Since agreeing in the summer of 2009 to be part of an ICMTM pilot with IEHA, the University of Washington Building Services Department has learned a great deal about what it takes to integrate scientific data and measurement into an operation. What we have learned has convinced us even more of the advantages of establishing ICM-modeled activities firmly within our cleaning program. Scientific verification takes time and attention to detail, and developing proper testing protocols and learning through trial and error is what science is all about.
But this effort is worth it because such testing when done properly can be used to validate the effectiveness of cleaning processes, as well as provide comparative data on different processes, equipment, and chemicals. Scientific validation of cleaning results through assessing ATP counts, for example, provides a reliable mechanism to determine the relative amount of organic material present on a surface before and after cleaning has been performed.
In July 2009, resulting ATP counts verified the effectiveness of two methods we employed in cleaning restrooms—using a machine versus traditional manual cleaning. The following year, we used air-sampling devices to discover if there was a significant difference in the amount of particulates suspended in the air, and in the time required for them to settle, when comparing dust mopping with micro-fiber technology against backpack vacuums on classroom floors.
We did not publish these results due to being less than 100% confident in the accuracy of the results because we did not measure how much soil was on the floors prior to the testing. A lesson learned. Even mistakes in science advance later science if they are identified. As a result of these experiences, we better understand field-test protocols that allow for tighter controls and consistency.
Last year we conducted an experiment with devices that go beyond the generalized ATP counts in that they actually detect the number of specific types of bacteria on surfaces. These devices are relatively new on the market and were somewhat complicated to use, but test results are available within 30 minutes.
In part because good science demands collaboration, we have involved members of the Puget Sound Chapter in our ICM meetings in hopes of expanding our efforts to determine the effectiveness of cleaning by using manipulated water from sophisticated spray bottles instead of chemicals. We are also aware of members in the Puget Sound Chapter who are using ATP measures and other testing devices to measure cleaning effectiveness within their own facilities over time. In addition, through ICM the UW will be measuring the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) released into the air with a VOC meter while cleaning with vapor and water versus cleaning with chemicals.
We are so convinced about the need to scientifically validate our programs that we have decided for 2012 to fully incorporate ATP testing into our QA program and employee-training-evaluation process. To prepare for this, last year we met with each staff member to show them through hands-on demonstrations how the device works while explaining its principles. Now we are ready for the next step: rolling out our “Cleaning for Health Protocol (CFHP)” within our QA program. If you are interested in this program, please contact me.
Our QA program includes formal inspections by our entire staff three times per year, using traditional (subjective) visual observations that result in percentage scores based on passing or not passing satisfactory cleaning of specific areas within a space. In order to speak the common language of university administrators, we convert these percentage scores into APPA-Cleaning Level scores.
The CFHP portion of the new QA Program will make our program even better. It requires one quarter of a staff-member's inspections to be evaluated through ATP testing. Five randomly chosen critical touch points will be selected, such as, in restrooms: door handles/push plates, light switches, floors, flush handles, faucet handles, partitions, sink counter tops, dispenser handles; in classrooms: door handles, push-plate, and tabletops.
Test results will provide a realistic starting point in discussion between managers and their staff on the effectiveness of a custodian’s performance, and areas that may need to be improved. Since numbers don’t lie, discussions will be based on credible observations, indicating to all involved where retraining in cleaning techniques might be advised.
It should be clear from this discussion that we do not plan to rest from our efforts to find ways to make science work for us. ICM has proven invaluable in providing us assistance all along the way and will be a great resource as we move into the future of cleaning. Any organization whose goal is to create a credible cleaning program should consider the advantages of seeking scientific verification with the assistance of agencies such as ICM.
Reprinted by permission of Executive Housekeeping Today (EHT).
