by 
Well before COVID, the FDA raised the suggested handwash time from “10-15” to 20 seconds. During COVID, the CDC reinforced the 20-second variant but without the science to support the change. Now that the COVID alarm stage is over, can restaurants go back to 15 seconds? There is also a lack of clarity on the 20-second guideline. To some, it is the scrub time, and to others, it is the total time from the pre-rinse through the final rinse.
Why should we go back, knowing that 20 seconds is likely better than 15?
Food workers are discouraged by lengthy wash times. Shorter scrub times will likely result in more compliance. If the long cycle is not backed up by data, the workers feel disciplinary action is subjective. They don’t ask to see any science. They intuitively understand that an adjustment of their glasses could not possibly require the same 20-second wash as following the deboning of raw chicken.
Surgeons commonly wash for 300+ seconds. That is clearly too much time for a food worker, serving the always-impatient customer. Five seconds is likely too little, but ten, as it was in the 2009 Model Food Code? Or might this be an occasion for the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS)? This method has the secondary advantage that the worker is not tethered to the handsink and can accomplish this “wash” while on the run or in an area without readily available water.
Beware of the evidence deniers when considering adding the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) in the back-of-house along with its widely accepted use out-front. It is effective on Norovirus, provided you follow the science of 2022/23.
Who makes these foodservice decisions now?
Operations, assisted by Quality Assurance/Food Safety and Risk Management.
Frustrated supervisory personnel may respond to this challenge by moving entirely to single-use gloves. But of course, the glove must be donned with clean hands and changed as soon as it is contaminated or torn. Gloving is not a universal solution until the industry has a good way to monitor glove changes.
Others will argue that handwash time is a quite trivial need compared to the yet unknown secrets of getting workers TO the hand sink. Electronic frequency monitoring has demonstrated an ability to motivate kitchen staff handwashing. Still, this frontier is littered with the remains of technology startups, leaving the workers guessing as to what is expected of them in Hand Washes per Employee Hour (HW/EH).
There is a lot of industry agreement on this compliance issue and is being explored as a candidate for future research. The quantity of handwashes likely outweighs the quality of each.
No place for the one-size-fits-all handwash.
A group-funded research project is underway,” Risk-Based Handwashing. Operator Choice.” It is now at the scheduling stage for completion by year-end. This study will provide the Operators with the science they can use to adapt to their operational realities – their staff, menu, customer profile, facility, risk tolerance, culture, and budget. Financial support is welcomed.
Details are available at:
Operators, considering the research results, may decide to keep the status quo but with a higher confidence level in their current protocol/s. Others might go for two handwashes, one if you’re near a handsink and a second where the distance to a sink would risk a “No-Wash” response.
A strong case could be made for four different handwashes based on risk and distances between likely hand-contamination points and the availability of running water.
Handwash:
- Start-of-shift and returning from the restroom are two high-risk situations. Utilize the Core Handwash, plus a post-wash application of ABHS.
- With running water and average risk. Use the Core handwash.
- Without water and average risk. Apply Alcohol Hand Sanitizer (ABHS). Utilize SaniTwice® Core Handwash.
- Without water but with a need for light cleaning. See Farmhand Handwashing Research.
Farmhand handwash research on National Library of Medicine, NIH Pub Med: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21219752/
Special situations can be met by dual interventions such as adding alcohol-based hand sanitizer after the soap/water wash as in #1 & #4, or by using recyclable, fused-bristle nail brushes during the wash.
Note:
The current research study is an application of crowdfunding. No one company can step up to the full research cost, but many welcome the opportunity to share the load with like-minded professionals, advancing public health. Handwashing For Life’s conversion to a non-profit opens the door to focus on the hand hygiene research that operators genuinely want, rather than studies driven by a sales motive or a regulatory agenda. To this end, we would like to start a log of operator “want-to-knows” about handwashing.
Please submit to jmann@handwashingforlife.org. Staff will search for commonality and potential sharing.
