Evolution and associated factors of hand hygiene compliance in a pediatric tertiary hospital

Factors associated with better alcohol hand rub in 2020. Results from the French national audit "Pulpe'friction"

Background

The application of alcohol-based hand rub on hands (ABHR) can prevent the transmission of microorganisms. But, in some situations the practices remain perfectible.

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the self-reported ABHR practices of healthcare workers (HCWs) and to identify the factors associated with better ABHR compliance.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using the French national "Pulpe'friction" audit, from 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020, in healthcare facilities and social welfare facilities in France. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression models.

Results

Of the 6769 HCWs, the average ABHR compliance was 75% "before patient contact," 95% "before an invasive technique," 86% "after patient contact," and 79% "after contact with patient surroundings." The main reported barriers were the availability, the discomfort and the harmfulness of the product. The factors significantly associated with a better compliance were the individual importance given to hand hygiene (HH); working in a healthcare facility, except in the situation "before an invasive technique"; medical profession "after patient contact"; paramedical profession "after contact with patient surroundings."

Discussion

These results call for national actions to fight the most reported barriers and raise awareness on the importance of HH, especially before touching the patient.

Compliance with hand disinfection in the surgical area of an orthopedic university clinic: results of an observational study

Background

Hand hygiene using alcoholic hand rub solution is essential for the prevention of surgical site infections. There are several opportunities for hygienic hand disinfection (termed “hand hygiene” in the following) during immediate pre-, intra- and postoperative orthopedic patient care. However, the level of hand hygiene compliance among surgical and anesthesia staff in this context is unclear. Therefore, we conducted an observational study in operating theatres of an orthopedic university clinic in northern Germany during July and August 2020.

Methods

One trained person directly and comprehensively observed hand hygiene compliance of surgical and anesthesia staff according to the WHO “My 5 moments for hand hygiene” model (WHO-5). In addition to cross-tabulations with Chi² tests, multiple logistic regression models were used to study associations between occupational group, medical specialty, and compliance (both overall and for each WHO-5 indication). Models were adjusted for hand hygiene opportunities being associated with female or male healthcare workers, being located within or outside the operation room, and occurring in adult or pediatric surgery.

Results

In total, 1145 hand hygiene opportunities during 16 surgeries were observed. The overall compliance was 40.8% (95% CI 37.9–43.6%), with a larger difference between surgical versus anesthesia staff (28.4% vs. 46.1%, p < 0.001) than between physicians versus nurses (38.5% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.13). Adjusting for sex, place of observation, and adult versus pediatric operation theatre, logistic regression analyses revealed a significant interaction between medical specialty and occupational group (p < 0.001). In particular, the odds for compliance were higher for anesthesiologists (47.9%) than for surgeons (19.6%) (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 3.0–7.6). In addition, compliance was higher in pediatric surgery (OR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.4–2.6). In general, WHO-5-stratified results were in line with these overall patterns.

Conclusions

Hygienic hand disinfection compliance was approximately 41%. Notably, surgeons performed worse than anesthesiologists did. These results indicate that hand hygiene compliance in orthopedic surgery needs to be improved. Tailored interventions promise to be an appropriate way to address each occupational group’s specific needs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-022-01058-2.

Hand hygiene compliance by direct observation in physicians and nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct observation of hand hygiene compliance is the "gold standard" despite limitations and potential for bias. Previous literature highlights poorer hand hygiene compliance amongst physicians than nurses and suggests that covert monitoring may give better compliance estimates than overt monitoring.

AIM

This review aimed to explore differences in compliance between physicians and nurses further, and to analyse if compliance estimates differed when observations were covert rather than overt.

METHODS

A systematic search of databases PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL was performed. Experimental or observational studies in hospital settings in high-income countries published in English from 2010 onwards were included if estimates for both physicians and nurses using direct observation were reported. The search yielded 4814 studies, of which 105 were included.

FINDINGS

The weighted pooled compliance rate for nurses was 52% (95% CI 47% to 57%) and for doctors was 45% (95% CI 40% to 49%). Heterogeneity was considerable (I²=99%). The majority of studies were at moderate or high risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analysis of low risk of bias studies suggests higher compliance for nurses than physicians for both overt (difference of 7%, 95% CI for the difference 0.8% to 13.5%, p=0.027) and covert (difference of 7%, 95% CI 3% to 11%, p=0.0002) observation. Considerable heterogeneity was found in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

Wide variability in compliance estimates and differences in the methodological quality of hand hygiene studies were identified. Further research with meta-regression should explore sources of heterogeneity and improve the conduct and reporting of hand hygiene studies.

Challenges to infection control in early communication intervention: A scoping review

Background: Personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection prevention and control (IPC) measures are crucial to preventing the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study used a scoping review to investigate the challenges that exist when speech–language therapists (SLTs) use IPC measures for providing early communication intervention (ECI).Objectives: To describe existing, recent literature on PPE and IPC measures used in early intervention through a scoping review (steps 1–5) and to consult local clinicians to investigate how SLTs who provide ECI in South Africa relate to these findings (step 6 of the scoping review).Method: A scoping review was performed which followed the PRISMA-ScR framework. Because of limited literature on PPE and IPC measures used by SLTs in providing ECI, the inclusion criteria were adjusted to include PPE and IPC measures used by healthcare workers (HCWs) who provide early intervention to the population of infants and toddlers up to 3 years old. At the time of the review, articles were not older than 10 years and were published between 2011 and 2020. The scoping review included a consultation with South African SLTs who provide ECI, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. A pilot study was conducted prior to the consultations. Seventeen clinicians were included in total. Data from both the pilot study and main consultation were transcribed and analysed in the results using thematic analysis.Results: Fourteen articles were included in the study. The scoping review of existing literature identified challenges to implementing IPC measures, namely the care and behaviour of young children, infrastructure and system challenges, poor compliance and lack of training and a lack of standard IPC protocols. Clinicians in the consultation phase confirmed these challenges and reported that IPC measures did not consider ECI populations nor the settings in which services were provided. Suggestions from the literature for improved infection control included hand hygiene, improved supplies and infrastructure and education and training. Clinicians in the consultation added practical suggestions for implementing IPC measures within ECI, which included an increase in parent-led intervention as well as cleaning and disinfection strategies.Conclusion: This study identified challenges and recommendations of SLTs who use PPE and IPC measures whilst providing ECI. Understanding these challenges can benefit ECI services and future research efforts focused on improving ECI services whilst maintaining IPC standards.

Paediatric nurses', children's and parents' adherence to infection prevention and control and knowledge of antimicrobial stewardship: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Infection prevention and control precautions help to decrease microbial transmission, and through the appropriate use of antibiotics, Antimicrobial Stewardship programs aim to decrease the prevalence and emergence of Antimicrobial Resistance.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken to critically appraise and synthesise evidence for nurses', children's and parents' knowledge and understanding of antimicrobial stewardship, and of infection prevention and control in acute paediatric care settings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guided the review. Studies were included if they examined the factors that contributed to nurses' adherence to, or consumers' practice in relation to, antimicrobial stewardship and infection prevention and control.

RESULTS

Of the 16,957 papers identified, 50 studies conducted in acute paediatric settings met the eligibility criteria, and were included. Most studies were of low methodological quality. Fourteen studies evaluated nurses' knowledge and self-reported adherence to Infection Prevention and Control principles and identified consistent practice gaps by nurses. Six studies evaluating the effectiveness of education programs reported modest improvements in nurses' knowledge and adherence to infection prevention and control. There were 15 studies, that investigated consumers' involvement in infection prevention and control that identified the following themes: Consumer knowledge and attitudes to infection prevention and control and transmission-based precautions, and parents' willingness to take an active role in infection prevention. Six studies focused on paediatric nurses' role in antimicrobial stewardship, exploring the following themes: (1) nurses' understanding and beliefs of antimicrobial stewardship roles, and (2) barriers to nurses taking a greater role in antimicrobial stewardship. Nine studies explored the role of consumers in antimicrobial stewardship and identified consumers' misconceptions about the benefits and downplayed concerns regarding antibiotic use.

DISCUSSION

Although consumers articulated a willingness to be actively involved in infection prevention, observed practice remained lower than that required to consistently prevent infection transmission.

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight a critically important gap in current practice. In relation to optimal use of antimicrobials, although paediatric nurses were involved in supporting antimicrobial stewardship processes and educating consumers, they identified limited antimicrobial stewardship knowledge. Consumers appeared to lack understanding about the benefits of antibiotics and negated concerns regarding antibiotic use.