BACKGROUND Cleaning high-touch surfaces serves as a crucial step towards controlling the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens in hospital environments. The process can be made most effective if scientifically monitored using a simple, feasible and reliable technique, especially in resource-poor settings. AIM To identify a novel florescent marker (FM) comparable to the already existing commercial FM systems and to assess its efficacy in evaluating cleaning of high-touch surfaces in a hospital environment. METHODS A liquid detergent used for washing purposes was identified as a novel FM. Pre- and post-cleaning sampling were performed from 250 high-touch surfaces in different patient-care areas using this marker and aerobic colony counts. Concordance between the two methods was assessed and compared by Cohen's kappa coefficient. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values for the new FM method were calculated against the microbiological method. FINDINGS A good correlation (κ = 0.60) with overall concordance of 79.6% was observed between the two methods. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the FM were 79.58% (95% confidence interval (CI): 72-85.85%), 79.63% (95% CI: 70.79-86.78), 83.70% (95% CI: 76.38-89.50) and 74.78% (95% CI: 65.83-82.38), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The FM used in the present study proved to be a simple and cost-effective alternative to commercially available FMs for assessing environmental cleaning practices on a daily basis in resource-poor settings. Additional studies making direct comparisons of the FM used here with the established FMs are warranted before it can be generalized for use.

中文翻译：

---

新型荧光标记物与环境表面培养物的比较评估，以评估三级护理医院环境清洁实践的功效。

背景技术清洁高接触表面是在医院环境中控制耐多药病原体传播的关键步骤。如果使用简单，可行和可靠的技术进行科学监控，则可以使该过程最有效，尤其是在资源匮乏的环境中。目的确定一种新型荧光标记（FM），该标记可与现有的商用FM系统媲美，并评估其在评估医院环境中高接触表面清洁度方面的功效。方法用于洗涤目的的液体洗涤剂被鉴定为新型FM。使用该标记和需氧菌落计数，在不同患者护理区域的250个高接触表面上进行了清洁前和清洁后的采样。两种方法之间的一致性通过Cohen的kappa系数进行了评估和比较。相对于微生物方法，计算了新FM方法的敏感性，特异性，阳性预测值和阴性预测值。结果两种方法之间的总体一致性为79.6％，相关性很好（κ= 0.60）。FM的敏感性，特异性，阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为79.58％（95％置信区间（CI）：72-85.85％），79.63％（95％CI：70.79-86.78），83.70％（95％ CI：76.38-89.50）和74.78％（95％CI：65.83-82.38）。结论本研究中使用的FM被证明是市售FM的一种简单且具有成本效益的替代方案，用于每天在资源匮乏的环境中评估环境清洁实践。