|Videos|March 23, 2018

Cell Phones: Potential Vectors for C. diff?

Barley Chironda, RPN, CIC, infection control specialist at Clorox Healthcare, explains how cell phones and smart devices can potentially serve as a vector for C. diff.

Barley Chironda, RPN, CIC, infection control specialist at Clorox Healthcare, explains how cell phones and smart devices can potentially serve as a vector for C. diff.

Interview Transcript (modified slightly for readability):

“Most phone recommendations right now, if you look at cleaning instructions for your phone or if you look at the tablets that are now going into the health care space, they don’t really give approval to use the hospital-grade approved disinfectants, because hospital-grade disinfectants tend to be created to do more to the bacteria. And so, when those are used on your phones and other smart devices, it can void your warranty and it can do other things that might be problematic.

At the end of the day, when you start thinking about it, you’ve got a patient who’s in the room that’s vulnerable, but with a pathogen like Clostridium difficile, and the recommendations say that you need to use sporicides and other grade disinfectants that are approved for those bacteria, and so, anything going into that room needs to be able to handle those disinfectants, but that does not seem to be the case on a day-to-day basis.”


Related to this article

Household Contacts Drive Most Hepatitis B Exposures in Young Children
Karen B. Jacobson, MD, MPH, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, presented data at IDWeek 2026 showing 58.2% of children younger than five years exposed to active hepatitis B in the home were exposed by someone other than their birth mother, a risk maternal screening alone would miss under the CDC’s revised birth dose recommendation.
Inhaled Amikacin Shows Low Resistance Rates in MAC Lung Disease in ENCORE
In the phase 3b ENCORE trial, adding amikacin liposome inhalation suspension (ALIS) to azithromycin and ethambutol significantly improved culture conversion in newly diagnosed MAC lung disease, while treatment-emergent amikacin (2.2%) and macrolide (1.1%) resistance stayed rare. Kevin Winthrop, MD, provides insights around the study.