Challenges undertaking procedures requiring asepsis: a qualitative interview study with nurses.

BACKGROUND: Invasive devices and breaches to skin and mucous membranes increase susceptibility to infection. Nurses frequently undertake procedures requiring asepsis (PRAs), but report challenges and unwarranted variations in practice. OBJECTIVE: To explore nurses' experiences, perceived gaps in information and support needed to conduct PRAs. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 20 nurses in the UK National Health Service between September 2021 and January 2022 employing approaches to sampling and data collection adopted in grounded theory. RESULTS: Informants were employed in diverse clinical settings. They thought that outside operating theatres, attempts to maintain asepsis would inevitably be compromised, but that much could still be done to contain the risk of contaminating susceptible sites irrespective of circumstances. Suboptimal practice was reported, and informants were unclear whether asepsis was needed to perform routine procedures (e.g. dressing chronic wounds, manipulating indwelling intravascular lines). Problems were attributed to inadequacies in nursing education, poor access to continuing professional development, and carelessness of junior nurses and medical staff. Informants wanted more detailed guidelines to conduct PRAs. Senior nurses wanted procedures to be conducted in the same way regardless of circumstance. Nurses who undertook PRAs regularly suggested that guidelines should be flexible. CONCLUSION: There is a need for detailed guidelines to inform PRAs, better access to clinical updating, and improvements in pre-registration nursing education. To meet contemporary standards, guideline generation should adopt recognized methodology. Student nurses should be introduced to the knowledge and skills required to undertake and adjust PRAs according to circumstance during simulated practice before contact with real patients.

Changing the paradigm: messages for hand hygiene education and audit from cluster analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is considered to be the foremost infection prevention measure. How healthcare workers accept and make sense of the hand hygiene message is likely to contribute to the success and sustainability of initiatives to improve performance, which is often poor. METHODS: A survey of nurses in critical care units in three National Health Service trusts in England was undertaken to explore opinions about hand hygiene, use of alcohol hand rubs, audit with performance feedback, and other key hand-hygiene-related issues. Data were analysed descriptively and subjected to cluster analysis. RESULTS: Three main clusters of opinion were visualized, each forming a significant group: positive attitudes, pragmatism and scepticism. A smaller cluster suggested possible guilt about ability to perform hand hygiene. CONCLUSION: Cluster analysis identified previously unsuspected constellations of beliefs about hand hygiene that offer a plausible explanation for behaviour. Healthcare workers might respond to education and audit differently according to these beliefs. Those holding predominantly positive opinions might comply with hand hygiene policy and perform well as infection prevention link nurses and champions. Those holding pragmatic attitudes are likely to respond favourably to the need for professional behaviour and need to protect themselves from infection. Greater persuasion may be needed to encourage those who are sceptical about the importance of hand hygiene to comply with guidelines. Interventions to increase compliance should be sufficiently broad in scope to tackle different beliefs. Alternatively, cluster analysis of hand hygiene beliefs could be used to identify the most effective educational and monitoring strategies for a particular clinical setting.

Impact of observing hand hygiene in practice and research: a methodological reconsideration.

The purpose of hand hygiene is to break the chain of healthcare-associated infection. In many countries hand hygiene is regularly audited as part of quality assurance based on recommendations from the World Health Organization. Direct observation is the recommended audit method but is associated with disadvantages, including potential for being observed to alter usual behaviour. The Hawthorne effect in relation to hand hygiene is analogous with productivity improvement by increasing the frequency with which hand hygiene is undertaken. Unobtrusive and/or frequent observation to accustom staff to the presence of observers is considered an acceptable way of reducing the Hawthorne effect, but few publications have discussed how to implement these techniques or examine their effectiveness. There is evidence that awareness of being watched can disrupt the usual behaviour of individuals in complex and unpredictable ways other than simple productivity effect. In the presence of auditors, health workers might defer or avoid activities that require hand hygiene, but these issues are not addressed in guidelines for practice or research studies. This oversight has implications for the validity of hand hygiene audit findings. Measuring hand hygiene product use overcomes avoidance tactics. It is cheaper and generates data continuously to assess the compliance of all clinicians without disrupting patient care. Disadvantages are the risk of overestimating uptake through spillage, wastage, or use by visitors and non-clinical staff entering patient care areas. Electronic devices may overcome the Hawthorne and avoidance effects but are costly and are not widely used outside research studies.

Collecting the data but missing the point: validity of hand hygiene audit data.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring of hand hygiene compliance (HHC) by observation has been used in healthcare for more than a decade to provide assurance of infection control practice. The validity of this information is rarely tested. AIM: To examine the process and validity of collecting and reporting HHC data based on direct observation of compliance. METHODS: Five years of HHC data routinely collected in one large National Health Service hospital trust were examined. The data collection process was reviewed by survey and interview of the auditors. HHC data collected for other research purposes undertaken during this period were compared with the organizational data set. FINDINGS: After an initial increase, the reported HHC remained unchanged close to its intended target throughout this period. Examination of the data collection process revealed changes, including local interpretations of the data collection system, which invalidated the results. A minority of auditors had received formal training in observation and feedback of results. CONCLUSION: Whereas observation of HHC is the current gold standard, unless data collection definitions and methods are unambiguous, published, carefully supervised, and regularly monitored, variations may occur which affect the validity of the data. If the purpose of HHC monitoring is to improve practice and minimize transmission of infection, then a focus on progressively improving performance rather than on achieving a target may offer greater opportunities to achieve this.

Working practices and success of infection prevention and control teams: a scoping study.

Little research has been undertaken on how infection prevention and control (IPC) teams operate and how their effectiveness is assessed. This review aimed to explore how IPC teams embed IPC throughout hospitals, balance outbreak management with strategic aspects of IPC work (e.g. education), and how IPC team performance is measured. A scoping exercise was performed combining literature searches, evidence synthesis, and intelligence from expert advisers. Eleven publications were identified. One paper quantified how IPC nurses spend their time, two described daily activities of IPC teams, five described initiatives to embed IPC across organizations following legislation since 1999 in the UK or changes in the delivery of healthcare, and three explored the contribution of IPC intermediaries (link nurses and champions). Eight publications reported research findings. The others reported how IPC teams are embedding IPC practice in UK hospitals. In conclusion, there is scope for research to explore different models of IPC team-working and effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Other topics that need addressing are the willingness and ability of ward staff to assume increased responsibility for IPC and the effectiveness of intermediaries.

Routine hand hygiene audit by direct observation: has nemesis arrived?

Infection prevention and control experts have expended valuable health service time developing and implementing tools to audit health workers' hand hygiene compliance by direct observation. Although described as the 'gold standard' approach to hand hygiene audit, this method is labour intensive and may be inaccurate unless performed by trained personnel who are regularly monitored to ensure quality control. New technological devices have been developed to generate 'real time' data, but the cost of installing them and using them during routine patient care has not been evaluated. Moreover, they do not provide as much information about the hand hygiene episode or the context in which hand hygiene has been performed as direct observation. Uptake of hand hygiene products offers an inexpensive alternative to direct observation. Although product uptake would not provide detailed information about the hand hygiene episode or local barriers to compliance, it could be used as a continuous monitoring tool. Regular inspection of the data by infection prevention and control teams and clinical staff would indicate when and where direct investigation of practice by direct observation and questioning of staff should be targeted by highly trained personnel to identify local problems and improve practice.

Patients and the public: knowledge, sources of information and perceptions about healthcare-associated infection.

Statutory bodies provide information about healthcare-associated infection (HCAI) in the UK. Information is also available on National Health Service trust websites. Opinion polls demonstrate that fear of developing HCAI, especially methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, is the single greatest concern of people contemplating healthcare. We undertook a literature review to determine lay knowledge of HCAI, sources of information and perceptions of the risks. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, nine explored knowledge and perceptions as the primary research aim. The remainder consisted of a heterogeneous assortment of works comparing the knowledge and perceptions of different groups, their experiences of being infected or colonised and/or isolated. In all accounts, lay people expressed anxiety about the risks and consequences of HCAI. The most frequently reported source was the media, which has been blamed for sensationalist and inaccurate accounts. Lay people do not appear to access credible sources of information, or, if they do access them, are unable to understand their messages. Organisations that provide patient-focused information about HCAI are generic in scope, so that obtaining specific information may take time and effort to locate. Research is necessary to explore the acceptability, comprehensibility and accessibility of lay sources of information about HCAI and to find ways of readjusting risk perceptions to realistic levels in order to provide sensible levels of reassurance to those about to undergo healthcare.

Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care.

Healthcare-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as the most effective method of prevention but is poorly performed by health workers. We report a systematic review identifying studies which investigated the effectiveness of interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance short and longer term and to determine their success in terms of hand hygiene compliance and subsequent effect on rates of healthcare-associated infection. We employed the inclusion criteria employed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Forty-eight studies and one thesis were identified. Only two met the stringent inclusion criteria. Overall studies remain small scale, poorly controlled and follow-up data collection is abandoned too soon to establish impact longer term. Furthermore, designs are insufficiently robust to attribute any observed changes to the intervention. Studies lack theoretical focus and seldom describe the intervention in sufficient detail, the change management process or contextual information about the organisation in the depth necessary to explain success or lack of it. The review concludes that interrupted time-series studies may offer the most rigorous approach to assessing the impact of interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance. In such study designs the number of new cases of healthcare-associated infection should be taken as an outcome measure, with data collection points at least 12 months before intervention and afterwards to allow for seasonal trends. Contextual factors at national and at local level should be carefully documented to take into consideration the influence of secular trends.

Measuring handwashing performance in health service audits and research studies.

Handwashing is regarded as the most effective way of controlling healthcare-associated infection. A search of the literature identified 42 intervention studies seeking to increase compliance in which the data were collected by directly observing practice. The methods used to undertake observation were so poorly described in most studies that it is difficult to accept the findings as reliable or as valid indicators of health worker behaviour. Most studies were limited in scope, assessing the frequency of handwashing in critical care units. The ethical implications of watching health workers during close patient contact were not considered, especially when observation was covert or health workers were misinformed about the purpose of the study. Future studies should take place in a range of clinical settings to increase the generalizability of findings. Observation should be timed to capture a complete picture of 24h activity and should include all health workers in contact with patients because all have the potential to contribute to cross-infection. Reported details of observation should include: vantage of data collectors; inter-rater reliability when more than one individual is involved; and attempts to overcome the impact of observation on usual health worker behaviour. Ideally an additional data collection method should be used to corroborate or refute the findings of observation, but no well-validated method is presently available.

The CleanYourHandsCampaign: critiquing policy and evidence base.

Handwashing is considered to be the most effective way of reducing cross-infection. Rates of healthcare-associated infection and the incidence of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus are higher in the UK than in many other European countries. The government has responded by introducing the 'CleanYourHandsCampaign' throughout England and Wales, based on the success of the approach employed in Geneva. Alcohol hand rub is placed at every bedside in acute hospitals, ward housekeepers should replenish supplies and feedback on compliance is provided to health workers. Posters and other promotional materials are used to remind health workers and visitors to use the hand rub. Patients are encouraged to ask health workers if they have cleaned their hands before contact. In this paper we argue that the evidence base underpinning the CleanYourHandsCampaign is incomplete. Alcohol hand rub is acknowledged as a useful adjunct to hand hygiene but it is not effective in all circumstances. There is some evidence to support the use of feedback on performance to encourage compliance but no evidence that promotional materials such as posters or patient reminders are effective. The ethics of encouraging hospital patients to take responsibility for their own safety is questioned. Much of the success in Geneva must be attributed to the attention given to contextual factors within the organization that encouraged hand rub use, especially hospital-wide 'ownership' of the initiative by managers and senior health professionals. A customized intervention from another country that fails to consider local organizational factors likely to influence the implementation of the campaign is unlikely to be effective. It is concluded that although hand hygiene is of undoubted importance, undue emphasis should not be placed on it as a 'quick fix' to solve the unacceptably high rates of healthcare-associated infection in National Health Service hospitals.