The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals."In a controlled laboratory study of liquid hand soaps, a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bact

In a memo from the director of large group of hospitals, he claimed that a concentrated solution of extra strength Ultraclean hand soap has been more effective than the regular liquid hand soap they use in hospitals, according to a controlled libratory study. They use this new product in a hospital in Worktown and fewer case of patient infection has been reported, in compare with other hospitals. Because of this report he negatively concluded that all hospitals should use new liquid hand soap. In my idea his conclusion includes many errors and underestimated factors he did not consider in his argument.

First and most, as he said a 40 percent reduction in harmful bacteria had been observed in libratory and 20 percent reduction of patient infection in a selected hospital. he did not say anything about previous statistical data of infection in that hospital which i think is very important to notice. maybe prior infection was 80 percent and decrease to 60 that is not good for a production effectiveness. so we should know statistical data of infection to be able to compare both situations. Also these data should be available for all hospitals. Maybe other hospitals don`t have infection problem severely and so it is not important for them to use this new product. To make a good comparison he needs to give a statistical data about all hospitals infection problem, to see if the new product in even needed.

Secondly, test had been done in a hospital where 20 percent reduction of infection had been reported, but he did not say anything about the reason of infections. Maybe it is not because of dirty hands of nurses and doctors. Maybe it is as a result of not taking care of patients so well, like changing bandages and giving healthy food to them, that cause infection. In addition, no information exist that during which phase of patient illness, infection appeared. so to bolster his assertion he should notice about infection source.

Finally, new Ultraclean hand soap had a 40 percent reduction in harmful bacteria but in their test it has only 20 percent reduction of infection. It should be clear that why it has not been as effective as it was in laboratory. if all infection was because of dirty environment, it had not been useful to change hand cleaner. a test should run in libratory that has same result as in hospital. Maybe it loses its effectivness during time and loses more by time. in this case it wouldn`t be a cleaner! furthermore, a liquid hand washer has been used during all hospitals. a study of a soap had been done to replace a liquid with a solid cleaner. if any comparison wants to be done for a antiseptic, they should be a same kind. a solid soap can not be compared with a liquid because they way people use them is different. so this comparison obstacle to show a reliable result and maybe they should do a test on a liquid one to get a good result.

To sum up, director based his conclusion only on a test in hospital that even the result is vague. The way he suggest is not appropriatly and i think, eventhough result showed increasing infection, it should be transparent why it happened. also statistical data should be addressed to make a accurate conclusion. considering all evidences had been said, i think his argument is in lack of majority factors to make a dicision.