Knowledge, attitude and practice of infection prevention and control precautions among laboratory staff: a mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical laboratories provide diagnostic testing services to support the effective delivery of care in today's complex healthcare systems. Processing clinical material and the use of chemicals or radiation presents potential hazard to laboratory workers, from both biological and chemical sources. Nevertheless, the laboratory should be a safe workplace if the identification of possible hazards, clear guidelines, safety rules and infection prevention and control (IPC) precautions are applied and followed. The main aim of this systematic review was to identify, critically appraise and synthesise the research evidence to gain a clear explanation of the implementation and knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of IPC guidelines among hospital laboratory staff.

METHODS

For this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and CINAHL (EBSCO), PubMed, grey literature, reference lists and citations for studies published between database inception and November, 2021. All qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies whose aim was to explore risk perception and KAP of IPC guidelines among laboratory staff in any healthcare setting were included, without language or date restrictions. Evidence was narratively synthesised into group of themes. The quality of the evidence was assessed with Joanna Briggs Institutes Critical Appraisal Tools.

RESULTS

After the full-text screening, a total of 34 articles remained and were included in the final review. Thirty papers were considered to be of high quality and the remaining four were considered to be of low quality. The available evidence shows that there was good knowledge, good attitudes and moderate immunisation status, but there was still poor practice of IPC precautions and an inadequate level of training among laboratory workers.

CONCLUSION

There is a gap among KAP related to the implementation of IPC guidelines, which indicates that laboratory staff may be at high risk of acquiring infections in the workplace. These findings suggest that training (including IPC precautions, safety policies, safety equipment and materials, safety activities, initial biohazard handling, ongoing monitoring and potential exposure) of laboratory staff to increase their knowledge about IPC precautions could improve their use of these precautions.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcome Related to Blood Eosinophilic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Patients

Introduction

The term chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) refers to a range of illnesses that impair breathing and airflow. Clinical history of COPD is further impacted by frequent exacerbations known as acute exacerbation COPD in which these specific symptoms worsen contributing to emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalization. Blood eosinophils are a crucial indicator of therapy effectiveness and exacerbation rate. The role of blood eosinophils as a biomarker for treatment, response, exacerbation risk, inflammation, and other symptoms in COPD patients is implemented by the Global Initiative Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) as guidelines.

Objective

To determine the clinical characteristics and outcomes related specifically to eosinophilic COPD Patients.

Methodology

This is a retrospective single-center study of all AECOPD presented at ET between 2018 to 2019. A total of 120 patients were included. Patients were divided into two groups depending on blood eosinophil count: high (>300cells/µL) and low (<300cell/µL). Finally, Binary logistics regression was performed to determine correlations between clinical characteristics and eosinophil count levels.

Results

In the high eosinophil patients’ group: none of the independent variables were statistically significant. However, in the low eosinophil patients’ group: ER visits, lung disease, and symptomatic exacerbation made a statically significant contribution to the model (p-value of .008, .01, .001) respectively.

Conclusion and recommendation

The higher eosinophil levels showed better clinical outcomes compared to lower eosinophil levels. Increasing the level of symptomatic AECOPD episodes in low eosinophil levels may be linked to the onset of bacterial infection and airway inflammation. The study further recommends a prospective cross-sectional multi-center study which includes a follow-up of the patients to assess the number of exacerbations after initial treatment