2 Summary of commonly used routine daily cleaning methods. Numerous studies have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of different cleaning methods (Dharan et al 1999, White et al. 2007). The following table describes various floor cleaning methods and summarises their strengths and weaknesses.
Although barefoot pedestrians will also use some of the areas, it was decided that further testing was an unnecessary complication as the main thrust of the research was to understand cleaning. The Rz surface microroughness measurement is widely used as a surrogate measure of slip resistance, as the roughness of the surface is intrinsic to the wet slip resistance of a floor material.
Although barefoot pedestrians will also use some of the areas, it was decided that further testing was an unnecessary complication as the main thrust of the research was to understand cleaning. The Rz surface microroughness measurement is widely used as a surrogate measure of slip resistance, as the roughness of the surface is intrinsic to the wet slip resistance of a floor material.
Table 5.2. Interpretation of Pendulum Test Value & Rz Microroughness according to UKSRG Guidelines’, Issue 3, 2005 The pendulum test and surface microroughness measurements have been the subject of significant development work over recent years, in order to ensure that they provide reliable slip resistance measurements. The United Kingdom Slip Resistance Group (UKSRG) produces detailed guidelines for the use of these methods, and gives figures for the interpretation of the test results, which are reproduced below:
Table 5.2. Interpretation of Pendulum Test Value & Rz Microroughness according to UKSRG Guidelines’, Issue 3, 2005 The pendulum test and surface microroughness measurements have been the subject of significant development work over recent years, in order to ensure that they provide reliable slip resistance measurements. The United Kingdom Slip Resistance Group (UKSRG) produces detailed guidelines for the use of these methods, and gives figures for the interpretation of the test results, which are reproduced below:
Table 5.3. Area description and cleaning regime.
Table 5.3. Area description and cleaning regime.
Figure 5.1. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 1 At Cardiff & Vale, the first week of monitoring only looked at four of the eight test sites selected. This was partly due to the time consuming sampling regime and partly due to unavailability of test locations due to their use by patients. The chart (Figure 5.1) shows that none of the floors were completely free from bacteria after cleaning, but that floor 7, the most slip resistant, was cleaned as effectively as floor 3, which is a smooth vinyl which presents 2 high slip potential when wet.
Figure 5.1. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 1 At Cardiff & Vale, the first week of monitoring only looked at four of the eight test sites selected. This was partly due to the time consuming sampling regime and partly due to unavailability of test locations due to their use by patients. The chart (Figure 5.1) shows that none of the floors were completely free from bacteria after cleaning, but that floor 7, the most slip resistant, was cleaned as effectively as floor 3, which is a smooth vinyl which presents 2 high slip potential when wet.
Figure 5.2. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 2
Figure 5.2. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 2
Figure 5.3. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 2 The data presented in Figure 5.2 shows that there was significant bacterial contamination in areas 3, 4, 5a, 6 & 7 before cleaning was undertaken. Following cleaning, the bacteria count was reduced to much lower levels in areas 4 & 5a and to none in areas 3, 6 & 7. The cleaning also eliminated the lower level of bacterial contamination at area 1.
Figure 5.3. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 2 The data presented in Figure 5.2 shows that there was significant bacterial contamination in areas 3, 4, 5a, 6 & 7 before cleaning was undertaken. Following cleaning, the bacteria count was reduced to much lower levels in areas 4 & 5a and to none in areas 3, 6 & 7. The cleaning also eliminated the lower level of bacterial contamination at area 1.
Figure 5.4. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 4 suggesting that the cleaning regime on this occasion has actually spread contamination across the floor.
Figure 5.4. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 4 suggesting that the cleaning regime on this occasion has actually spread contamination across the floor.
Figure 5.5. Macclesfield Hospital, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 1 Figure 5.4 shows the final round of testing at Cardiff & Vale. Areas 1, 2,4 & 6 show significan reductions in bacteria following cleaning. Whilst areas 1 & 2 are smooth (slippery) vinyls, are< 6 is a slip resistant floor, with a pendulum test value of 42. Area 3 and area 7 show nc improvement following cleaning.
Figure 5.5. Macclesfield Hospital, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 1 Figure 5.4 shows the final round of testing at Cardiff & Vale. Areas 1, 2,4 & 6 show significan reductions in bacteria following cleaning. Whilst areas 1 & 2 are smooth (slippery) vinyls, are< 6 is a slip resistant floor, with a pendulum test value of 42. Area 3 and area 7 show nc improvement following cleaning.
Figure 5.6. Macclesfield Hospital, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 2 As can be seen in the data from Cardiff and Vale, the data from Macclesfield shows significant reductions in the level of bacterial contamination following cleaning. The variation in bacteria count following cleaning does not depend on the slip resistance of the flooring, as floors at the extremes of the spectrum being tested have been cleaned to leave no bacteria, whereas other floors have significant bacterial contamination after cleaning.
Figure 5.6. Macclesfield Hospital, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count by Area, Week 2 As can be seen in the data from Cardiff and Vale, the data from Macclesfield shows significant reductions in the level of bacterial contamination following cleaning. The variation in bacteria count following cleaning does not depend on the slip resistance of the flooring, as floors at the extremes of the spectrum being tested have been cleaned to leave no bacteria, whereas other floors have significant bacterial contamination after cleaning.
The series of tests shown in figure 5.7 does not show good agreement between the two methods of monitoring contamination. It is very difficult to argue with the presence of many contaminating bacteria on contact plates. If the ATP results for the same area do not reflect this then this particular ATP test is, at best, inconsistent.
The series of tests shown in figure 5.7 does not show good agreement between the two methods of monitoring contamination. It is very difficult to argue with the presence of many contaminating bacteria on contact plates. If the ATP results for the same area do not reflect this then this particular ATP test is, at best, inconsistent.
Figure 5.8. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count, by Cleaning type & area, Week 4
Figure 5.8. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count, by Cleaning type & area, Week 4
University Hospital Wales
University Hospital Wales
Figure 11.1. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count (cfu) & ATP (RLU) by Area, Week 1
Figure 11.1. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count (cfu) & ATP (RLU) by Area, Week 1
Figure 11.2. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count (cfu) & ATP (RLU) by Area, Week 2
Figure 11.2. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count (cfu) & ATP (RLU) by Area, Week 2
Figure 11.3. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count (cfu) & ATP (RLU) by Area, Week 3
Figure 11.3. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count (cfu) & ATP (RLU) by Area, Week 3
Figure 11.4. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count (cfu) & ATI (RLU) by Area, Week 4
Figure 11.4. Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust, Uncleaned vs Cleaned, Bacteria Count (cfu) & ATI (RLU) by Area, Week 4
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved