by Hand Hygiene Pre-Committee
A special thanks to the 81 who responded. Please review round one results below.
We have 8 remaining questions available to help the CFP Hand Hygiene Committee before its re-formation in August. Round two will be sent out in early June. Please send your candidate questions.
There is a definite response pattern making these results generally easy to interpret.
Question 4 required attendance at a particular session, resulting in a high count for the “neutral” option.
- Behavioral sciences are likely more important than biology, chemistry, physics or math in improving handwashing in foodservice. All these segments of science are under the purview of Council III.
- The definition of a handwash in terms of efficacy is a minimum of log 2 pathogen reduction according to the Annex of the Food Code. This needs to be reinforced by moving this standard from the Annex into the Food Code in order to encourage investment in research and to evaluate alternative methods for special situations. Without an agreed standard the work product of the 2014 CFP Hand Hygiene Committee will be compromised.
- PerCDC‘s Vessel Sanitation, Ill customers are the primary source of norovirus on the cruise ships. Ill customers are a likely source in contaminating restaurant staff via contaminated surfaces in the shared dining and restroom areas?
- Per Debbie Lumpkins’s (FDA/HHS) presentation at the 2012 CFP, CDER controls packaged products that make label efficacy claims. Process-driven handwashing solutions like extending time and adding friction when soap is unavailable are not within the purview of CDER.
