- To assess the effect on environmental microbial load of deploying air decontamination devices in a general ward environment.
- To compare the efficacy of these devices during the test period.
- To assess ease of use and acceptability of air decontamination devices in a general ward environment.
This was an open study conducted al the Royal Free Hospital, London (Royal Free and Hampstead NHS Trust) to evaluate three different air decontamination devices, including NOVAERUS NV-100 Airborne lnfection Control Technology.
This report describes the evaluation of Novaerus. The evaluations of the other two devices (AD (air decontamination] unit manufactured by lnov8 Science Lid, and Medixair manufactured by Pathogen Solutions Lid and distributed by GE Healthcare) are described in two further reports.
Summary of Results
Evaluation of NOVAERUS NV-100 Airborne lnfection Control Technology, placed in general medical/elderly care wards of the Royal Free Hospital, suggests that the effect of the device was mainly observed as a reduction in surface contamination.
The findings indicated that Novaerus reduced environmental TVCs on low and high surfaces in single rooms, but only on high surfaces in 4-bedded bays. It is noted that !hese findings were statistically significant for the comparison of the device with the interna! control but not with the externa! controls.
The 24 hour environmental surface MRSA data suggest that the device may reduce occurrences of environmental surface MRSA. The odds of a MRSA occurrence with the device on was 15% of that in the externa) control location, but with the device off, the odds of an occurrence of MRSA was 4 times of that in the externa! control location (only the latter finding was statistically significant). In contrast, the odds of a MRSA occurrence with the device on was 3% of ils interna! control (device off), which was a statistically significant finding.
It is considered !hat the inconsistencies in the differences between the device and the externa! control could have been due to underlying differences between the locations, and not simply due to the presence or absence of the device. Additionally, the relationship with cleaning status (whether a sample had been taken pre- or post-cleaning, although this was done alternately) may have had a bearing on the results. The interna! comparison of the device on versus off provided an alternative confirmatory method of analysis. However, further investigations of Novaerus, particularly with regard to controls, are required in order to fully establish the effect of this device on environmental pathogens that are potential sources of infection in the hospital ward setting.
Regarding feedback from ward staff, the results showed that generally Novaerus was acceptable. Overall six of the seven respondents (five nurses, one pathway coordinator and one healthcare assistant) indicated that the device did not increase the level of noise.