Hand Hygiene Compliance and Multidrug-Resistant Organism Infection in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit

CHEST Journal ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 138 (4) ◽  
pp. 525A
Author(s):  
Dorothy W. Bird ◽  
Carol Sulis ◽  
Peter Burke ◽  
Suresh Agarwal
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Surgical Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Resistant Organism ◽  
Surgical Intensive Care ◽  
Hygiene Compliance

Trial of Universal Gloving with Emollient-Impregnated Gloves to Promote Skin Health and Prevent the Transmission of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in a Surgical Intensive Care Unit

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (05) ◽  
pp. 491-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gonzalo Bearman ◽  
Adriana E. Rosato ◽  
Therese M. Duane ◽  
Kara Elam ◽  
Kakotan Sanogo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Surgical Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Surgical Intensive Care ◽  
Contact Precautions ◽  
Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Device Associated Infection

Objective.To compare the efficacy of universal gloving with emollient-impregnated gloves with standard contact precautions for the control of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and to measure the effect on healthcare workers' (HCWs') hand skin health.Design.Prospective before-after trial.Setting.An 18-bed surgical intensive care unit.Methods.During phase 1 (September 2007 through March 2008) standard contact precautions were used. During phase 2 (March 2008 through September 2008) universal gloving with emollient-impregnated gloves was used, and no contact precautions. Patients were screened for vancomycin-resistantEnterococcus(VRE) and methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA). HCW hand hygiene compliance and hand skin health and microbial contamination were assessed. The incidences of device-associated infection andClostridium difficileinfection (CDI) were determined.Results.The rate of compliance with contact precautions (phase 1) was 67%, and the rate of compliance with universal gloving (phase 2) was 78% (P= .01). Hand hygiene compliance was higher during phase 2 than during phase 1 (before patient care, 40% vs 35% of encounters;P= .001; after patient care, 63% vs 51% of encounters;P< .001). No difference was observed in MDRO acquisition. During phases 1 and 2, incidences of device-related infections, in number of infections per 1,000 device-days, were, respectively, 3.7 and 2.6 for bloodstream infection (P= .10), 8.9 and 7.8 for urinary tract infection (P= .10), and 1.0 and 1.1 for ventilator-associated pneumonia (P= .09). The CDI incidence in phase 1 and in phase 2 was, respectively, 2.0 and 1.4 cases per 1,000 patient-days (P= .53). During phase 1, 29% of HCW hand cultures were MRSA positive, compared with 13% during phase 2 (P= .17); during phase 1, 2% of hand cultures were VRE positive, compared with 0 during phase 2 (P= .16). Hand skin health improved during phase 2.Conclusions.Compared with contact precautions, universal gloving with emollient-impregnated gloves was associated with improved hand hygiene compliance and skin health. No statistically significant change in the rates of device-associated infection, CDI, or patient MDRO acquisition was observed. Universal gloving may be an alternative to contact precautions.

scholarly journals Hand hygiene and the sequence of patient care

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Nai-Chung Chang ◽  
Michael Jones ◽  
Heather Schacht Reisinger ◽  
Marin L. Schweizer ◽  
Elizabeth Chrischilles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Resistant Bacteria ◽  
Surgical Intensive Care ◽  
Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Hand Hygiene Opportunity

Abstract Objective: To determine whether the order in which healthcare workers perform patient care tasks affects hand hygiene compliance. Design: For this retrospective analysis of data collected during the Strategies to Reduce Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria in Intensive Care Units (STAR*ICU) study, we linked consecutive tasks healthcare workers performed into care sequences and identified task transitions: 2 consecutive task sequences and the intervening hand hygiene opportunity. We compared hand hygiene compliance rates and used multiple logistic regression to determine the adjusted odds for healthcare workers (HCWs) transitioning in a direction that increased or decreased the risk to patients if healthcare workers did not perform hand hygiene before the task and for HCWs contaminating their hands. Setting: The study was conducted in 17 adult surgical, medical, and medical-surgical intensive care units. Participants: HCWs in the STAR*ICU study units. Results: HCWs moved from cleaner to dirtier tasks during 5,303 transitions (34.7%) and from dirtier to cleaner tasks during 10,000 transitions (65.4%). Physicians (odds ratio [OR]: 1.50; P < .0001) and other HCWs (OR, 2.15; P < .0001) were more likely than nurses to move from dirtier to cleaner tasks. Glove use was associated with moving from dirtier to cleaner tasks (OR, 1.22; P < .0001). Hand hygiene compliance was lower when HCWs transitioned from dirtier to cleaner tasks than when they transitioned in the opposite direction (adjusted OR, 0.93; P < .0001). Conclusions: HCWs did not organize patient care tasks in a manner that decreased risk to patients, and they were less likely to perform hand hygiene when transitioning from dirtier to cleaner tasks than the reverse. These practices could increase the risk of transmission or infection.

Addressing Hand Hygiene Compliance in a Low-Resource Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: a Quality Improvement Project

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 408-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arunava Biswas ◽  
Sangeeta Das Bhattacharya ◽  
Arun Kumarendu Singh ◽  
Mallika Saha
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Hand Washing ◽  
Root Cause ◽  
Hygiene Compliance

Abstract Objective Our goal for this study was to quantify healthcare provider compliance with hand hygiene protocols and develop a conceptual framework for increasing hand hygiene compliance in a low-resource neonatal intensive care unit. Materials and Methods We developed a 3-phase intervention that involved departmental discussion, audit, and follow-up action. A 4-month unobtrusive audit during night and day shifts was performed. The audit results were presented, and a conceptual framework of barriers to and solutions for increasing hand hygiene compliance was developed collectively. Results A total of 1308 hand hygiene opportunities were observed. Among 1227 planned patient contacts, hand-washing events (707 [58.6%]), hand rub events (442 [36%]), and missed hand hygiene (78 [6.4%]) events were observed. The missed hand hygiene rate was 20% during resuscitation. Missed hand hygiene opportunities occurred 3.2 times (95% confidence interval, 1.9–5.3 times) more often during resuscitation procedures than during planned contact and 6.14 times (95% confidence interval, 2.36–16.01 times) more often when providers moved between patients. Structural and process determinants of hand hygiene noncompliance were identified through a root-cause analysis in which all members of the neonatal intensive care unit team participated. The mean hand-washing duration was 40 seconds. In 83% of cases, drying hands after washing was neglected. Hand recontamination after hand-washing was seen in 77% of the cases. Washing up to elbow level was observed in 27% of hand-wash events. After departmental review of the study results, hand rubs were placed at each bassinet to address these missed opportunities. Conclusions Hand hygiene was suboptimal during resuscitation procedures and between patient contacts. We developed a conceptual framework for improving hand hygiene through a root-cause analysis.

scholarly journals Hand hygiene compliance in the intensive care unit of the Onderstepoort Veterinary Academic Hospital.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dikeledi Carol Sebola ◽  
Charlie Boucher ◽  
Caroline Maslo ◽  
Daniel Nenene Qekwana
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Patient Contact ◽  
Academic Hospital ◽  
Hand Wash ◽  
Hygiene Compliance

Abstract Hand hygiene compliance remains the cornerstone of infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare facilities. However, there is a paucity of information on the level of IPC in veterinary health care facilities in South Africa. Therefore, this study evaluated hand hygiene compliance of healthcare workers and visitors in the intensive care unit (ICU) at the Onderstepoort Veterinary Academic Hospital (OVAH). Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted among healthcare workers (HCWs) and visitors in the ICU using the infection control assessment tool (ICAT) as stipulated by the South African National Department of Health. Direct observations using the “five hand hygiene moments” criteria as set out by the World helath Organisation were also recorded. The level of compliance and a 95% confidence interval were calculated for all variables. Results: Individual bottles of alcohol-based hand-rub solution and hand-wash basins with running water, soap dispensers, and paper towels were easily accessible and available at all times in the ICU. In total, 296 observations consisting of 734 hand hygiene opportunities were recorded. Hand hygiene compliance was also evaluated during invasive (51.4%) and non-invasive (48.6%) procedures. The overall hand hygiene compliance was 24.3% (178/734). In between patients, most HCWs did not sanitize stethoscopes, leashes, and cellular phones used. Additionally, the majority of HCWs wore jewellery below the elbows. The most common method of hand hygiene was hand-rub (58.4%), followed by hand-wash (41.6%). Nurses had a higher (44%) level of compliance compared to students (22%) and clinicians (15%). Compliance was also higher after body fluid exposure (42%) compared to after patient contact (32%), before patient contact (19%), after contact with patient surroundings (16%), and before an aseptic procedure (15%). Conclusion: Hand hygiene compliance in this study was low, raising concerns of potential transmission of hospital-acquired infections and zoonoses in the ICU. Therefore, it is essential that educational programs be developed to address the low level of hand hygiene in this study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document