A qualitative exploration of reasons for poor hand hygiene among hospital workers: lack of positive role models and of convincing evidence that hand hygiene prevents cross-infection.

OBJECTIVE: To study potential determinants of hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers in the hospital setting. DESIGN: A qualitative study based on structured-interview guidelines, consisting of 9 focus group interviews involving 58 persons and 7 individual interviews. Interview transcripts were subjected to content analysis. SETTING: Intensive care units and surgical departments of 5 hospitals of varying size in The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 65 nurses, attending physicians, medical residents, and medical students. RESULTS: Nurses and medical students expressed the importance of hand hygiene for preventing of cross-infection among patients and themselves. Physicians expressed the importance of hand hygiene for self-protection, but they perceived that there is a lack of evidence that handwashing is effective in preventing cross-infection. All participants stated that personal beliefs about the efficacy of hand hygiene and examples and norms provided by senior hospital staff are of major importance for hand hygiene compliance. They further reported that hand hygiene is most often performed after tasks that they perceive to be dirty, and personal protection appeared to be more important for compliance that patient safety. Medical students explicitly mentioned that they copy the behavior of their superiors, which often leads to noncompliance during clinical practice. Physicians mentioned that their noncompliance arises from their belief that the evidence supporting the effectiveness of hand hygiene for prevention of hospital-acquired infections is not strong. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that beliefs about the importance of self-protection are the main reasons for performing hand hygiene. A lack of positive role models and social norms may hinder compliance.

Hepatitis B virus infected health care workers in The Netherlands, 2000-2008.

In response to the confirmed transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV) from a surgeon to several patients in the Netherlands, a 'Committee for Prevention of Iatrogenic Hepatitis B' was established in 2000. During the years 2000-2008, the committee reviewed 99 cases of HBV-infected health care workers. Fifty of them were found to perform exposure prone procedures (EPPs). Because of high levels of HBV DNA (>100,000 copies/ml), a ban on performing EPPs was applied in 11/50 cases; 25/50 low-viremic health care workers were allowed to continue EPPs while their HBV load was being monitored; and 14/50 cases had stopped working or changed profession. In five restricted workers who started oral antiviral treatment, HBV replication was persistently suppressed, enabling the ban on EPPs to be lifted. Throughout the European Union different levels of HBV viremia have been chosen, above which health care workers are not allowed to perform EPPs. It remains unknown how this affects the safety of patients. Application in the Netherlands of a European or a British guideline would have, respectively, doubled or tripled the number of restricted health care workers.

Infection control measures to limit the spread of Clostridium difficile.

Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD) presents mainly as a nosocomial infection, usually after antimicrobial therapy. Many outbreaks have been attributed to C. difficile, some due to a new hyper-virulent strain that may cause more severe disease and a worse patient outcome. As a result of CDAD, large numbers of C. difficile spores may be excreted by affected patients. Spores then survive for months in the environment; they cannot be destroyed by standard alcohol-based hand disinfection, and persist despite usual environmental cleaning agents. All these factors increase the risk of C. difficile transmission. Once CDAD is diagnosed in a patient, immediate implementation of appropriate infection control measures is mandatory in order to prevent further spread within the hospital. The quality and quantity of antibiotic prescribing should be reviewed to minimise the selective pressure for CDAD. This article provides a review of the literature that can be used for evidence-based guidelines to limit the spread of C. difficile. These include early diagnosis of CDAD, surveillance of CDAD cases, education of staff, appropriate use of isolation precautions, hand hygiene, protective clothing, environmental cleaning and cleaning of medical equipment, good antibiotic stewardship, and specific measures during outbreaks. Existing local protocols and practices for the control of C. difficile should be carefully reviewed and modified if necessary.

Is there evidence for recommending needleless closed catheter access systems in guidelines? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

A systematic review was conducted to determine whether certain vascular access policies are better than others in terms of prevention of catheter-related infections. Publications were retrieved by a search of Medline, the Cochrane Library and Embase up to May 2005. All randomized trials and systematic reviews/meta-analyses of randomized trials evaluating the effect of vascular access policies (i.e. needleless closed systems, conventional closed systems or conventional open systems) on catheter-related infection in hospitalized patients with intravascular catheters in situ were selected. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data from the original publications were used to calculate the relative risk or the incidence-density relative rate of catheter-related infection. Data for similar outcomes were combined in the analysis where appropriate using a random-effects model. Of the six studies reviewed, one was excluded. Five randomized controlled trials were included in the review. The quality of the trials and the way they were reported were generally unsatisfactory. Four trials compared needleless closed systems with conventional open systems. There was a trend for an advantage of the needleless closed devices in terms of less catheter-associated bloodstream infection, less catheter tip colonization and less hub inlet colonization. There were no possibilities for combining data because of clinical heterogeneity. One trial compared needleless closed systems with conventional closed systems and the evidence was inconclusive. From the point of view of infection prevention, there are no objections to use these new systems. However, there is insufficient evidence at this stage to recommend the needleless closed vascular devices.

Bladder irrigation with povidone-iodine in prevention of urinary-tract infections associated with intermittent urethral catheterisation.

Bladder irrigation with povidone-iodine in the prevention of urinary-tract infections after single or intermittent urethral catheterisation was investigated in a controlled study. In the control group (36 patients) the catheter was removed after urethral catheterisation and emptying of the bladder, and in the trial group (42 patients) 50 ml povidone-iodine 2% was instilled and allowed to drain immediately before removal of the catheter. The incidence of bacteriuria was 28% in the control group and 4% in the povidone-iodine group. After the introduction of bladder irrigation with povidone-iodine in the orthopaedic department of Leiden University Hospital the incidence of hospital-acquired bacteriuria fell from 6.9% to 3.7%.