Psychometric Properties of Scales Assessing Psychosocial Determinants of Staff Compliance with Surgical Site Infection Prevention: The WACH-Study.

Purpose: Psychosocial determinants influence healthcare workers' compliance with surgical site infection (SSI) preventive interventions. In order to design needs-based interventions promoting compliance, such determinants must first be assessed using valid and reliable questionnaire scales. To compare professional groups without bias, the scales must also be measurement-equivalent. We examine the validity/reliability and measurement equivalence of four scales using data from physicians and nurses from outside the university sector. Additionally, we explore associations with self-reported SSI preventive compliance. Participants and Methods: N = 90 physicians and N = 193 nurses (response rate: 31.5%) from nine general/visceral or orthopedic/trauma surgery departments in six non-university hospitals in Germany participated. A written questionnaire was used to assess the compliance with SSI preventive interventions and the determinants of compliance based on the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior-Model. Psychometric testing involved single- and multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses, and explorative analyses used t-tests and multiple linear regression. Results: The scales assessing individual determinants of compliance (capability, motivation, and planning) were found to be reliable (each Cronbach's α ≥ 0.85) and valid (each Root-Mean-Square-Error of Approximation ≤ 0.065, each Comparative-Fit-Index = 0.95) and revealed measurement equivalence for physicians and nurses. The scale assessing external determinants (opportunity) did not demonstrate validity, reliability, or measurement equivalence. Group differences were found neither in compliance (p = 0.627) nor determinants (p = 0.192; p = 0.866; p = 0.964). Capability (ß = 0.301) and planning (ß = 0.201) showed associations with compliance for nurses only. Conclusion: The scales assessing motivation, capability, and planning regarding SSI preventive compliance provided reliable and valid scores for physicians and nurses in surgery. Measurement equivalence allows group comparisons of scale means to be interpreted without bias.

Do task and item difficulty affect overestimation of one's hand hygiene compliance? A cross-sectional survey of physicians and nurses in surgical clinics of six hospitals in Germany.

BACKGROUND: One barrier to hand hygiene compliance is overestimation of one's own performance. Overconfidence research shows that overestimation tends to be higher for difficult tasks, which suggests that the magnitude of overestimation also depends on how it is assessed. Thus, we tested the hypothesis that overestimation was stronger for hand hygiene indications with low compliance (i.e., high difficulty), and the hypothesis that self-reported overall compliance based on a single item is higher than based on "5 Moments of Hand Hygiene" (WHO-5) items, since the single item implies an aggregation across indications. METHODS: In the WACH trial (German Clinical Trials Register [DRKS] ID: DRKS00015502), a questionnaire survey was conducted among physicians and nurses in nine surgical clinics (general/visceral surgery or orthopedics/trauma surgery) of six German hospitals. Self-reported compliance was assessed both by a single item and the WHO-5-items using percentage scales. These were compared with each other and with direct observations. Relative frequencies of the WHO-5 indications used to calculate the WHO-5-based self-reported overall compliance rate were estimated by a systematized review of the literature (see appendix). In analysis, t-tests, Chi2-tests and multiple linear regressions were used. RESULTS: Ninety-three physicians (response rate: 28.4%) and 225 nurses (30.4%) participated. Significant compliance differences between physicians and nurses were found for direct observations and were in favor of nurses, while no such differences were found for self-reports. Across the WHO-5, overestimation showed inverse correlations with observed compliance (physicians: r = -0.88, p = 0.049; nurses: r = -0.81, p = 0.093). Support for the hypothesis that the self-reported overall compliance based on one item is higher than that based on WHO-5 items was found for physicians (M = 87.2 vs. 84.1%, p = 0.041; nurses: 84.4 vs. 85.5%, p = 0.296). Exploratory analyses showed that this effect was confined to orthopedic/trauma surgeons (89.9 vs. 81.7%, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Among physicians, results indicate stronger hand hygiene overestimation for low-compliance indications, and when measurements are based on a single item versus the five WHO-5 items. For practice, results contribute to infection prevention and control's understanding of overestimation as a psychological mechanism that is relevant to professional hand hygiene.

Tailoring implementation interventions of different order in infection prevention and control: A cascadic logic model (IPC-CASCADE).

Implementation interventions in infection prevention and control (IPC) differ by recipients. The two target groups are healthcare workers directly involved in patient care ("frontline") and IPC professionals as proxy agents, that is, implementation support practitioners. While both types of implementation interventions aim to promote compliance with clinical interventions to prevent healthcare-associated infections (HAI), their tailoring may be vastly different, for example, due to different behavioural outcomes. Additionally, IPC teams, as recipients of empowering tailored interventions, are under-researched. To overcome this gap and improve conceptual clarity, we proposed a cascadic logic model for tailored IPC interventions (IPC-CASCADE). In the model, we distinguished between interventions by IPC professionals targeting clinicians and those targeting IPC professionals (first- and second-order implementation interventions, respectively). Tailoring implies selecting behaviour change techniques matched to prospectively-assessed determinants of either clinician compliance (in first-order interventions) or interventions by IPC professionals for frontline workers (in second-order interventions). This interventional cascade is embedded in the prevailing healthcare system. IPC-CASCADE is horizontally structured over time and vertically structured by hierarchy or leadership roles. IPC-CASCADE aims to highlight the potential of increasing the impact of tailored interventions by IPC professionals for clinicians (to improve their compliance) via tailored interventions for IPC professionals (to improve their work as proxy agents). It underlines the links that IPC professionals define between macro contexts (healthcare and hospitals) and frontline workers in HAI prevention. It is specific, i.e., "tailored" to IPC, and expected to assist implementation science to better conceptualise tailoring.

Determinants of orthopedic physicians' self-reported compliance with surgical site infection prevention: results of the WACH-trial's pilot survey on COM-B factors in a German university hospital.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs), which due to their long-term consequences are especially critical in orthopedic surgery, entails compliance with over 20 individual measures. However, little is known about the psychosocial determinants of such compliance among orthopedic physicians, which impedes efforts to tailor implementation interventions to improve compliance. Thus, for this professional group, this pilot survey examined psychosocial determinants of self-reported compliance, which have been theoretically derived from the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behavior) model. METHODS: In 2019, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in a tertiary care university orthopedic clinic in Hannover, Germany, as a pilot for the WACH-trial ("Wundinfektionen und Antibiotikaverbrauch in der Chirurgie" [Wound Infections and Antibiotics Consumption in Surgery]). Fifty-two physicians participated (38 surgeons, 14 anesthesiologists; response rate: 73.2%). The questionnaire assessed self-reported compliance with 26 SSI preventive measures, and its psychosocial determinants (COM-B). Statistical analyses included descriptive, correlational, and linear multiple regression modeling. RESULTS: Self-reported compliance rates for individual measures varied from 53.8 to 100%, with overall compliance (defined for every participant as the mean of his or her self-reported rates for each individual measure) averaging at 88.9% (surgeons: 90%, anesthesiologists: 85.9%; p = 0.097). Of the components identified in factor analyses of the COM-B items, planning, i.e., self-formulated conditional plans to comply, was the least pronounced (mean = 4.3 on the 7-point Likert scale), while motivation was reported to be the strongest (mean = 6.3). Bi-variately, the overall compliance index co-varied with all four COM-B-components, i.e., capabilities (r = 0.512, p < 0.001), opportunities (r = 0.421, p = 0.002), planning (r = 0.378, p = 0.007), and motivation (r = 0.272, p = 0.051). After mutual adjustment and adjustment for type of physician and the number of measures respondents felt responsible for, the final backward regression model included capabilities (ß = 0.35, p = 0.015) and planning (ß = 0.29, p = 0.041) as COM-B-correlates. CONCLUSION: Though based on a small sample of orthopedic physicians in a single hospital (albeit in conjunction with a high survey response rate), this study found initial evidence for positive correlations between capabilities and planning skills with self-reported SSI preventive compliance in German orthopedic physicians. Analyses of the WACH-trial will further address the role of these factors in promoting SSI preventive compliance in orthopedic surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This survey was conducted as part of the research project WACH ("Wundinfektionen und Antibiotikaverbrauch in der Chirurgie" [Wound Infections and Antibiotic Consumption in Surgery]), which has been registered in the German Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.drks.de/ ; ID: DRKS00015502).

Implementation interventions in preventing surgical site infections in abdominal surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are highly prevalent in abdominal surgery despite evidence-based prevention measures. Since guidelines are not self-implementing and SSI-preventive compliance is often insufficient, implementation interventions have been developed to promote compliance. This systematic review aims to identify implementation interventions used in abdominal surgery to prevent SSIs and determine associations with SSI reductions. METHODS: Literature was searched in April 2018 (Medline/PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection). Implementation interventions were classified using the implementation subcategories of the EPOC Taxonomy (Cochrane Review Group Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, EPOC). Additionally, an effectiveness analysis was conducted on the association between the number of implementation interventions, specific compositions thereof, and absolute and relative SSI risk reductions. RESULTS: Forty studies were included. Implementation interventions used most frequently ("top five") were audit and feedback (80% of studies), organizational culture (70%), monitoring the performance of healthcare delivery (65%), reminders (53%), and educational meetings (45%). Twenty-nine studies (72.5%) used a multimodal strategy (≥3 interventions). An effectiveness analysis revealed significant absolute and relative SSI risk reductions. E.g., numerically, the largest absolute risk reduction of 10.8% pertained to thirteen studies using 3-5 interventions (p < .001); however, this was from a higher baseline rate than those with fewer or more interventions. The largest relative risk reduction was 52.4% for studies employing the top five interventions, compared to 43.1% for those not including these. Furthermore, neither the differences in risk reduction between studies with different numbers of implementation interventions (bundle size) nor between studies including the top five interventions (vs. not) were significant. CONCLUSION: In SSI prevention in abdominal surgery, mostly standard bundles of implementation interventions are applied. While an effectiveness analysis of differences in SSI risk reduction by number and type of interventions did not render conclusive results, use of standard interventions such as audit and feedback, organizational culture, monitoring, reminders, and education at least does not seem to represent preventive malpractice. Further research should determine implementation interventions, or bundles thereof, which are most effective in promoting compliance with SSI-preventive measures in abdominal surgery.