ABSTRACT
Background: Current personal protective equipment (PPE) practices in UK intensive care units involve "sessional" use of long-sleeved gowns, risking nosocomial infection transmitted via gown sleeves. Data from the first wave of the COVID19 pandemic demonstrated that these changes in infection prevention and control protocols were associated with an increase in healthcare associated bloodstream infections. We therefore explored the use of a protocol using short-sleeved gowns with hand and arm hygiene to reduce this risk. Methods: ICU staff were trained in wearing short-sleeved gowns and using a specific hand and arm washing technique between patients (experimental protocol). They then underwent simulation training, performing COVID-19 intubation and proning tasks using either experimental protocol or the standard (long-sleeved) control protocol. Fluorescent powder was used to simulate microbial contamination, detected using photographs under ultraviolet light. Teams were randomised to use control or experimental PPE first. During the simulation, staff were questioned on their feelings about personal safety, comfort and patient safety. Results: Sixty-eight staff and 17 proning volunteers were studied. Experimental PPE completely prevented staff contamination during COVID-19 intubation, whereas this occurred in 30/67 staff wearing control PPE (p = .003, McNemar). Proning volunteers were contaminated by staff in 15/17 control sessions and in 1/17 with experimental PPE (p = .023 McNemar). Staff comfort was superior with experimental PPE (p< .001, Wilcoxon). Their personal safety perception was initially higher with control PPE, but changed towards neutrality during sessions (p < .001 start, 0.068 end). Their impressions of patient safety were initially similar (p = .87), but finished strongly in favour of experimental PPE (p < .001). Conclusions: Short-sleeved gowns with hand and forearm cleansing appear superior to sessional long-sleeved gowns in preventing cross-contamination between staff and patients.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Reliable patient identification is essential for safe care, and failures may cause patient harm. Identification can be interfered with by system factors, including working conditions, technology, organizational barriers, and inadequate communications protocols. The study aims to explore systems factors contributing to patient identification errors during intrahospital transfers. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study through direct observation and interviews with porters during intrahospital patient transfers. Data were analyzed using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety human factors model. The patient transfer process was mapped and compared with the institutional Positive Patient Identification policy. Potential system failures were identified using a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. RESULTS: A total of 60 patient transfer handovers were observed. In none of the evaluable cases observed, patient identification was conducted correctly according to the hospital policy at every step of the process. The principal system factor responsible was organizational failure, followed by technology and team culture issues. The Failure Modes and Effects Analysis methodology revealed that miscommunication between staff and lack of key patient information put patient safety at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Patient identification during intrahospital patient transfer is a high-risk event because several factors and many people interact. In this study, the disconnect between the policy and the reality of the workplace left staff and patients vulnerable to the consequences of misidentification. Where a policy is known to be substantially different from work as done, urgent revision is required to eliminate the serious risks associated with the unguided evolution of working practice.
