The application of antimicrobial stewardship knowledge to nursing practice: A national survey of United Kingdom pre-registration nursing students.

AIM: To assess student nurses understanding and skills in the application of antimicrobial stewardship knowledge to practice. DESIGN: Quantitative. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty three student nurses responded across 23 UK universities. Although students felt prepared in competencies in infection prevention and control, patient-centred care and interprofessional collaborative practice, they felt less prepared in competencies in which microbiological knowledge, prescribing and its effect on antimicrobial stewardship is required. Problem-based learning, activities in the clinical setting and face-to-face teaching were identified as the preferred modes of education delivery. Those who had shared antimicrobial stewardship teaching with students from other professions reported the benefits to include a broader understanding of antimicrobial stewardship, an understanding of the roles of others in antimicrobial stewardship and improved interprofessional working. CONCLUSION: There are gaps in student nurses' knowledge of the basic sciences associated with the antimicrobial stewardship activities in which nurses are involved, and a need to strengthen knowledge in pre-registration nurse education programmes pertaining to antimicrobial management, specifically microbiology and antimicrobial regimes and effects on antimicrobial stewardship. Infection prevention and control, patient-centred care and interprofessional collaborative practice are areas of antimicrobial stewardship in which student nurses feel prepared. Interprofessional education would help nurses and other members of the antimicrobial stewardship team clarify the role nurses can play in antimicrobial stewardship and therefore maximize their contribution to antimicrobial stewardship and antimicrobial management. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: There is a need to strengthen knowledge from the basic sciences, specifically pertaining to antimicrobial management, in pre-registration nurse education programmes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. IMPACT: What Problem Did the Study Address? Nurses must protect health through understanding and applying antimicrobial stewardship knowledge and skills (Nursing and Midwifery Council 2018); however, there is no research available that has investigated nurses understanding and skills of the basic sciences associated with the antimicrobial stewardship activities in which they are involved. What Were the Main Findings? There are gaps in student nurses' knowledge of the basic sciences (specifically microbiology and prescribing) associated with the antimicrobial stewardship activities in which nurses are involved. Problem-based learning, and activities in the clinical setting, were reported as useful teaching methods, whereas online learning, was seen as less useful. Where and on Whom Will the Research Have an Impact? Pre-registration nurse education programmes. REPORTING METHOD: The relevant reporting method has been adhered to, that is, STROBE.

Qualitative interview study exploring frontline managers' contributions to hand hygiene standards and audit: Local knowledge can inform practice.

BACKGROUND: Frontline managers promote hand hygiene standards and adherence to hand hygiene protocols. Little is known about this aspect of their role. METHODS: Qualitative interview study with frontline managers on 2 acute admission wards in a large National Health Service Trust in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Managers reported that hand hygiene standards and audit were modeled on World Health Organization guidelines. Hand hygiene outside the immediate patient zone was not documented but managers could identify when additional indications for hand hygiene presented. They considered that audit was worthwhile to remind staff that hand hygiene is important but did not regard audit findings as a valid indicator of practice. Managers identified differences in the working patterns of nurses and doctors that affect the number and types of hand hygiene opportunities and barriers to hand hygiene. Ward managers were accepted as the custodians of hand-hygiene standards. CONCLUSIONS: Frontline managers identified many of the issues currently emerging as important in contemporary infection prevention practice and research and could apply them locally. Their views should be represented when hand hygiene guidelines are reviewed and updated.

Moving beyond hand hygiene monitoring as a marker of infection prevention performance: Development of a tailored infection control continuous quality improvement tool.

BACKGROUND: Infection control practice compliance is commonly monitored by measuring hand hygiene compliance. The limitations of this approach were recognized in 1 acute health care organization that led to the development of an Infection Control Continuous Quality Improvement tool. METHODS: The Pronovost cycle, Barriers and Mitigation tool, and Hexagon framework were used to review the existing monitoring system and develop a quality improvement data collection tool that considered the context of care delivery. RESULTS: Barriers and opportunities for improvement including ambiguity, consistency and feasibility of expectations, the environment, knowledge, and education were combined in a monitoring tool that was piloted and modified in response to feedback. Local adaptations enabled staff to prioritize and monitor issues important in their own workplace. The tool replaced the previous system and was positively evaluated by auditors. Challenges included ensuring staff had time to train in use of the tool, time to collect the audit, and the reporting of low scores that conflicted with a target-based performance system. CONCLUSIONS: Hand hygiene compliance monitoring alone misses other important aspects of infection control compliance. A continuous quality improvement tool was developed reflecting specific organizational needs that could be transferred or adapted to other organizations.

Validity of hand hygiene compliance measurement by observation: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is monitored by direct observation to improve practice, but this approach can potentially cause information, selection, and confounding bias, threatening the validity of findings. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the potential biases in hand hygiene compliance monitoring by direct observation; develop a typology of biases and propose improvements to reduce bias; and increase the validity of compliance measurements. METHODS: This systematic review of hospital-based intervention studies used direct observation to monitor health care workers' hand hygiene compliance. RESULTS: Seventy-one publications were eligible for review. None was free of bias. Selection bias was present in all studies through lack of data collection on the weekends (n = 61, 86%) and at night (n = 46, 65%) and observations undertaken in single-specialty settings (n = 35, 49%). We observed inconsistency of terminology, definitions of hand hygiene opportunity, criteria, tools, and descriptions of the data collection. Frequency of observation, duration, or both were not described or were unclear in 58 (82%) publications. Observers were trained in 56 (79%) studies. Inter-rater reliability was measured in 26 (37%) studies. CONCLUSIONS: Published research of hand hygiene compliance measured by direct observation lacks validity. Hand hygiene should be measured using methods that produce a valid indication of performance and quality. Standardization of methodology would expedite comparison of hand hygiene compliance between clinical settings and organizations.

Isolating infectious patients: organizational, clinical, and ethical issues.

BACKGROUND: Isolating infectious patients is essential to reduce infection risk. Effectiveness depends on identifying infectious patients, transferring them to suitable accommodations, and maintaining precautions. METHODS: Online study to address identification of infectious patients, transfer, and challenges of maintaining isolation in hospitals in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Forty-nine responses were obtained. Decision to isolate is made by infection prevention teams, clinicians, and managers. Respondents reported situations where isolation was impossible because of the patient's physical condition or cognitive status. Very sick patients and those with dementia were not thought to tolerate isolation well. Patients were informed about the need for isolation by ward nurses, sometimes with explanations from infection prevention teams. Explanations were often poorly received and comprehended, resulting in complaints. Respondents were aware of ethical dilemmas associated with isolation that is undertaken in the interests of other health service users and society. Organizational failures could delay initaiting isolation. Records were kept of the demand for isolation and/or uptake, but quality was variable. CONCLUSION: Isolation has received the most attention in countries with under-provision of accommodations. Our study characterizes reasons for delays in identifying patients and failures of isolation, which place others at risk and which apply to any organization regardless of availability. It also highlights the ethical dilemmas of enforcing isolation.

Survey to explore understanding of the principles of aseptic technique: Qualitative content analysis with descriptive analysis of confidence and training.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, aseptic procedures are undertaken by nurses in the general ward setting, but variation in practice has been reported, and evidence indicates that the principles underpinning aseptic technique are not well understood. METHODS: A survey was conducted, employing a brief, purpose-designed, self-reported questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rate was 72%. Of those responding, 65% of nurses described aseptic technique in terms of the procedure used to undertake it, and 46% understood the principles of asepsis. The related concepts of cleanliness and sterilization were frequently confused with one another. Additionally, 72% reported that they not had received training for at least 5 years; 92% were confident of their ability to apply aseptic technique; and 90% reported that they had not been reassessed since their initial training. Qualitative analysis confirmed a lack of clarity about the meaning of aseptic technique. CONCLUSION: Nurses' understanding of aseptic technique and the concepts of sterility and cleanliness is inadequate, a finding in line with results of previous studies. This knowledge gap potentially places patients at risk. Nurses' understanding of the principles of asepsis could be improved. Further studies should establish the generalizability of the study findings. Possible improvements include renewed emphasis during initial nurse education, greater opportunity for updating knowledge and skills post-qualification, and audit of practice.

The development of hand hygiene compliance imperatives in an emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring results showing poor hand hygiene compliance in a major, busy emergency department prompted a quality improvement initiative to improve hand hygiene compliance. PURPOSE: To identify, remove, and reduce barriers to hand hygiene compliance in an emergency department. METHODS: A barrier identification tool was used to identify key barriers and opportunities associated with hand hygiene compliance. Hand hygiene imperatives were developed and agreed on with clinicians, and a framework for monitoring and improving hand hygiene compliance was developed. RESULTS: Barriers to compliance were ambiguity about when to clean hands, the pace and urgency of work in some areas of the department, which left little time for hand hygiene and environmental and operational issues. Sore hands were a problem for some staff. Expectations of compliance were agreed on with staff, and changes were made to remove barriers. A monitoring tool was designed to monitor progress. Gradual improvement occurred in all areas, except in emergency situations, which require further improvement work. CONCLUSIONS: The context of care and barriers to compliance should be reflected in hand hygiene expectations and monitoring. In the emergency department, the requirement to deliver urgent live-saving care can supersede conventional hand hygiene expectations.

Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care.

BACKGROUND: Health care-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the short- and long-term success of strategies to improve compliance to recommendations for hand hygiene, and to determine whether an increase in hand hygiene compliance can reduce rates of health care-associated infection. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. We conducted the searches from November 2009 to October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) that evaluated any intervention to improve compliance with hand hygiene using soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR), or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias for each included study. Meta-analysis was not possible, as there was substantial heterogeneity across studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and present the results narratively in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 26 studies: 14 randomised trials, two non-randomised trials and 10 ITS studies. Most studies were conducted in hospitals or long-term care facilities in different countries, and collected data from a variety of healthcare workers. Fourteen studies assessed the success of different combinations of strategies recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to improve hand hygiene compliance. Strategies consisted of the following: increasing the availability of ABHR, different types of education for staff, reminders (written and verbal), different types of performance feedback, administrative support, and staff involvement. Six studies assessed different types of performance feedback, two studies evaluated education, three studies evaluated cues such as signs or scent, and one study assessed placement of ABHR. Observed hand hygiene compliance was measured in all but three studies which reported product usage. Eight studies also reported either infection or colonisation rates. All studies had two or more sources of high or unclear risks of bias, most often associated with blinding or independence of the intervention.Multimodal interventions that include some but not all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 56 centres) and may slightly reduce infection rates (three studies; 34 centres), low certainty of evidence for both outcomes.Multimodal interventions that include all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly reduce colonisation rates (one study; 167 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether the intervention improves hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 184 centres) or reduces infection (two studies; 16 centres) because the certainty of this evidence is very low.Multimodal interventions that contain all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines plus additional strategies may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 15 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether this intervention reduces infection rates (one study; one centre; very low certainty of evidence).Performance feedback may improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 21 centres; low certainty of evidence). This intervention probably slightly reduces infection (one study; one centre) and colonisation rates (one study; one centre) based on moderate certainty of evidence.Education may improve hand hygiene compliance (two studies; two centres), low certainty of evidence.Cues such as signs or scent may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (three studies; three centres), low certainty of evidence.Placement of ABHR close to point of use probably slightly improves hand hygiene compliance (one study; one centre), moderate certainty of evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With the identified variability in certainty of evidence, interventions, and methods, there remains an urgent need to undertake methodologically robust research to explore the effectiveness of multimodal versus simpler interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance, and to identify which components of multimodal interventions or combinations of strategies are most effective in a particular context.

Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care.

BACKGROUND: Health care-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. OBJECTIVES: To update the review done in 2007, to assess the short and longer-term success of strategies to improve hand hygiene compliance and to determine whether a sustained increase in hand hygiene compliance can reduce rates of health care-associated infection. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted electronic searches of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register of trials; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; and the BNI. Originally searched to July 2006, for the update databases were searched from August 2006 until November 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses meeting explicit entry and quality criteria used by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group were eligible for inclusion. Studies reporting indicators of hand hygiene compliance and proxy indicators such as product use were considered. Self-reported data were not considered a valid measure of compliance. Studies to promote hand hygiene compliance as part of a care bundle approach were included, providing data relating specifically to hand hygiene were presented separately. Studies were excluded if hand hygiene was assessed in simulations, non-clinical settings or the operating theatre setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed data quality. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies met the criteria for the review: two from the original review and two from the update. Two studies evaluated simple education initiatives, one using a randomized clinical trial design and the other a controlled before and after design. Both measured hand hygiene compliance by direct observation. The other two studies were both interrupted times series studies. One study presented three separate interventions within the same paper: simple substitutions of product and two multifaceted campaigns, one of which included involving practitioners in making decisions about choice of hand hygiene products and the components of the hand hygiene program. The other study also presented two separate multifaceted campaigns, one of which involved application of social marketing theory. In these two studies follow-up data collection continued beyond twelve months, and a proxy measure of hand hygiene compliance (product use) was recorded. Microbiological data were recorded in one study. Hand hygiene compliance increased for one of the studies where it was measured by direct observation, but the results from the other study were not conclusive. Product use increased in the two studies in which it was reported, with inconsistent results reported for one initiative. MRSA incidence decreased in the one study reporting microbiological data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of intervention studies intended to increase hand hygiene compliance remains disappointing. Although multifaceted campaigns with social marketing or staff involvement appear to have an effect, there is insufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion. There remains an urgent need to undertake methodologically robust research to explore the effectiveness of soundly designed and implemented interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance.

Infection control: the environment and service organisation.

Healthcare-associated infection is one of the major challenges to providing high quality health care. Policy makers in the United Kingdom are emphasising initiatives to increase compliance with hand hygiene protocols because most cross-infection occurs via hands. The contribution of the environment to risks of infection has received less attention, despite media reports of dirty hospitals. However, the environmental contribution may be greater than previously considered. Changes in the way health care is delivered, especially the movement of patients and staff between different hospitals and wards, may also contribute to the difficulty of controlling infection.