Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Montrer: 20 | 50 | 100
Résultats 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrer
3.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 44(6): 908-914, 2023 Jun.
Article de Anglais | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35712994

RÉSUMÉ

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required swift preparation to protect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients, especially considering shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). Due to the lack of a pre-existing biocontainment unit, we needed to develop a novel approach to placing patients in isolation cohorts while working with the pre-existing physical space. OBJECTIVES: To prevent disease transmission to non-COVID-19 patients and HCP caring for COVID-19 patients, to optimize PPE usage, and to provide a comfortable and safe working environment. METHODS: An interdisciplinary workgroup developed a combination of approaches to convert existing spaces into COVID-19 containment units with high-risk zones (HRZs). We developed standard workflow and visual management in conjunction with updated staff training and workflows. The infection prevention team created PPE standard practices for ease of use, conservation, and staff safety. RESULTS: The interventions resulted in 1 possible case of patient-to-HCP transmission and zero cases of patient-to-patient transmission. PPE usage decreased with the HRZ model while maintaining a safe environment of care. Staff on the COVID-19 units were extremely satisfied with PPE availability (76.7%) and efforts to protect them from COVID-19 (72.7%). Moreover, 54.8% of HCP working in the COVID-19 unit agreed that PPE monitors played an essential role in staff safety. CONCLUSIONS: The HRZ model of containment unit is an effective method to prevent the spread of COVID-19 with several benefits. It is easily implemented and scaled to accommodate census changes. Our experience suggests that other institutions do not need to modify existing physical structures to create similarly protective spaces.


Sujet(s)
COVID-19 , Humains , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , COVID-19/étiologie , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandémies/prévention et contrôle , Équipement de protection individuelle , Personnel de santé , Transmission de maladie infectieuse du patient au professionnel de santé/prévention et contrôle
5.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 41(2): 229-232, 2020 02.
Article de Anglais | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31831091

RÉSUMÉ

We describe the delivery of real-time feedback on hand hygiene compliance between healthcare personnel over a 3-year time period via a crowdsourcing web-based application. Feedback delivery as a metric can be used to examine and improve a culture of safety within a healthcare setting.


Sujet(s)
Attitude du personnel soignant , Adhésion aux directives/statistiques et données numériques , Hygiène des mains/statistiques et données numériques , Prévention des infections/normes , Mentorat , Rétroaction , Humains , Culture organisationnelle , Évaluation de programme
6.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 37(10): 1156-61, 2016 10.
Article de Anglais | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27477451

RÉSUMÉ

OBJECTIVE Ebola virus disease (EVD) places healthcare personnel (HCP) at high risk for infection during patient care, and personal protective equipment (PPE) is critical. Protocols for EVD PPE doffing have not been validated for prevention of viral self-contamination. Using surrogate viruses (non-enveloped MS2 and enveloped Φ6), we assessed self-contamination of skin and clothes when trained HCP doffed EVD PPE using a standardized protocol. METHODS A total of 15 HCP donned EVD PPE for this study. Virus was applied to PPE, and a trained monitor guided them through the doffing protocol. Of the 15 participants, 10 used alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) for glove and hand hygiene and 5 used hypochlorite for glove hygiene and ABHR for hand hygiene. Inner gloves, hands, face, and scrubs were sampled after doffing. RESULTS After doffing, MS2 virus was detected on the inner glove worn on the dominant hand for 8 of 15 participants, on the non-dominant inner glove for 6 of 15 participants, and on scrubs for 2 of 15 participants. All MS2 on inner gloves was observed when ABHR was used for glove hygiene; none was observed when hypochlorite was used. When using hypochlorite for glove hygiene, 1 participant had MS2 on hands, and 1 had MS2 on scrubs. CONCLUSIONS A structured doffing protocol using a trained monitor and ABHR protects against enveloped virus self-contamination. Non-enveloped virus (MS2) contamination was detected on inner gloves, possibly due to higher resistance to ABHR. Doffing protocols protective against all viruses need to incorporate highly effective glove and hand hygiene agents. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1-6.


Sujet(s)
Infection croisée/prévention et contrôle , Transmission de maladie infectieuse du patient au professionnel de santé/prévention et contrôle , Équipement de protection individuelle/virologie , Bactériophages , Infection croisée/virologie , Ebolavirus , Gants de protection/virologie , Hygiène des mains/méthodes , Fièvre hémorragique à virus Ebola , Humains , Hygiénistes en établissement de santé , Infirmières et infirmiers , Médecins
SÉLECTION CITATIONS
DÉTAIL DE RECHERCHE