Flowers in the clinical setting: Infection risk or workload issue?

Healthcare-associated infection has become a topic of interest to the general public in the United Kingdom, kindled by media accounts of poor hygiene and the risks of cross-infection. In the spring of 2003, one of the broadsheet newspapers published an article debating the hygiene and infection risks associated with cut flowers brought into clinical areas. There were reports that in many wards this practice is no longer allowed because flowers are considered dirty, trigger allergies and the water is regarded as harbouring bacteria, leading to infection. Discussion with infection control experts revealed that questions concerning the risks associated with flowers are among those most frequently asked. A literature search was undertaken to establish the evidence base, and a questionnaire study was performed with a purposive sample of 39 nurses to document how they manage flowers in the clinical setting. Empirical research studies were difficult to obtain. Early work had been undertaken to explore the added workload associated with maintaining fresh flowers and ways of reducing it. Later studies revealed that the water in flower vases and cut plants both harbour large numbers of Gram-negative pathogens. Cross-infection and cases of clinical infection have never been documented, thus flowers have not been considered a risk, except to severely immunocompromised patients. However, scrutiny of the more general literature relating to Gram-negative sepsis indicated that cross-infection has been documented from a wide range of environmental sources and it is possible that it may take place from flowers via the hands of staff if they are not properly decontaminated. Nevertheless, these risks can be reduced by scrupulous attention to hand hygiene and commonsense measures. Over half the nurses (n = 26, 66.6%) thought that flowers constituted an infection risk and a number of other disadvantages were cited. Most nurses (n = 31, 80%) were not in favour of flowers in the clinical setting and there was some evidence that this attitude was related to the amount of work generated, with infection and other risks used to justify it. Interest in the topic was considerable and the results can be used to stimulate discussion and emphasise the importance of controlling health-related infection.