Introduction

“Facts are stubborn things.”

John Adams, second President of America

The more the truth is tested and examined, the more firmly it stands. Lies, however credible at first glance, become shaky on close examination, and a determined investigation will reduce them to shreds and tatters. The mission of this website is to present the facts, however unpalatable, about Hygiene Solutions Ltd, its criminally negligent directors and its dangerous and dishonestly promoted Ultra-V product.

Dr Ecosse

Editor

Hack backfires!

 

The illegal and cowardly cyberattack on whistleblower site deproxfraud.info and on the personal Facebook and LinkedIn pages of Richard Marsh have only served to draw the attention of the NHS, Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive to the grubby and unethical activities of Rick Fentiman and his minions at Hygiene Solutions Ltd.
The LinkedIn post announcing the attack received an unprecedented level of attention, with over 3067 views already.
The highest level of interest came from the NHS, followed by CSIRO, which is the Australian counterpart of Public Health England and the HSE.
we have regained control of the deproxfraud.info domain name, and the contents of the site will be restored from backup very shortly.

The LinkedIn statistics below show the top nine viewers.

 

Surfacide v. Ultra-V. If you can’t beat them – cheat them!

 

Trials in real hospital environments present the most accurate and convincing measure of the comparative efficacy of the various area decontamination systems offered. Highly qualified microbiologists go to great lengths to ensure that both the environment in the rooms and the test organisms are matched as precisely as possible for the different systems being compared, and that the tests are as far as possible closely representative of genuine hospital situations.

It is obvious that these tests are only meaningful if the decontamination systems under test are also operated exactly as they would be in everyday use, i.e. using the same methods and timing as the manufacturer recommends.

Unfortunately, a small minority of manufacturers are prepared to abuse the trust of the scientific community, and deliberately move the goalposts to give their equipment an unfair advantage.

A recently published comparative test of the Surfacide versus the Ultra-V UV-C systems, conducted by the UCLH Clinical Microbiology Lab is a sad example of this deceitful and unfair practice. As might be expected of the UCLH, the preparation of the rooms and the microbiological testing was done carefully and thoroughly. The test however was sabotaged by Ultra-V manufacturer, Hygiene Solutions Ltd, who rather than operating their machine in line with their published procedures, instead took the following measures in an attempt to cheat the competition of a fair outcome:

  1. They extended the exposure time four fold, from the claimed 20 minutes to over 80 minutes.
  2. They repositioned the unit several times during each process – contrary to their published claim that the unit will decontaminate a whole room from a single central location.

The Surfacide system, meanwhile, was operated exactly as the manufacturer describes – without relocation, and with the exposure set by the integral measuring system.

In spite of this grossly unfair advantage, the Ultra-V still gave a significantly inferior performance to Surfacide – particularly in respect of C. difficile spores, where the following log reductions were obtained:

IPS Infection Prevention 2017 #IP2017 Ultra-V Surfacide C difficile

For C. difficile with low soiling, the Ultra-V in spite of its unfair advantages, averaged a log reduction of just 0.58 as compared with Surfacide which averaged a useful, if not dramatic, log 2.5.

What then would the results of a FAIR test have been? Or in other words, what can we expect the Ultra-V to achieve in real, everyday use? Numerous studies demonstrate that log reduction with time is essentially linear in the range of log 0 to 5. As Ultra-V is actually only used with a 20 minute rather than an 80 minute exposure, we can expect the log reductions in 20 minutes to be about 25% of the figures obtained in the test.

Replotting the bar graphs from the UCLH poster presentation gives the following comparison, which represents the real relative performance of the two systems:

IPS Infection Prevention 2017 #IP2017 Ultra-V Surfacide C difficile NHS.png

It is clear at a glance that for MRSA, and K. pneumoniae , Ultra-V averages well below log 2, and its efficacy against C. difficile is negligible. However, the Hygiene Solutions website boldly makes the following claim:

Ultra-V

Ultra-V 2.PNG

What independent research is referred to here? – Just ask Hygiene Solutions –  they will send you a copy of the sabotaged UCLH study analysed above…

Ultra-V efficacy “insignificant” in 75% of terminal cleans – NHS study.

Hygiene Solutions own Corrado Gilbert, along with Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust Infection Prevention Nurse Matthew Reid and others published the study below in the Journal of Infection Prevention.

Two observations:

From the table at the bottom of the Abstract, we see that the mean CFU drops from 15.71 to 2.92 as a result of the Ultra-V process. This is a 5 fold reduction. Hygiene Solutions website promises a log4 to log6 efficacy for Ultra-V, i.e. a 10,000 fold to 1,000,000 fold reduction. How do Hygiene Solutions account for the difference?

From “Results” we see that only 25% of the rooms had a statistically significant reduction in CFU. How do Hygiene Solutions explain the 75% of rooms that had no significant reduction in CFU?

The original article can be downloaded below. See page 16 of the pdf.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1757177415599501

Alternatively the abstract is also published here, and can be accessed without subscription. Scroll down just over a quarter of the page to find the article.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5074091/

 

Ultra-V – what's inside your Spectrome?

Ultra-V croc box

Or should the question be, is ANYTHING inside your Spectrome? Following recent posts urging Ultra-V users to do some simple tests on their equipment, I have received several very remarkable reports. It appears that the Ultra-V will run a full cycle and “validate” that a hospital room has been successfully decontaminated even with two of the Spectromes placed outside of the door!

Either the special brand of UV light that the Ultra-V produces can pass through 50mm of wood, (in which case it is a grave danger to anyone in the building) or else the Spectromes are not really monitoring the UV output at all. Here is what Hygiene Solutions Ltd. claim for their “Patented Spectrome Technology”.

Ultra-V sic

Sorry – the quote above is verbatim. We know what they meant to say…

Ultra-V sic2

How exactly does the Spectrome “evaluate” the “extent of bacteria”? This is truly remarkable technology! And all this without even being in the room!

As the crocodile says, “Becuss it printed right dere in words, dat make it true.”

Ultra-V sic3

What is Spectrome indeed? I have a suspicion it might just be an empty box…

Ultra-V epic fail as Yeovil norovirus thrives after 2 weeks of treatments.

Rick Fentiman Hygiene Solutions Ltd

The Yeovil Hospital Norovirus outbreak, first announced on April 3rd is now in its 21st day, and has spread from the initial 2 affected wards to a third..

Incredibly, the hospital decided to attempt to halt this highly contagious form of gastroenteritis WITHOUT using bleach or disinfectant, instead putting their trust in the Ultra-V device from Hygiene Solutions, which has never been tested on norovirus or any other type of virus before.

In fact, the only published study of Ultra-V shows that it has an efficacy of LESS THAN LOG 1. This test was done in the Wye Valley NHS Trust hospital in Hertford, and the sampling and incubation of the samples was carried out by Hygiene Solutions themselves.

To put that in context, ordinary household Dettol, as everyone knows, kills 99.9% of germs. The Ultra-V by the manufacturer’s own test results, kills less than 90%, and that is only where the UV light hits the surface directly. In the shadowed areas of the room it will be almost completely useless.

So in real terms, if a door handle was carrying 1000 norovirus germs, ordinary household Dettol would leave on average one germ alive. Ultra-V would leave more than 100 germs alive, and only if the light could somehow illuminate both sides of the handle at once.Rick Fentiman Hygiene Solutions Ltd 01

Since 1865, when Joseph Lister introduced carbolic acid as a wound dressing, and operating theatre spray, countless millions or perhaps billions of lives have been saved by simple disinfectants, both in  healthcare settings and by household disinfectants and chlorinated drinking water. There is probably no other single discovery that has done more to relieve human misery and suffering. 150 years of experience, scientific testing and advances in chemistry have produced an excellent range of effective, proven disinfectants, that are both inexpensive and can be applied by very simple spray and wipe methods.

Why then should all this be abandoned, at the worst possible moment, in favour of a hugely expensive, unproven device that by the manufacturer’s own published test results achieves only 100th of the effectiveness of ordinary Dettol?

 

Ultra-V, Ward 7B & the dark side of the moon.

Ultra-V moon

Spare a thought for the unfortunate patients of Yeovil Hospital wards 7B and 8B. With the two wards hit by a nasty Norovirus outbreak, Director of Nursing Shelagh Meldrum is proposing to eliminate the germs WITHOUT the use of bleach or other “harmful chemicals” (i.e. disinfectant). Instead, she will put her trust (and her patient’s lives) into the hands of the notorious fake medical equipment company, Hygiene Solutions Ltd of King’s Lynn.

Ultra-V yeovil hosp.

The Ultra-V sounds like something from science fiction. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it is. A cheaply reverse-engineered copy of an obsolete American device, built in the back of a farm sundries warehouse, the Ultra-V is foisted on unsuspecting NHS by unctuous salesmen armed with a pack of outrageous lies, which can be disproved by anyone with a basic understanding of physics.

UV-C light, as generated by the Ultra-V is well known for its germicidal properties. So what exactly is the problem with the Ultra-V, and why should the hospital not use this instead of bleach?

The problem is that light travels in straight lines, and hence casts shadows. This is very evident from the photo of a crescent moon above. The dark side is very dark indeed, the sunlight does NOT wrap around corners to light up the lunar night.  This is just as true for UV light as for any other wavelength. Otherwise you could get a suntan at night.

Shadowed areas in a hospital room are not exposed to the UV radiation, hence are not disinfected. Conventional UV-C systems deal with the problem by using two or three light emitting units placed around the room to eliminate the shadowed areas, or otherwise require the unit to perform two disinfection cycles from two different locations in the room, thus ensuring that all areas are exposed at least once.

According to their sales brochure, the Ultra-V, by some miracle of optical technology can reach “shadowed areas, under bedside units and hidden corners” all from “one central location within each room”.

ultra-v-8

This miracle is achieved by “Spectromes”. These are apparently small light meters that are placed around the room to ensure that all surfaces get fully exposed. The exposure time is theoretically extended until the darkest “Spectrome” has had a full dose.

The only UV light received by a Spectrome that is in a shadow is the diffuse reflections from the lit surfaces of the room. Unfortunately most substances absorb UV-C radiation very strongly – far more than they do for visible light. In the UV-C world, almost everything non-metallic looks black.

Typical hospital surfaces absorb 95% of UV-C radiation, and scatter the rest. It follows that the shadowed areas are very dark, as at the most they can expect to receive 1/20th of the radiation of the directly lit areas. Consequently, if this scattered light is to disinfect the shadows, the process will have to be extended in duration 20 fold. Is this what happens?

No.

The normal process time with the Spectromes fully exposed is 15 to 20 minutes. Place a Spectrome in the shadows, and the process might extend to 40 minutes at the max. (Try it, if you don’t believe me.) At this point, the Ultra-V is programmed to override the Spectrome, and turn out the UV lights, indicating that the process is complete. Just in case hospital staff might be suspicious, the Ultra-V automatically sends a cheerful email to the operator’s designated address, giving time, date location, and certifying that the room has been decontaminated to a log 4 to 6 standard.

To give an example of how dangerous this is, consider the bedrails on a standard hospital bed – these are high touch areas constantly exposed to the patient’s hands and every cough and sneeze. From its “single central location” the Ultra-V unit, obviously and indisputably will only illuminate one side of each bed rail. The other side will be nearly as dark, in UV terms, as the dark side of the moon in the photo above. A standard Ultra-V process will leave these areas highly contaminated. A simple test with standard Biological Indicator coupons will prove this. (Again, don’t take my word for it – try it.)

To compound the error, the Spectromes are narrow bottomed plastic boxes that have to be placed on a hard, level surface, usually the floor or a bedside cabinet. it is completely impossible for them to monitor small, high touch areas like the back of a bedrail.

Spectrome Ultra-V

So on the positive side, at least the unshadowed areas will get a thorough log 4 to log 6 clean? Sadly not. The following Journal of Hospital Infection article detailing a study at the Wye Valley NHS Trust, demonstrated an efficacy of less than log 1 for the Ultra-V.

ultra-v-3

The outlook for the patients of Yeovil hospital does not look very bright, at any wavelength, unless there is a change of heart.

Please Shelagh Meldrum, for the sake of both patients and staff, don’t throw away the bleach just yet…use your £50,000 white elephant if you must, but give the wards a good old-fashioned hypochlorite deep clean first!

 

Welsh Health Board suspends Deprox in all of its hospitals!

Dim Deprox

A major Welsh health board, with more than ten hospitals has suspended both Deprox and Ultra-V in all of its sites. The suspension is in response to numerous incidents of healthcare workers being exposed to high levels of toxic Deproxin fumes on re-entering a room after decontamination. Affected staff have been given a precautionary medical examination.

The RH (i.e. the amount of hydrogen peroxide in the air) of these machines was set to 13, where according to the manufacturer, a level of RH 40 is needed to give a log6 disinfection. This would account for reports of persistent contamination in some units in spite of repeated Deprox use. (You can easily find the RH setting of your Deprox here.)

Even with the machines turned down to almost a quarter of the required concentration, the level of H2O2 at the end of the process was so high that in many cases there was still a clearly visible fog in the air – and these incidents occurred AFTER Hygiene Solutions had fitted a catalyst to all its Deprox units in response to the serious accident in the Royal Worcester Hospital. This is further proof that the catalyst is just a placebo, to hide the fact that the ONLY way to ensure a safe atmosphere after a Deprox process is to turn down the H2O2 levels to 1/8th of the level needed for disinfection.

A similar problem was encountered by the Cwm Taf University Health Board, which covers the North Glamorgan area. They were sent a Deprox that had accidentally been set to RH 20, leaving the ward filled with a choking fog of chemicals after the “green light” had illuminated, indicating that the room was safe to enter. The Health Board used gas detector guns to measure residual hydrogen peroxide left after the process and it was 15 times the safe limit.

It should be pointed out that the Deprox machine has NO MEANS WHATEVER of monitoring the deactivation process. The green light is simply on a 45 minute timer, and will illuminate at this time regardless of the level of gas in the room.

Hydrogen peroxide gas detectors are expensive to buy, but can be rented at very reasonable rates from Drager UK.  The best detector for this application is the Drager X-am 5100. The contact number for gas detection enquiries is 01670 352891.

Note: Do NOT rely on on gas detectors supplied from Hygiene Solutions – these are calibrated to show only a fraction of the real gas level! This can very easily be demonstrated by using a HS supplied unit and a rented Drager unit side by side.

In the face of mounting evidence as to the grave danger this process poses to both healthcare workers and patients, it would seem a wise move to discontinue the use of this equipment until the official HSE enquiry has made its recommendations.